Top-opolis

[Pure]

For descent to the war of all vs all, I think of the English school boys in "Lord of the Flies." Beginning when they're stranded, and for a good part of the book, things fall apart in that direction, then the boys hit upon Hobbes' solution: The sovereign; essentially a fascistic dictator (or clique) using the new religion to establish total control, and in doing so provide a channel for the destructive energy to be used against scapegoats and for sacrifices.

 

[Pure]

Since the Vera 'nine degrees of submission' has been re-posted and objected to by Netzach, among others, I thought I'd have a go at it, but limiting myself to bottoming episodes. Comments welcome; it's a draft for revision.

Nine positions in the realm of 'bottoming': objectification

Positions below apply to episodes/situations [scenes] whose frequency is separately specified. They are simply being described, not recommended; they do NOT constitute a series of steps through which one is encouraged to advance. The higher numbers do NOT represent higher states of being, merely greater degrees to which one party (bottom) is imposed upon or subjected by another (top).

Note: the words 'domination', 'submission', 'dom/me', 'sub', etc. are NOT used in defining the steps; I have simply included such words in brackets, for reference and to suggest a possible rough correspondence.

========================

1."kinky sensualist" (Vera). enacts (simulates, stages, or presents the appearance of) compliance to agreed requests ('orders') of play-partner [play 'dom/me'], within pre-agreed scenes which include the sensualist's pleasure.

2. basic plaything. enacts compliance to agreed requests within pre-agreed scenes which are defined by the managing person's [soft 'dom/me's'] wishes, including (possibly) the goal of pleasure for only him/herself [i.e., the soft 'dom/me'].

3. contract plaything. enacts compliance to expected directives (may include some actual commands or orders) of managing person [hard 'dom/me'] within scenes pre-agreed only in general terms, but with defined limits.

4. subordinate being. actually yields to power; surrenders [submits] to a situation whose occurrence is permitted initially and proceeds by actual direction (actual orders) without defined limits, where the imposition is--
4. to a mild,
5. moderate, or
6. high degree.

7. abased object. actually yields [submits] to an occurrence not desired initially and perhaps not even contemplated, and proceeds under actual command/compulsion, where the imposition is--
7. to a mild,
8. moderate, or
9. high degree.

--------
Note: 7-9, as defined, may place the top, at least, outside of the law. He or she should seek legal advice before deciding whether and how to undertake them. There are some indications, now given, which may help the action to fall on the legal side: one has to presuppose some sort of global (non-specific) understanding between parties, and that the 'object' has initial, global appreciation of what is involved.

The following also may help undermine the basis for prosecution: the 'object' ('bottom'), afterwards, would, in the absence of mental/emotional abuse, have to believe that the imposition is deserved and/or appropriate, and not unjust; as well, in the absence of threats, be unwilling to bring the matter to attention of the authorities, and perhaps be unable to conceive of its meriting their attention.

===========

(c) 2003-11-17; by pure. reproduction for private or non-commercial use is permitted, provided there is author credit and the whole text and this note are reproduced unaltered. Posting for commercial purposes or to for-profit or paid-access websites or archives is only by express prior written permission.

 

[Netzach]

Interesting.


The phrase "abased object" makes me wet.

In my own screeds, intentionally extreme and ripe with abusive language, I distinguish between the submissive gentleman and the subhuman male object.

I haven't checked in with my lawyer though, just my accountant.

 

[Pure]

Since 8 or 9th 'position' includes rape, I thought I'd try to cover myself from the charge that I'm 'recommending' something illegal.
These are simply descriptive categories, and while it's my view that 7-9 *could* in context NOT fall afoul of the law, I want to be on record as encouraging prudence, esp. with strangers.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Interesting.


The phrase "abased object" makes me wet.

Me too.

I wish I got paid for macking.

 

[Pure]

I wish I'd get paid for every word I see here that I don't know--'macking.'

Malacca

 

[Netzach]

--gettin' it on.

I don't get paid for that, either.

 

[Pure]

consulting my favorite www.urbandictionary.com

macking is: flirting or hitting on or seducing or making out or masturbating or pimping or firing a Mack gun or being jealous of or devouring (as in a big Mac)

found also:

malaka: a wanker, affectionately applied to ones buddies, also.

also:

fo' shizzle ma nizzle

 

[ghosst_K&H]

Since the Vera 'nine degrees of submission' has been re-posted and objected to by Netzach, among others, I thought I'd have a go at it, but limiting myself to bottoming episodes. Comments welcome; it's a draft for revision.

Nine positions in the realm of 'bottoming': objectification

Positions below apply to episodes/situations [scenes] whose frequency is separately specified. They are simply being described, not recommended; they do NOT constitute a series of steps through which one is encouraged to advance. The higher numbers do NOT represent higher states of being, merely greater degrees to which one party (bottom) is imposed upon or subjected by another (top).

Note: the words 'domination', 'submission', 'dom/me', 'sub', etc. are NOT used in defining the steps; I have simply included such words in brackets, for reference and to suggest a possible rough correspondence.

========================

1."kinky sensualist" (Vera). enacts (simulates, stages, or presents the appearance of) compliance to agreed requests ('orders') of play-partner [play 'dom/me'], within pre-agreed scenes which include the sensualist's pleasure.

2. basic plaything. enacts compliance to agreed requests within pre-agreed scenes which are defined by the managing person's [soft 'dom/me's'] wishes, including (possibly) the goal of pleasure for only him/herself [i.e., the soft 'dom/me'].

3. contract plaything. enacts compliance to expected directives (may include some actual commands or orders) of managing person [hard 'dom/me'] within scenes pre-agreed only in general terms, but with defined limits.

4. subordinate being. actually yields to power; surrenders [submits] to a situation whose occurrence is permitted initially and proceeds by actual direction (actual orders) without defined limits, where the imposition is--
4. to a mild,
5. moderate, or
6. high degree.

7. abased object. actually yields [submits] to an occurrence not desired initially and perhaps not even contemplated, and proceeds under actual command/compulsion, where the imposition is--
7. to a mild,
8. moderate, or
9. high degree.

--------
Note: 7-9, as defined, may place the top, at least, outside of the law. He or she should seek legal advice before deciding whether and how to undertake them. There are some indications, now given, which may help the action to fall on the legal side: one has to presuppose some sort of global (non-specific) understanding between parties, and that the 'object' has initial, global appreciation of what is involved.

The following also may help undermine the basis for prosecution: the 'object' ('bottom'), afterwards, would, in the absence of mental/emotional abuse, have to believe that the imposition is deserved and/or appropriate, and not unjust; as well, in the absence of threats, be unwilling to bring the matter to attention of the authorities, and perhaps be unable to conceive of its meriting their attention.

===========

(c) 2003-11-17; by pure. reproduction for private or non-commercial use is permitted, provided there is author credit and the whole text and this note are reproduced unaltered. Posting for commercial purposes or to for-profit or paid-access websites or archives is only by express prior written permission.

very well though out, and written...

if i were looking for a non commital relationship with a "Top" i'd have to say i could fit into any of these catagories, depending on my "Top", and my mood

 

[Pure]

Hi Ghosst,
Thanks for the feedback. I didn't speak of 'commitment' or limit myself to 'casual' encounters, intending to leave that separate from 'degrees,' as suggested by Netzach.

It was, of course, intended that these 'positions' apply, as well to the D/S or kinky episodes within committed or loving or married relationships. Do you see a problem there? Of course a relationship is not all 'getting it on'; there are always dishes to be washed. And even when things get hot, it may involve, from time to time, a 'mixed bag' of erotism, including 'vanilla' sex; but often there is a typical position when play occurs.

Another issue not covered is the degree of sadism or masochism that might be involved, though the greater amounts of pain would seem often to associate with the higher numbered positions.

Best,
J.

 

[ghosst_K&H]

Hi Ghosst,
Thanks for the feedback. I didn't speak of 'commitment' or limit myself to 'casual' encounters, intending to leave that separate from 'degrees,' as suggested by Netzach.

It was, of course, intended that these 'positions' apply, as well to the D/S or kinky episodes within committed or loving or married relationships. Do you see a problem there? Of course a relationship is not all 'getting it on'; there are always dishes to be washed. And even when things get hot, it may involve, from time to time, a 'mixed bag' of erotism, including 'vanilla' sex; but often there is a typical position when play occurs.

Another issue not covered is the degree of sadism or masochism that might be involved, though the greater amounts of pain would seem often to associate with the higher numbered positions.

Best,
J.

if your guidelines are set on a scene to scene basis, one day you feel like a 3 two weeks later you feel like a 7, then no, i don't see a problem with this guide, and it's very well thought out.

i personally want more from my relationship with my Dommes's and this lifestyle than play time. W/we are looking for a 24/7 TPE type of D/s relationship, and your guide would be great on a day to day basis, but Ms. Vera's guidelines fit our overall lifestyle choice.

as for the masochism, or sadism involved, i personally don't see any levels mentioning these, one can have a 24/7 TPE D/s relationship without any sadism or masochism at all.

i enjoy your points of view on many issues, and you're positions are always articulate, and well thought out.

play safe, and often

 

[Pure]

Hi Ghosst,

Thanks for dropping by and reading. Classifying whole relationships is pretty difficult. I for one am always mystified if voluntary arrangements are decribed as 'power exchange.' I understand _exchanging_ sex for money, for example, but not power for power, or power for sex (the two usual proposals).

My purely personal view, despite seeing lotsa words on the topic: I can't imagine what TPE might be**, except maybe being a slave in South Carolina in the 1840s. And even there, I see no 'total exchange', rather 'total subordination'. None of this is to say your way of getting off, isn't fine; nor that you can't describe it any way that suits you, since you're obviously both intelligent and literate.

J.

**Note that in Vera's 'degrees' document, she explicitly doubts that the 'highest' degree--presumably total-- is ever actually in existence in real life.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Oh my God, Pure.... thank you for reminding me.... this place needs one, too.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/eden/images/giants_redkangaroo.jpg

 

[SweetDommes]

I for one am always mystified if voluntary arrangements are decribed as 'power exchange.' I understand _exchanging_ sex for money, for example, but not power for power, or power for sex (the two usual proposals).

My purely personal view, despite seeing lotsa words on the topic: I can't imagine what TPE might be**, except maybe being a slave in South Carolina in the 1840s. And even there, I see no 'total exchange', rather 'total subordination'. None of this is to say your way of getting off, isn't fine; nor that you can't describe it any way that suits you, since you're obviously both intelligent and literate.

There is an exchange of power ... he gives us control over him, we give him the control that he desires/needs... It isn't an exchange like buying something, it's an exchange where he givs us something that we desire/need (submission) for something that he desires/needs (domination). It is total because we own him - not as a slave, so I wouldn't ever put our relationship at the level of 9 on Ms. Vera's scale, but as a pet - and we like it that way.

and desert - thanks for the grin - I've enjoyed seeing your new 'fetish' popping up all over the boards

 

[Pure]

netzach, empty your box.
J.

 

[Netzach]

Note from the frontlines:

The male fantasy ends with the male orgasm.

I am constantly reminded of this oddball biological imperative.

~N.

 

[bridgeburner]

Brain buzzing and eyes nearly falling out of my head I'm finally caught up enough to start spouting off. I've been lurking for days and reading and now I feel like I know people but realize I've spoken with very few of you.

Going back to the "feminsim killed good sex" article briefly, I was nodding my head to things and then all of a sudden I thought "Jeeze lady, you're such a whiner. If you want something go get it. It's a big ol' world and there's plenty for everyone." It seems that the author just doesn't have a sufficiently broad experience of the world. As others have pointed out, the hallowed halls of academia are not the best place to find raw anything much less 20 year olds who know what they want from life or a lover.

I was also struck by the fact that she's 45 and thinks it's somehow the fault of 20 something men that she's no longer attracted to them. Does she think there's something wrong with 12 year old boys because she no longer gets crushes on them either? That's just idiotic. Most people are attracted to other people within their peer group. Ashton and Demi aside the average 20 year old college boy is not in the peer group of the average 45 year old woman.

I found the old "which orgasm is better than which" question tedious as well. If I could come from somebody licking my eyeball I'd be all for it. Why the focus on who's having the better come? If you're preoccupied by that then my only thought is that you're not having enough orgasms of your own to begin with. Sure, I'm all for experimentation and finding more bliss for the buck, but who really needs to get twisted up about whether or not s/he's having the "right" kind of orgasm? It seems to me like a petty way of trying to Top the populace at large. Anybody you manage to make neurotic is subordinate to you. It's the great mind-fuck of academia. Notice how they never make you come with their games?

pause for breath and maybe fastening my brain into some semblance of order to continue

Power exchange.

I don't think TPE is possible. Not as I understand the word "total". TPE is the kind of thing that makes you crazy as a child when your sibling says "I command you to breathe" and then you get pissed off because you can't NOT do it. If someone can actually command your biology then they've got total power over you. If one is sufficiently mystic enough to grant that power to someone then that would be a Total Power Exchange.

As long as you're in the position to call a halt, however, you retain some power. To the degree that you are able to thwart another person's will you are in control however minimally that may be.

I agree that one can subjugate one's own wishes to an extreme degree and allow some other person's wishes to stand paramount. Yes, that is an exchange of power. It isn't total, but for those interested in such exchanges I don't think the fact that the Top can't stop the bottom's heart at will is really seen as a limitation of their arrangement.

On to the mainstreaming of perversity:

Some things will never be socially acceptable because they interfere with the stability of society. The urges to murder, rape or have sex with children aren't ever going to get the seal of approval from the world at large. Hell, they don't get the seal of approval from the vast majority of perverts. Sucks to be the folks with those sorts of urges but I'm not about to open the gates of the zoo and let those tigers roam free.

Okay, I've burned off a little of the brain buzz. I'll sit quietly for a minute until something else sets me off again.



-B

 

[bridgeburner]

Nice 'roo.

Why are they sexy? Seriously. I don't know why they make me think of sex.

 

[Quint]

Nice 'roo.

Why are they sexy? Seriously. I don't know why they make me think of sex.

Did you ever see anything sexual about Jerry from Tom and Jerry? I always thought he was so perversely feminized; wanted to see him get abused much more than he ever did, the brat.

Welcome aboard. You're neat.

 

[bridgeburner]

Hi Quint,

Good to see you. We talked a bit when I first discovered Lit over in one of the story workshop threads. I'm glad to run into you again!

I didn't generally have too much animosity toward Jerry, but I'd run Tweety through a Quisinart in a skinny minute. Same with that smug sack of shit Roadrunner. Of course, I never felt any great warmth toward Sylvester while I definitely wanted to shack up with the Coyote.


Hmmm.....I wonder if there's some kind of online quiz that profiles your personality by exploring your attitudes toward cartoon characters.

-B

 

[bridgeburner]

Oops, missed this part: Yes, Jerry was quite the little sex-pot --- but the annoying kind. A bit of a cock-tease. It's that same aroma that I feel so much more strongly about with Tweety and the Roadrunner. Perhaps it's because occasionally Jerry and Tom were buddies.....well, and the animation was better. I enjoyed the whole experience more because it was more visually appealing to me until they did the horrid Hanna Barbera revival thing in the 70's and that was just awful.


-B

 

[Netzach]

There's a sadomaso undercurrent to any of the straight man funny man pairs, animated or otherwise. Laurel and Hardy. Tom and Jerry. I think Bob Odenkirk and David Cross play around with SM a lot, both more and less overtly in their stuff.

More overt would be the scene where David Cross character encourages Bob Odenkirk dressed as a Catholic priest "entertain me with this banana, slaaaave." It's demented in a Bataille way.

 

[Pure]

Welcome bridgeburner,

to those who haven't had contact with her previously, she has a strong and pervy mind, and has a BS detector as good as anyone around these parts. she's also capable of writing truly sadistic raunch, which I hope will be posted one day soon, among the 'sweetness and light' porn that proliferates around Lit.

J.

 

[Marquis]

Note from the frontlines:

The male fantasy ends with the male orgasm.

I am constantly reminded of this oddball biological imperative.

~N.

Definitely.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Note from the frontlines:

The male fantasy ends with the male orgasm.

I am constantly reminded of this oddball biological imperative.

~N.

solution to this seems obvious