rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
MissTaken said:
M hm.
Top-opolis
- Thread starter rosco rathbone
- Start date
M hm.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
What is Sade's cruelty all about? What's the reason for the linking of sex and cruelty?
De Beauvoir says as follows (a part of this I've posted before):
Summary: Sade remains cerebral in sexual activity, does not unite with the other, or become enchanted in the two bodies. He did not know emotional intoxication (with another). Sade had, perhaps, a kind of autism that did not conceive of the reality of the other, or the other's feelings. He compensated for the separateness by his tyranny. This is true "Sadism." The other must be free, and in being reduced to moans, Sade, the torturer, gets a sense of his own flesh and his being as a unity of flesh and spirit.
Beauvoir "Must we burn Sade"
[start]
From adolescence to prison, Sade has certainly known the insistent if not obsessive pangs of desire. There is, on the other hand, an experience which he never seems to have known: that of emotional intoxication. Never in his stories does sensual pleasure appear as self forgetfulness, swooning, or abandon.... The male aggression of the Sadist hero is never softened by the usual transformation of the body into flesh. He never, for an instant, loses himself in animal nature; he remains so lucid so cerebral, that philosophic discourse, far from dampening his ardor, acts as an aphrodisiac. We do not see how desire and pleasure explode in furious attacks upon this cold intense body, proof against all enchantment. They do not constitute a living experience within the framework of the subjects psychophysiological unity instead they blast him like some kind of bodily accident.
As a result of this immoderateness, the sexual act creates the illusion of sovereign pleasure which gives it its incomparable value in Sade's eyes; for all his sadism strove to compensate for the absence of one necessary element which he lacked. The state of emotional intoxication allows one to grasp existence in oneself and in the other, as both subjectivity and passivity. The two partners merge in this ambiguous unity; each one is freed of his own presence and achieves immediate communication with the other. The curse which weighed upon Sade -- and which only his childhood could explain -- was this autism which prevented him from ever forgetting himself or being genuinely aware of the reality of the other person.
Had he been cold by nature, no problem whatever have arisen; but his instincts drove them toward outside objects with which he was incapable of uniting, so he was forced to invent singular methods for taking them by force. Later, when his desires were exhausted, he continued to live in that erotic universe of which, out of sensuality boredom defiance and resentment, he constructed the only world which counted for him, and the aim of his strategies was to induce erection and orgasm.
But even when these were easy for him, Sade needed deviations to give to his sexuality a meaning which lurked in it without ever managing to achieve fulfillment, an escape from consciousness in his flesh, and understanding of the other person as consciousness through the flesh.
Normally it is a result of the vertigo of the other made flesh that one is spellbound within his own flesh. If 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 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.
Sade knew, as we have seen, that all infliction of pleasure may be an aggressive act, and his tyranny sometimes took on this character, but it did not satisfy. To begin with, he shrinks from the kind of equality which is created by mutual pleasure. If the object who serve us feel ecstasy,they are then much more often concerned with themselves than with us, and our own enjoyment is consequently impaired. The idea of seeing another person experience the same pleasure reduces one to a kind of equality which spoils the unutterable charms the come from despotism. And he declares, more categorically, "Any enjoyment is weakened when shared."
And besides, pleasant sensations are too mild; it is when the flesh is torn and bleeding that is revealed most dramatically as flesh. No kind of sensation is keener and more active than pain. Its impressions are unmistakable. But in order for me to become flesh and blood through the pains I've inflicted, I must recognize my own state in the passivity of the other. Therefore the person most have freedom and consciousness.
The libertine would really deserve pity if he acted upon an inert unfeeling object. That is why the contortions and moans of the victims are necessary to the torturer's happiness, which explains why Verneuil made his wife wear a kind of headgear that amplified her screams. In his revolt, the tortured object asserts himself as my fellow creature, and through his intervention I achieve the synthesis of spirit and flesh which was first denied me. [end]
De Beauvoir says as follows (a part of this I've posted before):
Summary: Sade remains cerebral in sexual activity, does not unite with the other, or become enchanted in the two bodies. He did not know emotional intoxication (with another). Sade had, perhaps, a kind of autism that did not conceive of the reality of the other, or the other's feelings. He compensated for the separateness by his tyranny. This is true "Sadism." The other must be free, and in being reduced to moans, Sade, the torturer, gets a sense of his own flesh and his being as a unity of flesh and spirit.
Beauvoir "Must we burn Sade"
[start]
From adolescence to prison, Sade has certainly known the insistent if not obsessive pangs of desire. There is, on the other hand, an experience which he never seems to have known: that of emotional intoxication. Never in his stories does sensual pleasure appear as self forgetfulness, swooning, or abandon.... The male aggression of the Sadist hero is never softened by the usual transformation of the body into flesh. He never, for an instant, loses himself in animal nature; he remains so lucid so cerebral, that philosophic discourse, far from dampening his ardor, acts as an aphrodisiac. We do not see how desire and pleasure explode in furious attacks upon this cold intense body, proof against all enchantment. They do not constitute a living experience within the framework of the subjects psychophysiological unity instead they blast him like some kind of bodily accident.
As a result of this immoderateness, the sexual act creates the illusion of sovereign pleasure which gives it its incomparable value in Sade's eyes; for all his sadism strove to compensate for the absence of one necessary element which he lacked. The state of emotional intoxication allows one to grasp existence in oneself and in the other, as both subjectivity and passivity. The two partners merge in this ambiguous unity; each one is freed of his own presence and achieves immediate communication with the other. The curse which weighed upon Sade -- and which only his childhood could explain -- was this autism which prevented him from ever forgetting himself or being genuinely aware of the reality of the other person.
Had he been cold by nature, no problem whatever have arisen; but his instincts drove them toward outside objects with which he was incapable of uniting, so he was forced to invent singular methods for taking them by force. Later, when his desires were exhausted, he continued to live in that erotic universe of which, out of sensuality boredom defiance and resentment, he constructed the only world which counted for him, and the aim of his strategies was to induce erection and orgasm.
But even when these were easy for him, Sade needed deviations to give to his sexuality a meaning which lurked in it without ever managing to achieve fulfillment, an escape from consciousness in his flesh, and understanding of the other person as consciousness through the flesh.
Normally it is a result of the vertigo of the other made flesh that one is spellbound within his own flesh. If 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 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.
Sade knew, as we have seen, that all infliction of pleasure may be an aggressive act, and his tyranny sometimes took on this character, but it did not satisfy. To begin with, he shrinks from the kind of equality which is created by mutual pleasure. If the object who serve us feel ecstasy,they are then much more often concerned with themselves than with us, and our own enjoyment is consequently impaired. The idea of seeing another person experience the same pleasure reduces one to a kind of equality which spoils the unutterable charms the come from despotism. And he declares, more categorically, "Any enjoyment is weakened when shared."
And besides, pleasant sensations are too mild; it is when the flesh is torn and bleeding that is revealed most dramatically as flesh. No kind of sensation is keener and more active than pain. Its impressions are unmistakable. But in order for me to become flesh and blood through the pains I've inflicted, I must recognize my own state in the passivity of the other. Therefore the person most have freedom and consciousness.
The libertine would really deserve pity if he acted upon an inert unfeeling object. That is why the contortions and moans of the victims are necessary to the torturer's happiness, which explains why Verneuil made his wife wear a kind of headgear that amplified her screams. In his revolt, the tortured object asserts himself as my fellow creature, and through his intervention I achieve the synthesis of spirit and flesh which was first denied me. [end]
Last edited:
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
Very interesting Pure. Last night I was going to write something about an idea of mine- that since the 1960s, with the feminization of popular sex culture, ie sex manuals, sexology, sex therapy, the media, etc-the (perhaps culture-subconcious) ideal of lovemaking seems to be the "feminine" mode of swooning/loss of self/submersion in the act/loss of self-consciousness. Against that, I propose my brand of hyper-selfconsciousness: the self-consciousness of the "out-of-body experience", the patient's ghost floating above the operating table watching his body. I go into this a little bit in the long post above. It seems apropos to your discussion of desade.
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
I will be looking for that 1/100 till I find her.
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
zipman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2002
- Posts
- 38,552
rosco rathbone said:
RR,
I wanted to share a few thoughts on this post, as well as the whole topopolis thread.
First off, I find this post to be the same type of BDSM thought-police bullsit that you so rant against on this forum. Comments like "false domination" and "Top is war, Dom is false peace" portray one as right and the other as wrong.
One of the reasons that I am posting this here, is the discussion of my brand of Dominance, which to be honest, has not been accurately described. I see BDSM as a lifestyle full of choices, not limits. I experience the sexual rage you discuss quite frequently, but it has little to do with mysoginy. I think you are tying to glorify your own desires as the true rebellious sexuality of the new millenia. The truth is, that there are many permutations that can exist, and they are not mutually exclusive.
UCE, who is as crazy as they come in my book, believes in things that I don't. The discussion she referred to was my dismissing a sub over repeated questioning. I stated that repeated questioning was either an inability to submit or a form of topping from the bottom. If I discuss a subs limits, and she states that being displayed publicly is not a limit for her, then I expect her to comply immediately when I give that command. That is the nature of obedience and submission to me. If we are in a bar and I old her to raise her skirt and show her pussy to a man standing there, then I damn well expect her to do it, immediately, and without question. If UCE taught you everything you know about being a top, or a dom, or whatever you want to call it, then that explains a lot.
The bottom line is that this is how I choose to enjoy BDSM, it doesn't make it better or worse than the way that anyone else does it.
This thread does have some very interesting conversations in it. However, the lack of objectivity demonstrated during the PBW racism bashing was rather pathetic. I think he showed a number of examples of racism that were posted at him that were absolutely ignored by everyone in the discussion. I think that CBM calling Ebonyfire a "house nigger" was by far the worst of these comments. Sadly, not everyone is afforded the same rights on this thread, that you seem so proud of.
Just my thoughts on the issues,
Zip
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Zip,
I won't get into the substance of your complaints against RR, or UCE, but I would comment generally on your approach. Thread comments, just like forum comments (e.g., O-O), don't usually go very far. Someone drops in and says, 'this is boring'--what are people to do? Will they feel like getting interesting for this new face? In your case, you say, 'this isn't objective' or 'this is bdsm thought policing.' I'm not sure what you expect of that approach.
Nor would I get into the substance of your list of racists and non racists according to you, posted after a long incident with various parties. If indeed any party was unjustly 'done by', you had the opportunity then to help him or her mount a defence. It doesn't do much good to dig up the issues, now.
That leaves one point that's a little in the dark. Is your 'brand' of 'dom'-dom accurately characterized? Well, you do give an illustration, which I have no problem with, as an instance of 'domination'.
But you don't state your general principles, or attempt to characterize your position. Since no one is muzzled, it's up to you to say something about your basics, if you really want so your position "accurately described." Indeed, Ms. Taken
has requested that parties clarify their positions.
Since your so capable of writing and thinking well, it's a shame to spend most of your time on thread commentary and meta-issues.
I trust you will take this as constructive, since you surely know I bear no ill will toward you; indeed the contrary.
Best,
J.
I won't get into the substance of your complaints against RR, or UCE, but I would comment generally on your approach. Thread comments, just like forum comments (e.g., O-O), don't usually go very far. Someone drops in and says, 'this is boring'--what are people to do? Will they feel like getting interesting for this new face? In your case, you say, 'this isn't objective' or 'this is bdsm thought policing.' I'm not sure what you expect of that approach.
Nor would I get into the substance of your list of racists and non racists according to you, posted after a long incident with various parties. If indeed any party was unjustly 'done by', you had the opportunity then to help him or her mount a defence. It doesn't do much good to dig up the issues, now.
That leaves one point that's a little in the dark. Is your 'brand' of 'dom'-dom accurately characterized? Well, you do give an illustration, which I have no problem with, as an instance of 'domination'.
But you don't state your general principles, or attempt to characterize your position. Since no one is muzzled, it's up to you to say something about your basics, if you really want so your position "accurately described." Indeed, Ms. Taken
has requested that parties clarify their positions.
Since your so capable of writing and thinking well, it's a shame to spend most of your time on thread commentary and meta-issues.
I trust you will take this as constructive, since you surely know I bear no ill will toward you; indeed the contrary.
Best,
J.
zipman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2002
- Posts
- 38,552
Pure said:
Pure,
I know you bear me no ill will, nor do I take it that way. I hadn't commented previously as I have not had internet access for the last month, nor have I had any inclination to post here as I needed a break.
As to your comments, I disagree with you. I think if Roscoe is going to rant about the BDSM thought police, I am free to point out the hypocrisy of the fact that he is doing it as well. The same goes for my other comments. I found the posts about Racism to be more of a gang attack rather than a discussion. When PBW did respond, his arguments were ignored by the regulars on the thread, yourself included. Personally, I thought you were more objective than that. My goal wouldn't have been to help PBW mount a defense, but to point out the hypocrisy of those comments when they were made.
As for my own flavor of BDSM, I have discussed it often at this site, what I believe in and what I enjoy, something you yourself haven't done. That is your choice Pure, but I have already done it, and continue to do it when my views change. I am not about to get into a discussion about whose BDSM is right or the actual labels that are applied. My BDSM is right for me, and that is all that matters. Why should anyone have to choose a school of thought? I can and do experience the very sexual rage that RR so desires, and yet for me, it is completely non-mysogynistic.
The point of my post was to highlight the hypocrisy that I saw in this thread. Sorry you didn't care for it, but I think it is legitimate and I will continue to post on this thread or on this forum as I see fit.
Best,
Zip
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Zip,
My goal wouldn't have been to help PBW mount a defense, but to point out the hypocrisy of those comments when they were made.
The point of my post was to highlight the hypocrisy that I saw in this thread. Sorry you didn't care for it, but I think it is legitimate and I will continue to post on this thread or on this forum as I see fit.
I'm not sure any of this is constructive, but I will comment on your logic.
If you've ever studied it, ad hominem is a fallacy. That's because it's not relevant to the truth of the statements. Three of four regular Black posters (Marquis, CBW, brnsuga; Eb dissenting) had the impression of racism, from PBW, on the Black issue. I did, on the Arab issue. If any of those three is--supposedly-- a hypocrite it matters not a whit, on the issue. If I say, "Zip is cruel to his dog" it matters not a whit, if you say "You're cruel to yours!" or even "You robbed a bank." You either are or aren't; my record is irrelevant.
Best,
J.
My goal wouldn't have been to help PBW mount a defense, but to point out the hypocrisy of those comments when they were made.
The point of my post was to highlight the hypocrisy that I saw in this thread. Sorry you didn't care for it, but I think it is legitimate and I will continue to post on this thread or on this forum as I see fit.
I'm not sure any of this is constructive, but I will comment on your logic.
If you've ever studied it, ad hominem is a fallacy. That's because it's not relevant to the truth of the statements. Three of four regular Black posters (Marquis, CBW, brnsuga; Eb dissenting) had the impression of racism, from PBW, on the Black issue. I did, on the Arab issue. If any of those three is--supposedly-- a hypocrite it matters not a whit, on the issue. If I say, "Zip is cruel to his dog" it matters not a whit, if you say "You're cruel to yours!" or even "You robbed a bank." You either are or aren't; my record is irrelevant.
Best,
J.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Zip said,
I can and do experience the very sexual rage that RR so desires, and yet for me, it is completely non-mysogynistic.
I'm greatly puzzled by this. "Sexual rage" (in the heterosexual case at hand) to me like involves anger, if not hatred, toward women. Almost by definition. That your conscience or superego says "it's wrong to hate women, they're humans worthy of respect" is irrelevant." Imho. Indeed, as students of psych., including yourself, know, even an action pattern of 'great deference' toward women, is, in the presence of hatred against them, arguably 'reaction formation'--i.e., misleading sugar coating of an unacceptable. inner impulse.
J.
I can and do experience the very sexual rage that RR so desires, and yet for me, it is completely non-mysogynistic.
I'm greatly puzzled by this. "Sexual rage" (in the heterosexual case at hand) to me like involves anger, if not hatred, toward women. Almost by definition. That your conscience or superego says "it's wrong to hate women, they're humans worthy of respect" is irrelevant." Imho. Indeed, as students of psych., including yourself, know, even an action pattern of 'great deference' toward women, is, in the presence of hatred against them, arguably 'reaction formation'--i.e., misleading sugar coating of an unacceptable. inner impulse.
J.
zipman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2002
- Posts
- 38,552
Pure said:
My point was that it is hypocritical to decry racism from some posters and defend it from others which is what you and others here did.
I am not saying that what PBW wrote here or elsewhere was not a racist comment, nor am I commenting on whether or not he is a racist, just that it was acceptable for people to lambast him for his supposed racist comments and ignore the other racist comments made in attacking him and others. My post was not an ad hominem attack, because I didn't appeal to people's emotions, but rather their reason. If perceived racist comments are wrong, shouldn't they be wrong regardless of who say's them? That's the issue I raised.
CBM's comment about Ebonyfire was as racist if not more racist than the others. But it was defended because it was okay as they are both people of color. That is a specious argument at best.
Too often Pure, you look at the trees without seeing the forest. I gave two clear examples of hypocrisy on this thread. That was the point of my post. If you don't see it, that's fine, but don't tell me what to post or what to comment on. RR has been rather outspoken (often in a derogatory manner) about me, or the way I practice BDSM. I see it as being completely within my rights to respond.
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
Zipman
Much of what I say is totally tongue in cheek, such as "false domination", etc, and I'm not ranting against the BDSM thought-police so much as I am against hypocrisy. I'm glad to see that you admit to sexual rage; I'd be very interested to hear more about that. You got me cold busted on self-glorification as new millenium sexual rebel; what can I say, it's part of the gonzo style of my rizzco rathbone character.
I never said your style was wrong, it's just that a lot of people adopt the trappings of your style in order to conceal sexual rage and I find that annoying, amusing and perverse.I just picked your name because you seem to be an articulate and heartfelt caring-sharing type.
Now fuck that shit, let's get to the topic near my heart: sexual rage. What does it mean to you?
Much of what I say is totally tongue in cheek, such as "false domination", etc, and I'm not ranting against the BDSM thought-police so much as I am against hypocrisy. I'm glad to see that you admit to sexual rage; I'd be very interested to hear more about that. You got me cold busted on self-glorification as new millenium sexual rebel; what can I say, it's part of the gonzo style of my rizzco rathbone character.
I never said your style was wrong, it's just that a lot of people adopt the trappings of your style in order to conceal sexual rage and I find that annoying, amusing and perverse.I just picked your name because you seem to be an articulate and heartfelt caring-sharing type.
Now fuck that shit, let's get to the topic near my heart: sexual rage. What does it mean to you?
zipman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2002
- Posts
- 38,552
Pure said:
For me, it is not mysoginistic nor is it unacceptable except for the terminology used. I liken it to allowing the inner beast of pure male sexuality to come roaring out, and taking a woman as a male lion might take a female lion. There is no hatred, only desire and a blood lust for frenzied and violent intercourse.
zipman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2002
- Posts
- 38,552
rosco rathbone said:
Glad that we can move on now.
I think my above post describes it well but here is more. It is using my cock as a weapon, stabbing it into a woman repeatedly and violently with no pretense about "making love." It is for my pleasure alone, and the force used is often ferocious.
I love it when she is sore the next day from being so savagely fucked.
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
"That is the nature of obedience and submission to me. If we are in a bar and I old her to raise her skirt and show her pussy to a man standing there, then I damn well expect her to do it, immediately, and without question"
So, if she told you it wasn't a limit with her and then refused to obey instantly, you'd dump her as a "false sub"?
So, if she told you it wasn't a limit with her and then refused to obey instantly, you'd dump her as a "false sub"?
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
Pure said:
*Nods sagely, smirking*
zipman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2002
- Posts
- 38,552
rosco rathbone said:
No, I wouldn't dump here as a "false sub." What I would do is discuss it with her and let her know that my expectations are that if she identifies something as within her limits, and I command it, I expect her to do it. If it happened again, I would either dismiss her or punish her, depending on my mood and the other dynamics of our relationship. How important was that particular act to me?
The issue with UCE was she felt that a sub (or self-professed slave as she is) should have the right to repeatedly question her Dom (or top) as much as she wants to. I disagree with this concept completely. My subs have always been free to ask a question or to discuss things with me, when I give them leave to do so. However, there are some basic aspects of submission that a sub should be prepared to do once they have been identified as being within her limits.
Another example is if I tell a sub to crawl to me with a crop in her mouth. If I command it, I don't want to hear her ask why, I just want her to do it. If I have to explain myself to her every time I give a command, then I am not in control and she is not being obedient. To me, this is the core of BDSM, Control and Submission.
