Top-opolis

[evesdream]

And you are someone who wants to taste homeless cock. That we know. It's documented. Or should your mom brush her teeth before she sends you off to school?

Does your ego always get in the way of your reading skills, kiddo?

 

[rosco rathbone]

Does your ego always get in the way of your reading skills, kiddo?

Actually, I think he is understandably confused, since I believe I referred to myself as a "forcible bumsucker" somewhere in these pages, this being, of course, shorthand for "forcible maker of other people to suck bums". In fantasy; I've never done it. Yet.

 

[Netzach]

Actually, I think he is understandably confused, since I believe I referred to myself as a "forcible bumsucker" somewhere in these pages, this being, of course, shorthand for "forcible maker of other people to suck bums". In fantasy; I've never done it. Yet.

It's not a bad way to spend the morning, I have to say.

Oy. Let's bring this round to a more interesting notion than whether WriterDom gets it or not, can we?

I spent too many Art History classes on "was Michelangelo gay?" And I think the answer "not as we'd understand it" makes sense, even with his obvious passion for boys. Michelangelo loved his own sex and desired it, but the construct we have of "gay" is light years off from his experience of that.

Likewise, I think RR's assertion that he's not really under the BDSM umbrella makes sense. I'm not under the BDSM umbrella either, in a capacity. BDSM, isn't that something that happened on the internet? I knew I was different when I watched the NYC Halloween parades at the tender age of 10 (thanks mom!)

I knew what I wanted to do when I got out of college when we read excerpts of Leatherfolk, pub. Alyson. The internet came later.

It was a tool for me, but the level of cluelessness out there amazed me. I think it's the best and worst thing that's happened for women's sexuality since the Pill. Best, because any woman who wants can access toys, porn, sex info, weird fetishes, without having to venture into scary, icky places to get them. The worst, because...she doesn't have to venture into scary, icky places to get them. One's own boundaries do not get pushed the same way. I've been to too many BDSM pansexual meetings that refuse to hold an event in a Leather Bar because the heteros are scared to go in. I have a huge problem with that mentality.

In my opinion if you can't deal with my subculture, if you can't take it's required risks, you ain't part of it. If you can't go to a Leather bar, fine, start your own club or Ladies spanking and sewing circle or whatever, but don't act as though we do the same thing, unless we are talking the broadest based political coalition. (yes, I support NCSF, even though I don't think they speak for my personal brand of SM)

Good ol' fashioned queer style Leather has a different set of hangups and emphasis. It's not all good, but it's not all bad. It's better for me than what most people refer to as BDSM.

I have no desire to be accepted as a Leatherwoman in mainstream society (read co-opted) None of my co-workser or any but close friends will EVER know my preferences and that's fine. I have no interest in defending my preferences via biology, religion, society or other mandates. The fact that I primarily fuck boys doesn't present as much of a problem in Lesbian circles as it did five years ago. Bisexuals even have a spot at the Leather table.

This is much more a good home to me.
BDSM is something else, in my experience, more sanitized, co-opted, organized and mediated.

I'm much less freaked out by the universal SSC mantras and the whole D/s vs. SM clusterfuck debates, becaus frankly, I have no problem seeing it on a continuum. I don't wring my hands over it, I do it. Imagine that.

I sadistically scene with my boy. I don't need to break it down every day, see what he will and won't do, test and manipulate and examine. We just do it. I don't hurt his feelings beyond repair, put him in the hospital or the psych ward and we do things I enjoy. Seems simple enough.

I'm a Top, more of the Daddy flavor than the Master flavor. However, I retain a good healthy dose of sadism, brutality, chaos theory and desire in opposition to whatever it is I'm supposed to want.

Whatever I do, could care less what you think of me as long as I'm not hurting anyone for real. Whatever BDSM is seems to be about is largely being OK and cool and above board.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I personally LIKE breaking everything down and agonizing about it all. Picking my personal scabs in this way is hot to me. I've always said "keep sex evil", by which I mean to say that for people like me, conflict, shame and maladjustedness are good.

I'm actually bummed that it's ok for lesbians to sex guys now. It's probably healthier but I really dug the PC environment of 10 years ago. The overall vibe of sexual war fit right in with my hangups.

I saw a white van with NETZACH on the side drive by the other day. Kabalistic kidnappers.

rr

 

[Netzach]

<b>I'm actually bummed that it's ok for lesbians to sex guys now. It's probably healthier but I really dug the PC environment of 10 years ago. The overall vibe of sexual war fit right in with my hangups.</b>

I guess. Now there are just more than two opponents though. More like a world war and less like boxing!

I'm just pissed off as most guys that I can't find a girl who will let me do her and quit whining.

<b>I saw a white van with NETZACH on the side drive by the other day. Kabalistic kidnappers.</b>

Damn! I'd better switch to the mitzvah tanks again and keep the operation covert.

 

[rosco rathbone]

"I dunno....there were a lot of promises...when we first met, he told me he was going to "devour" me. I kept waiting for it...what he was really into though, was a lot of 'cock worship' "

"What exactly does that ammount to?"

"Blowjobs, basically"

 

[Quint]

I beat you because it has to be this way, my love. Whack.

This is the most exquisite line I've stumbled across in many a moon. I'm shamelessly exploiting it for my own purposes. What the hell's my sig again?

Now, I've perused this thread on again, off again, with a mixture of cowardice and complacency--I feel I've found my niche but I'm too cowed to confess to it. Balls to that, I say! Welcome to me.

I get off most when T is in my face, screaming incoherently with a look of pure insanity in his eyes. Or when he is dead silent, staring at my exposed body with absolutely no compassion visible, even beneath the surface. Or when he is alternating between choking me on his cock and slapping the hell out of my face. That's what does it for me. I leave the love at the door with my shoes.

Chaos, baby. Yeah.

Room for one more in your fine city, Rosco? I kinda like the thought of paying, too...a reason why we'll never do the "prostitute" scenario is because someone who has to pay for privileges isn't the one in power. And that's just where I like to be.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Actually I always had a kind of crush on you quint, since reading your thoughts on humiliation a while ago. You are welcome in my town any time.

 

[Pure]

Some of what Netzach and evesdream have said prompted these thoughts. It's hard to say where ideas come from, or claim ownership, but evesdream's comments and ideas have played a part in my reaching this place. The failings of presentation or concept, of course, are entirely my own. I'd be interested in comments. Excuse any non-humble phrasings or tone; they're simply my aberrant and idiosyncratic take on things.

Two Views of Kink (deviation)

1) We're gentle misunderstood folks who 'came that way' from birth and happen to like something others--the mainstream--are uncomfortable with. Sort of like a hindu who grows up finding he just likes and has a taste for hamburger, in his beef avoidant society. Likely before he even realized the extent and depth of the taboo.

As those in the mainstream are entitled to their satisfaction, so are we, equally. We aim to be taken as worthy by others and equal them in status and rights, to 'fit in.'

The [added:high-profile, publicly recognized] gay community, in large part, essentially followed this path in gaining acceptance, such as it has.

2) We're possibly dangerous folks who made ourselves what we are as a way of asserting our individuality against what 'others' and the mainstream declare to be right and proper. Perhaps like a religiously brought up Hindu teen ager who, knowing the taboo, starts experimenting eating beef, develops a taste for it, and a liking for the reactions of others seeing him eat it.

Society is, inherently a group of unequals, ranging from those with degrees of power to the most put-upon and oppressed. We are anti-state anti Institutional Religion, and do not seek any social authority, based on some pc view of sex, over others' ways of living; but we will--in personal relations of our choice--not hesitate to set up unequal conflictual, contested and chaotic relations of power. We could never 'fit in'.

 

[Quint]

Now that's kinda interesting, Pure. I'd like to say that I definitely started off the first way, quite innocently pursuing what I was interested in with only rare thoughts of the "taboo" nature of what I was doing, but the more I develop and hone my tastes, the more I feel like that second group, who are quite aware of the forbidden nature of their deeds and desires.

To paraphrase in my own flavor, at first I simply was. I'm beginning to be, but also to say "I am." I anticipate soon I will not only be, but also flaunt that fact of my existence, as if it were to be displayed. Yeah, I'm an exhibitionist, something I was not aware of in my early development.

Do I want equal rights? Do I think I deserve equal rights? I really don't think of it. It hasn't been relevant to my life. I certainly don't want anyone fucking with my choice of activities, and I don't see why someone would find it necessary. But then again, that comes down to "a person without a kink rarely understands why someone has that kink, and a person with that kink rarely understand why someone doesn't have it." I don't see anything wrong (now that's a loaded term) with what I am doing, but I know other people could. Just not so much why.

The fact that they could find it wrong, bad, shameful, etc. is what turns me on. When I have to stop and analyze why, the arousal goes away and I'm just left with a headache.

 

[evesdream]

Ah, Pure I was about to start a thread along these lines

I think that the underlying question is: How does rebellion fit into your kink?

Describing "transgression" as rebellion suits my draw to it more accurately than anything else. I'm drawn to forbidden areas, both religious (i.e. "wastage of seed"!) and secular (the hotness of caste/class differences, exaggerating them; anti-liberalism; unequal gains; exploitative appearances), yet there's nothing objectionable about 'equal rights', and 'justice', of course not. But the terms just sit there in all their cum-control, drive slaying lacklustre. Maybe I _am_ kicking against the imperatives of others- imposed on me like religion- no matter what they are or seem to be.

But i also think that rebellion ultimately has more to do with balance, than with the chaos that makes it fun in bed (on the street corner, under the table at the restaurant yadda yadda yadda).

So, although some of it aligns, I wouldn't fit cleanly into the second category you presented, because there's more than a "cry of individuality" happening, there's an actual sexual/emotional/physical need to be attended to. Also, it isn't other people's idea of what should shame me that turns me on, it's my own discomfort and the idea of breaking through that shame into.....yet another realm of discomfort, spiral ad infinitum

The first scenario is a little too pristine. Where is option C prof?

Thanks for presenting these questions. I hope there'll be more chiming in on this.

 

[evesdream]

Quint said:
Now that's kinda interesting, Pure. I'd like to say that I definitely started off the first way, quite innocently pursuing what I was interested in with only rare thoughts of the "taboo" nature of what I was doing, but the more I develop and hone my tastes, the more I feel like that second group, who are quite aware of the forbidden nature of their deeds and desires.


So, maybe the categories can't be delineated so squarely for everyone (or anyone?). In between the intentional taboo buster and the innocent there's the continuum of life.
Still in search of option C articulate.

 

[lark sparrow]

Some of what Netzach and evesdream have said prompted these thoughts. I'd be interested in comments. Excuse any non-humble phrasing or tone; they're simply my aberrant and idiosyncratic take on things.

Two Views of Kink (deviation)

1) We're gentle misunderstood folks who 'came that way' from birth and happen to like something others--the mainstream--are uncomfortable with. Sort of like a hindu who grows up finding he just likes and has a taste for hamburger, in his beef avoidant society. Likely before he even realized the extent and depth of the taboo.

As those in the mainstream are entitled to their satisfaction, so are we, equally. We aim to be taken as worthy by others and equal them in status and rights, to 'fit in.'

The gay community, in large part, essentially followed this path in gaining acceptance, such as it has.

2) We're possibly dangerous folks who made ourselves what we are as a way of asserting our individuality against what 'others' and the mainstream declare to be right and proper. Perhaps like a religiously brought up Hindu teen ager who, knowing the taboo, starts experimenting eating beef, develops a taste for it, and a liking for the reactions of others seeing him eat it.

Society is, inherently a group of unequals, ranging from those with degrees of power to the most put-upon and oppressed. We are anti-state anti Institutional Religion, and do not seek any social authority, based on some pc view of sex, over others' ways of living; but we will--in personal relations of our choice--not hesitate to set up unequal conflictual, contested and chaotic relations of power. We could never 'fit in'.

Speaking as a lesbian, that's kind of a simplistic representation, Pure. I have never once said to anyone I am just a gentle, misunderstood soul unaware of the taboo nature of my sexual orientation. No need to swallow the PR hook, line sinker - though I know it's easily digested. Most of us can "pass" easily - that's "fitting in". Queer folks are deviants whether it's nature, nurture or normal, and as far as I can tell pushing for "equal status and rights" has never served to make one "fit in", unless you mean room on the planet to exist. lol know anything about leather history and the queer folks in it? I know you do!

 

[Pure]

evesdream said,
//Where is option C prof? //

Why don't you write it?

J.

(Thanks for all your input and encouragement. Indeed I have added a note about you.)

 

[evesdream]

evesdream said,
//Where is option C prof? //

Why don't you write it?

J.

(Thanks for all your input and encouragement. Indeed I have added a note about you.)

Most worthwhile ideas are collaborative in a sense, no?
I've got a little more to say but will have to wait until the end of the day.

Thanks for the props btw

 

[Pure]

Evesdream said,

Also, it isn't other people's idea of what should shame me that turns me on, it's my own discomfort and the idea of breaking through that shame into.....yet another realm of discomfort, spiral ad infinitum

That's interesting, my aberrant friend. It says too little to say, "I like it because you disapprove." I think of shame like a foreign colony within, or like a embassy (legally a piece of that nations soil, not the host country's). Thus at some level our subconscious agrees with part of what the 'others' say is shameful. After all, they walked us through it "You should be ashamed of ..." Now the transgression is in not hiding, but presenting that shameful thing, sort of like parading a sin. A submissive urge feels the power that that presented shame gives to the other; hence the erotism for the submissive (side of a) person. For the sadistically inclined the paraded shame is a demonstration of power, sort of a judo move turning a weakness into a strength, like the folks who chant "We're here, we're queer."

 

[zipman]

Evesdream said,

Also, it isn't other people's idea of what should shame me that turns me on, it's my own discomfort and the idea of breaking through that shame into.....yet another realm of discomfort, spiral ad infinitum

That's interesting, my aberrant friend. It says too little to say, "I like it because you disapprove." I think of shame like a foreign colony within, or like a embassy (legally a piece of that nations soil, not the host country's). Thus at some level our subconscious agrees with part of what the 'others' say is shameful. After all, they walked us through it "You should be ashamed of ..." Now the transgression is in not hiding, but presenting that shameful thing, sort of like parading a sin. A submissive urge feels the power that that presented shame gives to the other; hence the erotism for the submissive (side of a) person. For the sadistically inclined the paraded shame is a demonstration of power, sort of a judo move turning a weakness into a strength, like the folks who chant "We're here, we're queer."

I don't think the paraded shame is as strong as the initial admission of the thought or action that causes the shame. Consider the following scenario:

You blindfold and have your sub sitting in a comfortable chair and make her hold her legs apart exposing her sex. You ask her if she would be turned on by getting fucked by another man. she replies with a resounding "no." You say I don't believe you, so let's test it out. You tell her that you want her to pretend that she is holding herself open for another man, you take a large dildo and describe how this strange man is going to fuck her. As your sub, she must obey you but you forbid her to enjoy it. That will prove that she doesn't really want it to happen. As you fuck her roughly with the dildo, she becomes more and more excited, and begins moving to the fucking she is getting. Finally, you make her admit that she wants to get fucked really hard and she will say anything to come.

The shame she feels at admitting what a slut she is to achieve the orgasm she wants is both delightful to watch.

 

[Pure]

Zip said,

//The shame she feels at admitting what a slut she is to achieve the orgasm she wants is both delightful to watch.//

Thanks for the scene description. The uses and role of shame, imo, fall outside of the gentler brands of bdsm. Questions are,
How, if at all, does shaming fit in with those "personal growth" **dom/mes that claim to be therapeutically building self-esteem?

Shame involves that 'I could just sink through the floor' feeling; wishing to disappear from the other's gaze. Would not a 'self realization' **bdsm approach frown upon its evocation?

How does the consent issue play out. Assume that one can agree ahead of time, it seems however that once it's happening there's no instant safeword out.

**In labelling a 'personal growth' or 'self-realization' bdsm I am trying to capture a range of approaches seen here. I am not making any assumption, necessarily, about where you may fall in terms of these categories.

 

[Quint]

Pure,

I can't and won't answer for Zip, but as a sub with similar interests, I can take that question and say my piece about it.

I too agree that shame play is edgier than your average flogging, although I think I take it much better. But I'm not in a D/s relationship for training or nurturing. (Then again, flogging isn't a particularly nurturing act. But I see how it certainly isn't counterproductive to nurturing, which one may argue that humiliation is.) It is an act that for some is wildly exciting, because of its callous intimacy. For others, it's a line better uncrossed.

Consensual? Not in the moment, no, because even safewording out after a particularly stinging invective still leaves the words said and the emotional pain remaining. However, I could argue that the same is true for physical pain. Unless 1.) you see a blow in mid-swing, 2.) identify it as one you will be unable to take in time to 3.) scream "RED!", and 4.) your Dom/me has excellent muscular control over the swinging arm, the pain is already going to be there before you can stop. Aftercare ensues.

But the more valid point about consent is that it probably--and in my case, definitely--occurs before and after the scene. If I weren't a humiliation slut, if I didn't get off on being told what a filthy whore I am for enjoying what degrading acts he's doing to me, then I'd have told him long before the words left his mouth. And at the end of a scene, when we're recapping, I'm honest with him about particular phrases I got wet from and ones that may have been a bit too extreme or debasing. He remembers and doesn't use the unerotic ones in the future, unless I change my mind.

That's as much self-realization as I need: recognizing what works, what doesn't, and communicating that to my partner. And it makes me feel pretty good about my personal growth and self-esteem every time I am that honest with the two of us.

 

[Pure]

Very eloquent Quint. You avoid stereotypes and formulaic statements that abound in some quarters and manage, in an articulate way, to speak from the heart.

J.

 

[Quint]

Yeah, and for some reason the Myer-Briggs cast me as an INTJ (introspective, intuitive, thinking judger). No people skills. I think the major reason why I don't step on toes here is because I'm a great deal more coherent when I write than when I speak, so the consideration just sort of comes.

Have to say, I think I'm letting you down by not providing you with fodder for debate. Maybe I ought to say something weak, inflammatory, or just wrong so we can spark up a lively argument?

I'd like to get into the topic of "good" vs. "bad" shame. Is it just degree, or is it pure semantics? Is one more enjoyable to different degrees of sadomasochists than the other? I personally have very well-defined limits of how much is too much, but I'd like to hear from others on the level of shame they like to inflict/have inflicted.

 

[Netzach]

Oh in my shame-pig days it was never a matter of how much vs. not how much, it's more a matter of some subjects are hot and some just make me violent and some just make me laugh in your face because I don't get it but obviously it seems a big issue.

That's always the worst failure to me, I'd rather be traumatized than to be thinking "God is this stupid" all through the scene.

I've excercised this same caution in degrading. Knowing which subjects are hot buttons and which are verbotten for a damn good reason is the key thing. Talking to the humiliated is the only way to tell.

 

[Pure]

Quint said,

I think I'm letting you down by not providing you with fodder for debate. Maybe I ought to say something weak, inflammatory, or just wrong so we can spark up a lively argument?

I trust that's tongue in cheek. Good contributions can also spark exchanges.



I'd like to get into the topic of "good" vs. "bad" shame. Is it just degree, or is it pure semantics? Is one more enjoyable to different degrees of sadomasochists than the other? I personally have very well-defined limits of how much is too much, but I'd like to hear from others on the level of shame they like to inflict/have inflicted.

It seems to me the most basic rule is that the subordinated one should 'live to fight another day', call it a survival principle. That they cannot do if they jump out of the window or end on the psychiatrists couch for a year after being humiliated.

I think too there are dimensions of shame, besides degrees. For instance one top/mistress brought a friend along to witness. Ideally it would be a friend *not familiar with this kink so that their surprise or distaste for degradation would play a role.

"Good shame" is, as far as words go, simply that which 'works'
(and as above, doesn't prevent continuation), which means having a erotic impact. and well as reinforcing the subordination.
A feeling analogy is that in shame something has bypassed the normal 'shell', the 'sticks and stones' attitude we all get. Think of a turtle. But at the right opening, is vulnerability that literally goes to the heart. With a sharp stick, through one gap in the shell (say where the leg comes out) you could fatally pierce the animal.

The erotism is in that vulnerability exploited by the dom/me or top.

On the subject of laughability, some words do not do much. I.e., name calling. Also enforced titles "my supreme Mistress, exalted..." which can be role played.

It's a little harder, with a witness, for instance to laugh off having just served as the M's urinal. Classic, too, especially for some woman is being directed to masturbate to orgasm in front of strangers. For a male, a bit more such as having, as well as the cock work, to anally masturbate himself also.

The top or dom/me is getting off on the pure power, according to the analogy above; to uncomfortably probe the most delicate areas and refrain from destruction... all in the service of continued degradation. As you know, I don't favor sub-dictated limits, but those selected by the top/dom/me in accord with the survival principle, above.

 

[zipman]

Zip said,

//The shame she feels at admitting what a slut she is to achieve the orgasm she wants is both delightful to watch.//

Thanks for the scene description. The uses and role of shame, imo, fall outside of the gentler brands of bdsm. Questions are,
How, if at all, does shaming fit in with those "personal growth" **dom/mes that claim to be therapeutically building self-esteem?

Shame involves that 'I could just sink through the floor' feeling; wishing to disappear from the other's gaze. Would not a 'self realization' **bdsm approach frown upon its evocation?

How does the consent issue play out. Assume that one can agree ahead of time, it seems however that once it's happening there's no instant safeword out.

**In labelling a 'personal growth' or 'self-realization' bdsm I am trying to capture a range of approaches seen here. I am not making any assumption, necessarily, about where you may fall in terms of these categories.

Thanks for not assumptions. I appreciate that.

As for Personal Growth, I think it is an interesting topic. I don't think it would fit in with it the way you described, as a means of building self-esteem.

However, is Personal Growth synonymous with self-esteem building. An example is in the scenario I originally used, If a sub thought that she would be willing to sleep with another man only because she was being an obedient submissive and you make her realize and admit that she wants to do it because she is really turned on by it, then the realization and admission that she is a slut would lead to Personal Growth in that she has a clearer understanding of her sexual motivations and desires and yet, this might raise, not affect or decrease her self-esteem.

I think BDSM is full of self-realizations, and the more you understand yourself the more you will be able to find the activities that you enjoy the most. Therefore, they would fit into the BDSM lifestyle.

As for the consent issue, I think Quint articulated it superbly.

 

[Pure]

Zip,

However, is Personal Growth synonymous with self-esteem building. An example is in the scenario I originally used, If a sub thought that she would be willing to sleep with another man only because she was being an obedient submissive and you make her realize and admit that she wants to do it because she is really turned on by it, then the realization and admission that she is a slut would lead to Personal Growth in that she has a clearer understanding of her sexual motivations and desires and yet, this might raise, not affect or decrease her self-esteem.

I think BDSM is full of self-realizations, and the more you understand yourself the more you will be able to find the activities that you enjoy the most. Therefore, they would fit into the BDSM lifestyle.

That's an interesting point: that realizing a slutty side may be part of 'personal growth' depending on how one conceives it.
My reservations are to do with the 'personal growth' promoted by many 'mental health' gurus and self help books. Something relentlesslessy positive and 'up ward bound' where problems are 'worked on' and/or 'worked through.' Usually all of this is linked with 'health and happiness' shallowly conceived.

In the sense of gaining depth, realizing some possibly shameful thoughts and impulses, that kind of 'growth' I can sympathize with. Kind of personal evolution, that does not necessarily make one happier, or make life easier. Something a little less protestant (as Jung put it). Something more 'soul-full' in the parlance of Hillman, if you've read him.