Top-opolis

[Pure]

Jarring J

//Re Maureen Dowd
Columnist Dowd is a pain in the ass, and I suggest that as a 50ish Irish Catholic spinster, her knowledge of sex is surpassed by any 12-year-old Southern redneck of either gender.//

Hey, lighten up, JJ.

Her column consistently ridicules GWB, and warns of his evangelical crusades, e.g., against the WHO and its birth control programs. She can't be all bad. According to email requests, she's one of the Times' most popular columnists.

I'm sure Republicans have a different 'take' and would like to imprison her, under their swanky new legislation, forever, without trial, as an enemy combatant.


The particular column is a light hearted look at some biologist's finding and books. Contrary to what's said here, I posted it for discussion, not "Hey, I endorse this."

 

[rosco rathbone]

James Earl Jones voice:

"So, you have the brazen eccuntery to defy Me?!? Now taste erotic pain, and meditate on your comprehensive worthlessness!"

 

[evesdream]

he particular column is a light hearted look at some biologist's finding and books. Contrary to what's said here, I posted it for discussion, not "Hey, I endorse this."

i thought it kind of fit into your argument about false or no true domination. Maybe it were a leap in logic.

 

[Pure]

Hey ED, I do see the connection. Sorry. I always get irritated when I see "Pure said" followed by someone else's words, e.g, words I may have quoted.

That said, youre welcome to liquify my brains and suck them out, any time.



I keep hearing of the metrosexual, and I did want to put that on the fire.

 

[Pure]

On genuine domination.

In the glory days of patriarchy the bride assumed a certain role; her 'consent' to various things (wifely duties), like sex, was plain. _Since there was no way out**_ the 'man of the house' was in a position to enforce his will. By definition there could not be 'spousal rape.' **or almost none, except through intervention of her father and her brothers. {Added 7-11: 'no way out', in practice means that the cost of unilateral leaving is unacceptably high. One can 'leave' the army after all, it's just that they may shoot you, or hunt you down and put you in military prison for x many years, breaking rocks. Where a wife loses the kids by leaving, for example, that's a very high cost indeed.}


In the society at large, rape could occur, another enforcement of will; it created civil problem (tort, as it were) whose solution, marriage, was a given.

The touted 'consensual arrangement', where either can leave at any time, cannot show domination. A: "I will impose my will on you, in you consent." B: "I wish for you to impose your will on me
['dominate' me]; but should that not be gratifying I'll let you know and you'll stop. And if the whole thing isn't gratifying and can't be fixed, then bye bye."

When B, further, gets specific, as in the ad quoted. " I do x, y, z; I don't do a, b, c." B increasingly dominates or runs the show. I.e., it's B's will that's being carried out.

Is there any way out? any way of 'consensual domination'? Well, with blackmail you have consensual at one level; but only that. It seems 'mindfuck' is the only way, as in those relations we call 'emotionally abusive' where A convinces B that B is dirt, that B can't live without A, etc. [or parent child relations where the parent starts with a built in advantage of strength and knowledge, and the kid's need to 'attach] A, then, can impose on B: "Stay home at night and iron my clothes and bake bread for breakfast tomorrow and suck my whatever tonight."


NOTE: there are other classic situations of domination, namely the army and the cloister. both show the feature of initial, blanket consent, and no easy 'opt out' (till rather recently).

 

[rosco rathbone]

"Wifely duties" has long been a favorite term of mine.

I had a dream about a big black girl, and a fantasy about Serena Williams, that I will relate anon.

 

[Netzach]

So any situation in which a party can leave if they don't like a situation creates a sense of fake dominance?

Even in situations where husbands' families
continue to hunt a fleeing wife all over the globe, wives have left when they have felt the need. The idea of *not being able to leave* is only as good as its enforcer.

Even the French Aristocracy got theirs when they pissed enough people off for long enough.

With or without what we think of as "consent"
NO dominant party can effect its power forever without a certain amount of seduction, charm, or appeal, even the perverse appeal of the Stockholm syndrome.

What we call consensual SM is born in part from this understanding.

Make someone do something and you've bullied them into it for now. Make someone want to do something (and this effects your behavior as much as theirs if not more) and you have 'em for life.

Sacher Masoch -- not a terribly good submissive as we think of it. Prone to fits of whining, nagging, and ultimately unwilling to play the moment his limits were pushed. Still, a submissive. Willing to say to a lover "do with me as thou wilt" even knowing that this didn't extend certain places. I don't find that the average metrosexual has this impulse in him, hence we call the special ones "submissive."

Dominant/submissive...if I say someone's a stud, we don't argue whether or not a tube of his spooge is really being used on hundreds of women, we can maintain an understanding of the terms in a non-literal way, can't we?

 

[Pure]

Hi N,

Yes, obvously 'can't leave' means 'without high 'cost''. [difficult, protracted divorce proceedings, where lots of religious leaders and/or civial bureaucrats have to approve-- are a high cost].

It does allow for a contracted period, in some cases like army enlistment. Marriage used to be for life, of course.

You can leave the army after all--AWOL-- and even prison.

Putting it positively: when the alleged sub CAN walk out the door, with no 'cost', no being 'hunted down', sued, jailed, kids seized, it's not going to be possible to 'bend' or mold her will, except through 'mindfuck.' In short your liberated prof woman, who has all the instant-leaving options, in a marriage or relationship-- and the ability to use them, good lawyer etc--is not going to be dominated. She can be 'topped' for a session--which she may even set up!-- or consensually undergo 'sadistic' acts and gratify her masochism, but that the former I don't call domination, and the latter I don't call submitting.

What say you?

 

[rosco rathbone]

Who invents this shit? "Metrosexual"? Is the same thing as Netzachs' noodly indie rock boys? (Who have always existed in one guise or another, for instance Percy Bysse Shelley and the ideal of the consumptive Romantic poet.)

I keep seeing this big maroon charter bus go by on the bridge with the words "Netzach Transportation" on the side. The logo? WHy, a giant "N". of course. It appears that Netzach has branched out from Cabalistic kidnapping (the white netzach van I reported several months ago) into the running of Jew bus services; such as I used to see stop in bad neighborhoods to pick up Dominican crack-hookers because Lubavitch wives will not mouth a member. (Originally forbidden in Deuteronomy 12). A Qlipotic endeavour well befitting a mistress of erotic pain.

Last night I had the longest, most sustained, detailed sex dream I can remember. I was intercourseing a chunky-but not fat-black girl with large tits; who looked sort of like a homelier version of this sexy bitch Lenise I used to work with. From the posterior position as one might imagine; but it wasn't rough sexing. Rather romantic in fact. Abnormally high level of reality, including the tactile sensation of my member encased in a vaginal sheath.

Then yesterday; after reading in our local Murdoch tabloid that asses ala Jennifer Lopez and Beyonce are all the rage nationwide, I had an instantaneous vision of Serena Williams in her black catsuit and tiara. First I had her spread-eagle-tied to one of those giant "X" shapes that bdsm people like to use. I read her some kind of sexual riot act and then slit the catsuit all the way around her waist with a pair of giant tailor's shears such as might be used by an old lady who lived in a shoe or some other nursery ryhme figure; and then summarily ripped off the entire bottom half of her costume in one rip; like a regimental sergeant-major ripping off a disgraced corporal's insignia immediately prior to a court-martial execution. Thus exposing her definitive ass; which I did commence to beat with me old belt, doubled over, in a frenzy of lust.

 

[Pure]

N said,

//With or without what we think of as "consent"
NO dominant party can effect its power forever without a certain amount of seduction, charm, or appeal, even the perverse appeal of the Stockholm syndrome.

What we call consensual SM is born in part from this understanding. //

Yes, good point.

Ultimately the mind is key: There are never enough 'masters' to control a raft of rebellious slaves, or prison guards to control rioting prisoners.

The problem is whether if you begin with a 'walk out the door situation' you can ever get to the mind. It takes time. The IE folks claim to do this.

Stockholm syndrome is a good example. Patty Hearst's conversion couldn't have happened if she had early 'walk out' options. She was kept in a closet, raped, etc. for a while; THEN allowed to go out.

Now the Stanford 'prison' experiment was consensual, yet few mustered the wherewithal to withdraw, at any point. I guess the 'mental enslavement' took hold very quickly--possibly because of 'group mind' factors we haven't discussed**. There was a 'rebellion' after a few days, I believe. There was a thread on this.



**like the desires in a bunch of recruits in the army not to look like sissies, to have respect from the others, to show their mettle.

 

[Pure]

Dowd:


men are adapting, becoming more passive and turning into "metrosexuals," the new term for straight men who are feminized, with a taste for facials, grooming products and home design.

I've lately seen the term in a number of places.

 

[Quint]

Dowd:


men are adapting, becoming more passive and turning into "metrosexuals," the new term for straight men who are feminized, with a taste for facials, grooming products and home design.

I've lately seen the term in a number of places.

This was the second place I've seen the term. I'm amused for various reasons. For all my lusting after barbarian-type men who take their women when and how they want them, no pity, no manners, I kind of like shopping for neat apartment thingies with T. Arrrrrg to multifaceted needs...ruins a gal's reputation.

So now that I've been conquered, proving him a worthy mate, am I moving on to domesticating him? It's a scary thought for someone as unready for commitment as myself, but I can't deny the irresistable call of a well-run household.

Ghengis: I shall now mark you as my bitch with my virile, masculine, smelly urine!
She: Yes, dear. I hope you're going to grab a moist towel before that stains the carpet.

Sigh...things are so much easier when we just stick with the conquering bit. No wonder it worked for so long.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Ghengis clean a carpet? Me thinks not. That is what women are for.

 

[Netzach]

Netzach transport?

Is this in the wilds of Roscoe's head or an actual bus on an actual bridge?

Not that I would know the doings of such a bus.

Heh heh.

Pure I never though I'd use these words, but, I think you are splitting hairs. The yuppie female you describe, if she sets up a session wherein she agrees to do anything yuppie Female 2 wants, (other than her stated limits of playing with children, menstrual fluid, or casava melons) then that's submitting.

I don't think submission means an eternally fixed state of submission. That's one tall fucking order, Mister.

The difference between me and the IE folk, is that I still think it's submission not "playing at" it or fake. Same shit, different duration. Nobody likes that idea.

 

[Pure]

Pure said,


In short your liberated prof woman, who has all the instant-leaving options, in a marriage or relationship-- and the ability to use them, good lawyer etc--is not going to be dominated. She can be 'topped' for a session--which she may even set up!-- or consensually undergo 'sadistic' acts and gratify her masochism, but that the former I don't call domination, and the latter I don't call submitting.

What say you?


N said,


Pure I never though I'd use these words, but, I think you are splitting hairs.

Hey, I'm flattered!


The yuppie female you describe, if she sets up a session wherein she agrees to do anything yuppie Female 2 wants, (other than her stated limits of playing with children, menstrual fluid, or casava melons) then that's submitting.

I don't think submission means an eternally fixed state of submission. That's one tall fucking order, Mister.

The difference between me and the IE folk, is that I still think it's submission not "playing at" it or fake. Same shit, different duration. Nobody likes that idea.

Well you and I agree on the 'drama' angle, that it has a kind of reality. If you play the Queen of France and I play the stable boy called to service her, I do get a whiff of (real) dominion.

Your yuppie scene, unfolding by agreement, has Female 1 agreeing, say, for an hour, to do 'anything Female 2 wants except molest kids.

Consider:
F2: Ok, lick my boots

F1: Yes madam.

F2: I'm going to tie you to a post, facing me in a kneeling position.

F1: Yes madam. (it happens)

F2: You will lick my pussy.

F1: Yes (it happens)

F2: You will rim my asshole.

F1 (looks dubious)

F2 You will. Positions Ass. (it happens) Mmmm. Say "I love to serve you in all ways."

F1: I love to serve you in all ways.

F2: Say I loved to lick your asshole.

F1: I loved to lick your asshole.

F2: Would you do it again if I asked? Say it.


F1: I'll do it again if you ask.

F2: Do you like to be degraded?

F1: Yes.

F2 Ask for it.

F1: Degrade me.

F2: I will use my cunt to degrade you.

F1: Use it to degrade me.


F2: Now I want you to open your mouth and I will piss into it; you will drink.

F1: (looks surprised) I don't want to.

F2: Do it anyway!

F1; I'm going to draw the line there.

F2: I'm not violating the what you and I agreed to and the limits you stated. Open up!

F1: OK, then Red. Stop. Release me.
[###]

F2: We agreed: "Red means stop in the event of health emergency or physical damage or breech of agreement." You are misusing it. Open that mouth.

F1: You'd better not. It's assault. You're violating me.

F2: Open up, cunt! If you do not, here is what will happen. I will piss into this jar. A feeding tube will be inserted through your nose into your stomach. With a funnel I will pour the piss down the tube. Which is it?

F1 (Opens) (It happens.)

F2. Thanks toilet mouth. Thank me.

F1: or?

F2: (Takes a long swig from a bottle of water.)

F1: Thank you.

F2: 'for your piss'

F1: for your piss.

F2: I'm now going to release you. (does)

F1: I'm calling the cops.

F2: Here's the phone. Here's your copy of the agreement "I agree to do anything the mistress says which does not imperil my life or health and does not exceed the limits specified: "no children" "no menstrual fluid used in play" 'no casaba melons'.

F1: You tricked me.

F2: Here is where it says, "I have discussed all questions with F2 and am satisfied. I understand the agreement."

F1 Well, I didn't think of everything. You've got to respect me as a person.

F2: I respect you as a maggot; you have a function in the universal process of decay and rot. You're a fine toilet. Your degradation, by the way, is also on video tape, with you asking for more.

I believe you just dial 911.

F1: You'll hear from my lawyer.

F2: Yes, fine. She'll have the tape of you slurping my piss. You'll play it for the jury, little piss whore? And you thanked me.

F1: Yes threatened me.

F2: I was thirsty. You'll sell that 'threat' to the DA? Till next week, then, Toilet Mouth.

=====
I argue: Domination occurred in spades after the 'Red' [###] Had things stopped there, not much significant domination would have occurred.
F1 is just getting her jollies like any other 'john' does with a whore.

J.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Just reading up on my bdsm cheating torts, Pure vs Experts.

I did well when I appointed the man town rabbi. He is positively Talmudic in his mastery of the intricacies of debate and rhetoric. As such, I now expand his portfolio; to include editorship of the town jewspaper, The Qlipotic Times-Herald.

Topopolis is a jew town, I realize. Twas the ancient Hebrews (whom, as I prove here, are the most perverse of races), who were the original masters of the moral grey area. (And, as Lyndon Larouche would add-Jews in academia such as Marx and Freud are responsible for demolishing the Aryan underpinnings of Western morality).

Anyhow, Topopolis is a jew town. We have a rabbi, a Netzach. Mazeltov, you guys.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Netzach:

As a chick and a chick-expert, could you please tell me why I keep going bonkers from afar for women who fit this description:

pale, possibly freckly skin
short dark hair (boy-cut)
Irish/Anglo features
neck or lower back tattoo
general air of grad-school dykeyness
but not too dykey
no makeup
general air of moral superiority hippyness, may bring own bag to grocery store, use biodegradeable dishwashing detergent, etc, but not too over the top with this.
kind of no-makeup femme-dykeyness
air of newagey good health-yoga, vegan, dancer


does this make any sense or add up to anything? I see these girls everywhere and go all cow-eyed. If I found out one was sort of straight and liked to be beaten I'd follow her from afar.


here is a picture I found of ballpark type:

 

[rosco rathbone]

same girl

 

[rosco rathbone]

Is it any surprise that two of our town's top jews are on the same side of the cheating debate? I wonder if TOP vs DOM isn't really, in some way, the battle of moral relativism vs moral absolutism ( or Jew vs Aryan). (I am reading Otto Weininger's work of twisted brilliance, Sex & Character and so am hung up on these Nietzschean speculations.)

My fellow jews, we must be vigilant always, and do our part in le guerre contre le anti-qlipotisme.

You can find a PDF version of Sex & Character, ready for downloading, at the bottom of this page

 

[lady-kat]

same girl

*poking head in*
Rosco...
the "type" of girl, and the photos you posted...

*nodsnodsnods*
i am right there with you on that. very f'n hot.
*growl*
she looks like my first girlfriend/lover. ah damn. to be young again......

 

[rosco rathbone]

The world according to Francisco


To me, the world as a dominant is quite simple, I set out my rules and my partners live by them. I choose my partners based on a matrix which is quite simple, I look at the character, their intelligence, their honesty and their trustworthiness. If those points meet my criteria I will go and look deeper into someone’s soul to see if we are compatible, and then I will look to see if I find my possible candidate attractive. I choose and decide who is going to be my partner, very simple and straightforward, by doing so I judge them to see if they meet my standards. Everyone is judged by their possible partner; everyone chooses and judges their possible partners be it for a long term relationship or be it for a play scene by their own criteria.

Why I could never be a dominate.

 

[Netzach]

*long elegant blackmail scene, good JO fodder for msubs, clipped*

I argue: Domination occurred in spades after the 'Red' [###] Had things stopped there, not much significant domination would have occurred.


F1 is just getting her jollies like any other 'john' does with a whore.

John with a whore or girlfriend with a girlfriend? Are you trying to show contempt for people, esp. women who do anything shy of being a belligerant bullying asshole?

I'm definitely a whore, by this standard. Interesting, I don't think the shoe fits, but maybe because I'm a fucking amoral adultress it should. (smirk)

Re: "actual domination" Is there a fucking spoon, and should there be one?

Alternate scenario:

F1 (beaten down): (Opens) (It doesn't happen.)

They stand there for what seems to F1 in interminable length of time. F2 backs away and leaves F1 to ponder things as she tidies up and ends the session.

What's that about?
(maybe we just call it a Netzach)

 

[rosco rathbone]

This shit is starting to read like shorthand analysis of Bridge games you always see next to the funny papers.

 

[Netzach]

As a chick and a chick-expert, could you please tell me why I keep going bonkers from afar for women who fit this description:

Yes.


does this make any sense or add up to anything?

Yes. Your dick works, and you have eyes.

I see these girls everywhere and go all cow-eyed. If I found out one was sort of straight and liked to be beaten I'd follow her from afar.

News flash: a lot of them are sort of straight, they just realized that short hair looks better or is less maintenance. You don't know unless you ask and you can't ask if you are paralyzed by the thought of offending someone.

Now RR, don't tell me you are paralyzed at the thought of offending someone.

She's kinda cute.

 

[rosco rathbone]

No, it's not the offending someone that bothers me. It's the why this particular prototype?

Kinda cute? oy.