Top-opolis

[rosco rathbone]

As for the first part, I agree completely.

You have to be a very strong, self aware person to truly submit, no matter the dynamics of submission.

(Even with, as you call them , "Daddy Doms?")

As for hte second, she probably does exist but has eluded you to this point

I've found people who appeared to fit the bill, but the combination of their emotional problems and mine, like fire and gasoline, were exciting but ultimately destructive.

Daddy doms are great, more power to them, they appear to fill a neccesary niche in the ecology. It's just that I think there needs to be a place for sexually aggressive pervs who aren't interested in the whole dominate master thing. More on this later, I'm toast right now:

"After a month's sobriety my faculties became unbearably acute and I found myself unhealthily clairvouyant...." -Frederick Exley

 

[rosco rathbone]

Well, Zipman 7, you are candid.




I'd remind you that the 'stabbing' as well as the soreness is likely mostly in your head; a slight case of 'macho' or 'dominating delusional personality disorder', if you you're acquainted with it.

http://www.mediawatch.com/machodisorder.html

You've heard of Annabell Chong? When the male and female feral fucking machines meet--filled with bloodlust and all that--I bet on the latter to survive. It's likely the former whose working implements are sore the next day.

Where'd the zipster go? Bearded in my lair; called delusional by a woman, practically accused of false domination....what say ye to this, Zipman? Not going to take it lying down I hope....

 

[rosco rathbone]

This afternoon I ask myself is this site really for me. After years of looking for excitement in a vanilla relationship I was introduced to the alternate lifestyle, initially by way of a fetish party. The party opened my eyes and made me realised what I was missing.
By day..a super bitch at work. In the evening quiet sundued and looking for someone to take the lead. A 24x7 relationship with lots of excitement and respect.
I was recommend to joined this site and started communicating with a few guys. Guys who determine thereselves as true masters. This afternoon I met the first guy. He suggested going back to his for a coffee. Grabbed me, fondled my breasts, yanked my hair and insisted on a blow job. Then announced he was going back to work and thanks very much....Arent I the stupid one. Someone who led me on for weeks with kind words and all he is doing is using this site for 5 minutes of sexual pleasure.
......Is this what an alternate lifestyle is all about?
Arent there any genuine guys out there?
Am I in the wrong place?

This is a missive posted in a well-known BDSM personals site. I guess the guy in the story isn't a dom, but he is something or other and it's not "vanilla". Isn't an evil fake dom who just wants a penis suck some kind of top or perv or something??This story turned me on, I found myself thinking ya got what you deserved, bitch. Not good to sneer at the woes of others I know....

 

[evesdream]

I guess the guy in the story isn't a dom, but he is something or other and it's not "vanilla". Isn't an evil fake dom who just wants a penis suck some kind of top or perv or something??

good point.

 

[evesdream]

Towards a definition of top...

(avoiding it's use as a euphamism for fake dom or for sociopath)

Looking at some of the things written in this thread, my interpretation of your "Top" is someone who wants to emotionally top women and men, particularly those who remind him of himself, out of a sense of or memory of his own emotional vulnerability; people who seem to "Lack similar emotional resources". You pity them and maybe even empathize- but if the flip side of pity is contempt....


General question here: Where does emotional catharsis end and sexuality begin? Is there ever a difference betwn the two?

 

[Pure]

Random thoughts: labels: domination; outlawry.


RR quoting a woman's letter:


//I was recommend to joined this site and started communicating with a few guys. Guys who determine thereselves as true masters. This afternoon I met the first guy. He suggested going back to his for a coffee. Grabbed me, fondled my breasts, yanked my hair and insisted on a blow job. Then announced he was going back to work and thanks very much....Arent I the stupid one. Someone who led me on for weeks with kind words and all he is doing is using this site for 5 minutes of sexual pleasure.//

RR:it's not vanilla...some kind of top or perv or something??

Well it's not vanilla milkshake but it's pretty straight; I'd call him, the Grabber, a sexual agressor; he wants to use the woman roughly, in more or less standard fashion.

He's not so kinky as RR in the mouth fuck scene. Maybe not enraged, either.

Since 'top' is most often used for dom-for-one-scene, I'd say RR's 'top' is essentially an Imperious Sexual Outlaw. What happens in his single encounter isn't exactly domination , but more like predation, overcoming, or ravishment but with kink, and out of some dark impulse.

Unlike the grabber, the action is kinky; in common with the grabber is overcoming resistance. The outlaw may grab, of course, but the grabber isn't necessarily any kind of outlaw.

For me, to dominate, subordinate, subject or subjugate Ms. X is to address her will, placing it in an inferior position to one's own, which is imposed on it. Simply overpowering it, is not subordinating, e.g., 'jumping' her from an alley. To dominate may involve overpowering, but the latter can happen in its own right, a simple and common rape-like event.

To the suggestion of Evesdream:
Looking at some of the things written in this thread, my interpretation of your "Top" is someone who wants to emotionally top women and men, particularly those who remind him of himself, out of a sense of or memory of his own emotional vulnerability; people who seem to "Lack similar emotional resources". You pity them and maybe even empathize- but if the flip side of pity is contempt....

With all due respect, I don't get your point. A top is someone who tops. So what is 'topping'.

As to the rest, the reminding of oneself, the emotional vulnerability, the pitying. This is a proposed psychoanalysis; speculative; but it's true, as in the Sade excerpts posted, that the Sadist does somehow identify with the victim. As to the rest, who knows.

I note, however the ED seems to recognize the same thing I am in that what she calls the 'emotional' component is not going to be there in a simple 'overpowering' scenario.

This discussion reminds me of Zip's 'bloodlust' fuck, maybe; a fairly ordinary event in the history of sex, horny male overcoming female and fucking his (and in his mind, her) brains out.

Any thoughts, anyone? Seems like a dark nest of problems, and the standard labels aren't that helpful.

 

[rosco rathbone]

"Wanting to use a woman in rough fashion" is nine-tenths of "topping" as I see it. Add a dash of perversity, a sprinkle of issues and a soupçon of sexual rage and you have my recipe.

Why would anyone want to use a woman in rough fashion? That's the whole issue right there. Are we to believe that this character just wanted a penis suck and did what he had to do to get one? I might be blinded by my own proclivities but it seems as if the act of trickery and use, ie manipulation, had to be a key part of the whole thing.

 

[Pure]

RR


Why would anyone want to use a woman in rough fashion? That's the whole issue right there.

Maybe there's a bit of agression in the sex drive of most folks, particularly the testicled ones.



Are we to believe that this character just wanted a penis suck and did what he had to do to get one? I might be blinded by my own proclivities but it seems as if the act of trickery and use, ie manipulation, had to be a key part of the whole thing.


Yes, I think that's it. He wanted a rough dick suck. He used not too sophisticated guile. Not unlike a guy who places an ad for a dishwashing machine so he can jump the woman who comes to see it.

So he's a minor aggressor, with a bit of guile. Dick suck is a pretty common request, as any 'ho can tell you, that's why I say he's simply a rough 'nilla, so far as we can tell.

PS. However, if you want to roughly induce her to suck the dick of the first homeless person to come up the alley, THAT's perverted..... the RR we know (??) and love.

 

[rosco rathbone]

You, Mr. 10th-degree-blackbelt-in-follicle-separation, are drawing a fine line where there should be a mile-wide median strip in all the shades of grey there are.

Admittedly, it's more fun that way and makes the amusing game of categorization much easier.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I don't know where I got the rap as a forcible bumsucker. I think it was that [diss]little dork[/diss] the writerdom who first started that rumor. Let me set the record straight:

For a forcible suck to be enjoyable to me, I have to believe several things about the mental/emotional state of the beneficiary: that he is grateful in some way for my providing him with something that he couldn't get himself. That this gratefulness does not extend to the sucker, but rather, transmuted by frustration and sexual rage, comes out as scorn and vituperation towards her. (The alternate possibility, that he forms some sort of attachment to her-explored so well in Story of O-is also fascinating to me as I explained several days ago) And finally and most importantly: that his mental state be sufficently evolved for him to stew in the meaty broth of sexual gloating, gratitude, anger for being the recipient of charity, shame for same, sexual lust-anger at the fellatrix presumably coming to a head at the moment of climax and consequently, as a result of this stewing, to become tenderized and to manifest certain signs which at this moment I cannot even describe; though my soul knows them well. No bum, tramp, hobo or homeless dope fiend or wandering schizo is likely to be sufficiently of sound mind and body to gratify all the above specified needs.

Forcing someone to blow a bum would hold about the same interest for me as forcing someone to blow a German Shepherd, ie, not much. For the proper alchemy of shame to take place, there needs to be an indescribable meeting of the minds between the recipient of my sexual philanthropy and the tool of same. Such a mental link would not be possible with an animal or, I think, a bum.

 

[Pure]

Let me set the record straight:

It's straight.

Let's just say the 'beneficiary' is to be of Dostoyeskian complexity, and Rocovian rage.

Best,
J.

 

[lark sparrow]

Candid, curious and perhaps clueless

This talk always reminds me of some sort of revenge of the nerds. Once revenged are you superior and justified? Do you perpetually live in the revenge? Do you get over it? What next?

 

[Netzach]

Re: Candid, curious and perhaps clueless

This talk always reminds me of some sort of revenge of the nerds. Once revenged are you superior and justified? Do you perpetually live in the revenge? Do you get over it? What next?

I think getting over it is infinitely less interesting to our friends here than being incendiary and what may or may not be iconoclastic. Which is fine, if you have that kind of time on your hands, I guess.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Re: Candid, curious and perhaps clueless

This talk always reminds me of some sort of revenge of the nerds. Once revenged are you superior and justified? Do you perpetually live in the revenge? Do you get over it? What next?

Read Dostoevsky's Notes From Underground- the original "Revenge of the Nerds" and my bible.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Let me set the record straight:

It's straight.

Let's just say the 'beneficiary' is to be of Dostoyeskian complexity, and Roscovian rage.

Best,
J.

My own adjective! (Or is it adverb...?)

For some reason I feel like any tom dick or harry working in a comic book store would fit the bill. Maybe I am overestimating the everyman.

 

[lark sparrow]

Re: Re: Candid, curious and perhaps clueless

Read Dostoevsky's Notes From Underground- the original "Revenge of the Nerds" and my bible.

I've read it, Rosco lol. I'm not talking about Dostoevsky though - I'm wondering about you.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Re: Re: Re: Candid, curious and perhaps clueless

I've read it, Rosco lol. I'm not talking about Dostoevsky though - I'm wondering about you.

The reason he's so great is that he expressed the feelings of the everynerd. He speaks for me.

Revenge is fruitless but one can't help seeking it anyway.

 

[Pure]

Forcing someone to blow a bum would hold about the same interest for me as forcing someone to blow
a German Shepherd,

For me too.


ie, not much.

Ooops.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Forcing someone to blow a bum would hold about the same interest for me as forcing someone to blow
a German Shepherd,

For me too.


ie, not much.

Ooops.

The essential relationship in a case of sexual philanthropy lies between the extender of the black hand ie me and the beneficiary. The woman is a tool for the facilitation of that bond. Forcible dogsucking is about the relationship between man and woman.

 

[evesdream]

Pure: With all due respect, I don't get your point.

mm, I was making a link between the man in the story (rosco's "evil fake dom who just wants his penis sucked") and the definition of Top, I guess that wasn't very clear.

I do think think there is something more to what this man was doing than fenzied bloodlust and groping.

I interpreted the story by identifying with the woman. For someone to pull that off on me, and for me to be surprised by it, the "led on for weeks and kind words" would have to be pretty intense. A lot of unnecessary effort for someone who just wants straight up five-minute blow jobs and grope sessions. It doesn't seem like standard sexual aggressor behaviour to me, (tho I've not read the book on it), I see predation in him and some of the internal dynamics that have been attributed to Tops and Malevolent beings throughout this thread. But obviously this man's state of mind is open to our projections onto it.

The rest of it could have been too specific to Rosco to serve the general definition of Top. I was reflecting on a long post of his a few pages back. I think he's just explained the emotional components of that part of his Topopolisme, better than I could and with more flair.

 

[Pure]

Notes from the sexual underground:

For a forcible suck to be enjoyable to me, I have to believe several things about the mental/emotional state of the beneficiary: that he is grateful in some way for my providing him with something that he couldn't get himself. That this gratefulness does not extend to the sucker, but rather, transmuted by frustration and sexual rage, comes out as scorn and vituperation towards her. (The alternate possibility, that he forms some sort of attachment to her-explored so well in Story of O-is also fascinating to me as I explained several days ago) And finally and most importantly: that his mental state be sufficently evolved for him to stew in the meaty broth of sexual gloating, gratitude, anger for being the recipient of charity, shame for same, sexual lust-anger at the fellatrix presumably coming to a head at the moment of climax and consequently, as a result of this stewing, to become tenderized and to manifest certain signs which at this moment I cannot even describe; though my soul knows them well. No bum, tramp, hobo or homeless dope fiend or wandering schizo is likely to be sufficiently of sound mind and body to gratify all the above specified needs.

[later]
The essential relationship in a case of sexual philanthropy lies between the extender of the black hand ie me and the beneficiary. The woman is a tool for the facilitation of that bond

I'd analyse this twisted scene a little differently, Mr. Roscolnikov. I wouldn't mind if a dom, perhaps a friend, wishes to pimp his non-coerced sub to me; like a kind of X-mas present. THEN the bond might be strengthened with him. This is as the Story of O, Rene pimps O to Sir S (and others) who pimps her to others. R and S become close.

If, as hypothesized, I'm unattractive, inept, and deprived of female company, and this (as you call him) 'benefactor' wishes to rub it in my face, get off on my desperate satisfaction, or anger at the world, or how my anger is transmuted bodily at climax, I'd likely detest him (but maybe that counts as a bond?), and feel a (positive) link to his apparently mistreated sub.

Further, I don't see that 'domination' is particularly brought out in the scene. The benefactor is performing a kind of psych experiment on the desperate fellow. In the Story of O, by contrast, there is masochism, perhaps, in Rene's giving over someone he loves, and clearly in her allowing herself to be given over. In a sense, there's an embedding: Rene dominates O, and that pair is dominated by Sir S. (Rene in being asked to give away O, and O in being made a whore with R's permission.)

Whatever head trip your 'benefactor' is pulling on his 'object' (bj recipient), his relation to the woman, as you seem to concede, is not really affected. And that is not intended.

It's not clear to me why you want a 'link' to the desperate fellow (if it's other than detestation) and why he would want a link with you. I'm not sure why a powerful figure, or 'outlaw' as I've labelled him, is interested in provings, head trips or experiments with particulary weak and unfortunate males.

Ivan K.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I know nothing of powerful figures, outlaws and such. I desire a link with the omega men because I indentify with them.

I wasn't referring to the relationship between Sir Steven and Rene. There's a scene where O is given to two anonymous men, one of whom uses her mouth and leaves, the younger of whom takes her home for a night of frenzied pervy sex-and then makes the mistake of falling in love with her, having presumably imagined that only someone who reciprocated his feelings could have given herself in such a manner. This scene killed me, and really speaks to me.

roscolnikov is good.

 

[Pure]

I know nothing of powerful figures, outlaws and such. I desire a link with the omega men because I indentify with them.

Well, if the good Roscolnikov wants 'links' I wonder why he wants to evoke and manipulate the anger and shame of (other)
underground men? And surely a genuine 'benefactor' is not primarily after "gratitude"; that's a pretty rare commodity, the 'serpents tooth' **being the rule.

**ingratitude, for our non-Shakepearean friends.

I partially recall that scene you mention, but supposing A then B 'took' O, and B fell in love, remember that first Rene, then Sir S are in charge of her and pimping her--to demonstrate their power and her love. Neither intended to address the feelings of the serviced guys, nor gave a thought to having them fall in love with her, or even feeling grateful to them.
There is _no_ real link--so far as I can see-- between R or S and these mostly anonymous 'johns', and none is sought.

 

[Pure]

Beauvoir on Sade
a para from a previous posting, and a 'translation':

Normally it is a result of the vertigo of the other made flesh that one is spellbound within his own flesh. If [like Sade] the subject remains confined within the solitude of his consciousness, he escapes this agitation and can rejoin the other only by conscious performance. A cold cerebral lover [Sade] watches eagerly the enjoyment of his mistress and needs to affirm his responsibility for it because he is no other way of attaining his own fleshly state. This behavior, which compensates for separateness by deliberate tyranny, may be properly called sadistic.

'translation'/ explanation.

In 'normal sex', esp. at climax, there is a 'vertigo', dizzying loss of self in the joined fleshes, and at the same time, one's own fleshly rapture.

Sade, lacking that capacity, approached sex cerebrally--coolly and deliberately, retaining lucidity except perhaps for a moment. But he missed fleshly ecstasy. Solution: Tyrannize, cruelly dominate the flesh of another, make them cry out, lose independence of consciousness because of the bodily suffering. Since Sade thus can feel connected with the flesh of another (he's the cause of its pain), and through that, a connection with his own flesh. He comes to her cries, to put it in a nutshell.

This 'true Sadism' i.e., that of Sade himself, differs somewhat from what we call Sadism, i.e., sexual pleasure from the pain of another, from the bringing of pain to another. For one thing, there's a kind of identification with the other -- as perhaps indicated by a willingness to exchange roles--e.g., be whipped. For another, it's the _process_ of reducing the other to moaning flesh which is the turn on; the other's pain, per se, is not.

Any one have thoughts on cruelty as erotic?

 

[bigbad_babybird]

darn