'Vanilla DS?'

[Pure]

'Can there be Vanilla DS?'

It's often said that domination need not involve sexual activity and some dom/mes advertize themselves that way. They have the subs washing the car, cleaning the floor, etc., I've been told.
In short there needn't be erotic whipping, for there to be dominance.

In light of the above--Question: Couldn't there be 'vanilla' or 'straight' sex (only) in a relationship of dominance?

Possibly one example, consistent with traditional sex roles, would be some patriarch-type male**, say orthodox Christian, Jew or Muslim who, at times of his choosing gets it on with his wife, straight, flat back Christian-missionary style. He places his pleasure as primaryin the context of a relationship where he's undisputed authority, the 'head' of the family, who exacts various duties and disciplines on his wife. (Just to be clear, let's assume she married him as an adult, and knew, because of her membership in the community, what she was in for, and agreed to it.)

**for the sake of argument; the sex roles could be reversed.

 

[lark sparrow]

In light of the above--Question: Couldn't there be 'vanilla' or 'straight' sex (only) in a relationship of dominance?

Absolutely, imo. D/s is not a terribly new or wild idea in this context, is it? Pretty traditional. I think it exists in the BDSM community as well - people who are not as interested in SM or B&D, but live D/s.

Check this out: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=christian+bdsm&vm=i&n=20&fl=0&x=wrt



4. BDSM corrupts God’s perfect plan for love and sex in marriage: Let's first look at the below scripture to best understand God’s intent for marriage relations:

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- Ephesians 5:22-29 NIV

Key ideas from the above scripture:

· Wives are to submit to their husbands as they do to God. Our submission to God does not involve punishment, wrath or abuse, because Jesus Christ bore all the punishment due to us on the cross (1 Peter 2:24; Romans 5:1). We have peace with God and submit to him in reverence and appreciation for the great sacrifice he made for us. A wife's submission carries no hint of sexual slavery, abuse, suffering or pain.

· The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. Jesus did not treat the church harshly, nor did he inflict pain for pleasure or seek to dominate them. Jesus loved the church so much that he sacrificed his own body to pay for our sins. His sacrifice was once and for all, eliminating any need for further pain and suffering on account of our sin (Hebrews 9:26; Hebrews 10:10). Following Christ's example, a husband has no business treating his wife harshly, inflicting pain for pleasure, dominating her, etc.. Also, the reverse is true as well - he has no business allowing his wife to do those acts to him. It simply would not be within the character of Christ.

. A wife should not mistreat her husband because this would be a perversion of the submission and respect that should characterize the wife's role. Paul likened the husband’s role to that of Christ and the wife’s role to that of the church. In Ephesians 5:22-24 he wrote, “22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.” The question we can ask ourselves is, “Did God intend the church to abuse Jesus through pain and domination?” Heavens no! The church's attitude toward Jesus is to be one of reverence, respect and love. Likewise, wives should treat their husbands with reverence, respect and love.

· We are to nurture our body and our spouse’s body. We worship God in many ways, but especially in how we treat our bodies (Romans 12:1-2; 1 Corinthians 6:12-20), which is made in God's image and is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16). It would be dishonoring to God for the wife to abuse her husband's body, and a husband is specifically commanded to cherish and nurture his wife’s body, as he would his own body (Ephesians 5:29-30). Nurturing, caring and feeding do not carry any connotation of bondage, pain or abuse.

http://www.porn-free.org/BDSM_sadomasochism_bondage.htm

 

[lark sparrow]

Snippets

Today's popular secular concept of dominance and submission is part of an increasing backlash against society's push toward equal power in sexual relationships, which in reality has negated all power. Its wide range of beliefs and practices flow freely from today's largely amoral cultural climate. Co-existing with this growing secular phenomenon is a segment of Dominants and submissives who base their lives and relationships on principles of submission established in Biblical New Testament writings from when Christianity first took root.

There are numerous things which are alike between these two types of D/s, and several things which are markedly different. Both secular and spiritual D/s thrive on respect, trust, and communication. Both may engage in consensual sexual D/s and/or BDSM activity. Methods of play can be very similar, including bondage, erotic pain, and control. Both can be free and creative, growing together, stretching their limits. One major difference between spiritual and secular D/s couples is those living in spiritual D/s abide within a set of firm principles set by God and will not violate them. Secular D/s operates across a broad spectrum of loosely-formed values that are subject to wide interpretation; in other words, almost anything goes. A spiritual Dominant, for example, would not consider physically sharing his submissive with others. One secular Dominant may feel the same way about an exclusive relationship; another may easily share his submissive with others.

One major spiritual D/s principle maintains that successful D/s relationships exist only as life-long committed monogamous unions. D/s relationships that are short-term, covert, extramarital, or multi-partnered violate this principle and cannot, for a spiritual Dominant or submissive, be considered a representation of true dominance and submission. Some secular D/s couples also operate with a firm commitment to each other and remain monogamous.

Another principle of spiritual D/s is abstaining from sex unless married to the partner. It appears relatively few secular D/s couples begin a relationship in marriage, and fewer still remain together for life. Still others contract themselves to a relationship for a specified period of time, both having clear knowledge it is just a temporary arrangement. Some members of the secular D/s community arrange for Domming/subbing sessions as they would a visit to their doctor or a trip to the health club. In spiritual D/s there is no short term. Spiritual D/s is founded on complete commitment before God; therefore, it cannot exist for a month or a year. D/s involves one person giving his/her life to another completely, without reservation, without end. It is not a sexual game or an intricate drama of role-playing. Because of this commitment, it cannot be negotiated by contract like a business deal; rather, it is a covenant - immutable and unbreakable. Many secular D/s relationships I've observed appear to have been based largely on the attraction and need of the moment and tended to fade and disintegrate over time, leaving both parties seeking another partner.

Unlike some secular D/s couples, a spiritual Dominant or submissive would not be joined to a member of the same sex. It would also be highly unlikely that a spiritual D/s couple would consist of a female Domme and a male submissive because spiritual D/s principles speak of the husband being the head and the wife being the submissive; never are these roles reversed.

Unfortunately, the world of spiritual dominance and submission is largely unrecognized and misrepresented because the principles of submission are taught in a church setting to a group of predominantly vanilla parishioners who dutifully espouse the teaching intellectually but have little or no understanding, experience or desire to live according to the principles. The majority do not understand and have not experienced what it is to surrender full control of their lives to the Lordship of God; they know Him only as a set of teachings and beliefs to be accepted. Women in the church rebel at the word "submit" or will "do" it because they have to, which, of course, is not submission at all. Men, on the other hand, mistakenly feel it is their right to lord themselves over their women in ordinary day-to-day living because they are taught they are to be the head of their wives, but in reality are never given the gift of submission by their wives and do not know how to function as a loving Dominant.

http://www.submission.net/spiritual.html

 

[Justina123]

These are all great verses, but as usual- there is so much more. Yes, there is lots of stuff in the Bible that can speak to the pain/play side of a D/s relationship. Jesus' relationship to both God and us (sometimes referred to His Bride), and our relationship to God, has so many parallels to the Dominant/submissive, Master/slave relationship it is just incredible. (And I have often thought that you could label Jesus a switch, as he fills both a Dominant role with us and a submissive role with His Father, HA!)

Here are some verses, I tried to pare it down, there are literally tens of hundreds of them:

PLAY/TRAINING/PUNISHMENT:

Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. (Rom. 12:1)

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. (Heb. 5:8)

God keeps his promise, and he will not allow you to be tested above what you are able, and at the time that you are put to the test, he will give you the strength to endure it. (1 Co. 10:13)

Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver. I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction. (Isa. 48:10)

I am filled with comfort, I am exceeding joyful in all our tribulation. (2 Co. 7:4b)

I know, O Lord, that thy judgments are right, and that thou in faithfulness hast afflicted me. (Psa. 119:75)

Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous; nevertheless, afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are excercised thereby. (Heb. 12:11)

(See also 1 Pe.4:12, Jer 18:4, 1 Pe.5:10, Heb. 12:11, and many others)

POWER EXCHANGE:

Ye shall call me Master and Lord: and ye say well, for so I am. (John 13:13)

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ...doing the will of your Master from the heart. (Eph. 6:6)

Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls. (Heb. 13:17a)

I can of mine own self do nothing...because I seek not mine own will...(John 5:30)

Teach me to do Thy Will. (Psa. 143:10)

Then shall ye know that I do nothing of myself, but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things...for I do always those things that please Him. (John 8:28b-29)

We are the clay, and thou our potter, and we all are the work of thy hand. (Isa 64:8b)

(Also Ja. 4:15, Isa. 54:5, Hos. 2:19-20, 1Co, 15:24-28, Jn. 12: 49-50, Luk.22:42, and many others)


ESPECIALLY FOR SUBMISSIVES:

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil...Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. (1Co.13:4,5,7)

With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early. (Isa 26:9a)

I opened my mouth, and panted, for I longed for thy commandments. (Psa.119:131)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
There are also TONS of verses about other things which have strong bdsm applications- like His protection and ensuring of safety; how His strength is our joy; the importance of discernment, honesty, open communication; comfort (?aftercare?), loving dominance, etc.

Anyway, this post was not intended to be "preachy", just wanted to share what is a source of joy and wonderment for me.... and show that there are way more Biblical references to D/s (including s&m) than just what Paul wrote.

-justina

 

[Pure]

Thanks LS and Justina. Paul's views are well known; at the same time he didn't invent the 'authority' of husbands, including their right to discipline. Paul, as a pharisee [before his 'visions'], probably had a similar view of husbands' dominant position, since, it's a view common to Judaism and Xianity that God's authority is reflected in that of kings and husbands.

To Justina's Tanakh (OT) refs, I would add:

Prov 3:12

My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord, neither be weary of his correction: For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth, even as a father the son [in whom] he delighteth.

 

[Pure]

Hi LS,

Thanks for the 'spiritual [Christian**] DS' material. It seems to embody some of what I called 'vanilla DS'.

The passage
Dreami:
There are numerous things which are alike between these two types[secular and spiritual{Christian**}] of D/s, and several things which are markedly different. Both secular and spiritual D/s thrive on respect, trust, and communication. Both may engage in consensual sexual D/s and/or BDSM activity. Methods of play can be very similar, including bondage, erotic pain, and control. Both can be free and creative, growing together, stretching their limits.


I'd want --in characterizing 'vanilla BDSM'--to rule out 'bondage' 'erotic pain' and so on, even in these monogamous, heterosexual contexts. But according to the views (I think) of those you've posted, deleting the kinky sex, sticking only to 'straight' intercourse and chaste, minimal foreplay, would not pose a problem for these 'spiritual' people.



Further, though I [pure] picked some traditional religious set-ups as examples of 'vanilla BDSM', I don't, in fact think that the 'patriarchal' form is the only possible type of vanilla bdsm. If the woman were 'dominant' [controlled and directed the household and the sex], but initiated only 'straight sex'--no kinky stuff, I don't see the problem.


**The obvious Christian slant was noted by edichka,

http://www.submission.net/spiritual2.html

and dreami, the original author added the subtitle "The Chrisian Viewpoint."

 

[lark sparrow]

The first passage in the first post is from a Christian website - a page against BDSM, but all for the wife submitting in all things to the husband in the name of Christianity. It's actually quite a humorous read, and goes so far as to suggest that being involved in BDSM is the path of... could it be Satan?, and yes, to being the likes of Ted Bundy - with "an exclusive interview". http://www.porn-free.org/BDSM_sadomasochism_bondage.htm

It was interesting how dreami manages not only to disqualify homosexuality, polyamory, singles, Femdoms, etc. but then goes so far as to disclude nearly all other church-goers (vanilla "Christians"). None of whom can or will practice True D/s as handed down by the Lord Himself as the natural and might I add only moral state of being - this woman has The Rights to D/s! .

I thought it was rather convenient of her to be so strict with others, and yet rather generous to herself in allowing true Christian D/s married couples in a covenant of love with Jesus to participate in SM and bondage. Nice clause, but the website noted above strongly disagrees in it's Christian viewpoint against BDSM. Submit - yes! Pain play and bondage - heavens no!

I also noted a message board strictly for Christian Femdom/male sub, and another that allowed for both male and female Christian Dominants and their subs, so apparently dreami forgot to tell the Lord that these people could not participate in BDSM as Christians. Oh well, I'm sure the lightning is coming and The Truth shall be revealed.

IOW, Christian D/s is just as split in philosophy and need, and as individual as is the "secular D/s" (any other faith or the faithless).

/end rant - I know I've gotten of topic.

 

[Justina123]

lark sparrow,

Yes, I guess we've gotten off topic! But I have to say I agree that there is tons of variation with the "Christian bdsm" community. In fact, and this to me is unfortunate and very UN-Christlike, there is amongst many Christians a strong tendency to be judgmental and believe that there is only one "right" way. I have met many Christian D/s couples who, as you say, feel D/s is only permissible within marriage; others who embrace only the D/s aspects and no s&m.

I, on the other hand, while a "born again" believer who thinks that the Bible is God's Word, and a former missionary (nearly 20 years on various mission fields), etc. ,strongly believe that the Bible should not be approached with a predetermined mindset or as a book of do's and don'ts. Instead, it is intended to be used as a guidebook and to open our eyes to the unlimited possibilities within God's Will. Everything I do in my life, including in my submission and kinky times with Sir, brings mutual joy to both of us (even if in unconventional ways!) and is a personal expression of (imo) the way God made us.

Sir and I have had some interesting conversations. He is not a Christian, in fact, claims to be an atheist. But he respects my deeply held beliefs and has even said they enhance my submissiveness.

-justina

 

[lark sparrow]

lol we are way off topic. Though, a bit of mutual respect, tolerance and acceptance of overall fine individuals is a good thing. The insistent lack thereof is one of the driving forces in my rejection of organized religion. Let the karma run over the dogma, dude.

 

[psiberzerker]

To get back to the origonal question, I see Ds in "vanilla" relationships all the time. Lest we forget the traditional roles of women in a marriage, she supposed to be subservient, obedient, and usefull to her man. Sounds pretty submissive to me.
In several states, the only legal position is "Male Dominant Missionary" There's plenty of guys out there who want to avoid "Fucking up", and plenty of women who run right back to the rat bastard who beats them with his fist on a regular basis. This is not concidered kink, or BDSM, but there's definitely some aspect of that dynamic to it.
Now I'm not saying it's right, hell, I'm of the firm opinion that Jesus Chrispies need to calm the fuck down, and the pope is an antichrist, but that's just me. The point is, BDSM is a safe sane consentual alternative to the traditional big man/little woman powerdigm that's been in place since JC got nailed to a couple boards to put a stop to just this kind of shit. The vast majority of "True" Dsers I've known where more loving, conciderate, and compassionate to their mate's wants, needs and feelings than your average bible thumper.

 

[Pure]

This is just to remind people that Christian bdsm is not exactly the topic I inquired about, though in some ways it's next door.

Please note that many of these X-ian folks want in some way to license 'kink', including s/m activities, in a proper setting (=lifelong monogamy).**

My query had to do with absence of kink--i.e. straight, uncomplicated, fucking (heterosexual). But in a context where one partner utterly dominates the other. The question is, can there be a DS relationship with (only) 'straight'(vanilla) sexual content and an absence of kink (fetish, eroticized pain infliction, eroticized bondage, and so on).

One remark of Miss T comes to mind: She held that in working from an agreed list, one party still dominates by choosing the time and place of an act. The idea here would be similar: there's going to be fucking but when the dom/me says so (setting the terms).

J.


**{It seems clear to me, based on the limited 'Christian bdsm' sampling I've seen, that what I've called 'vanilla DS' is NOT really what most of them have in mind. They, instead want to clarify that, in loving monogamy, God doesn't mind if the couple get off on having her chained to the bedpost--as a sexual preliminary--, and Christ may be present.}

 

[pierced_boy]

Re: 'Can there be Vanilla DS?'

It's often said that domination need not involve sexual activity and some dom/mes advertize themselves that way. They have the subs washing the car, cleaning the floor, etc., I've been told.
In short there needn't be erotic whipping, for there to be dominance.

In light of the above--Question: Couldn't there be 'vanilla' or 'straight' sex (only) in a relationship of dominance?

Possibly one example, consistent with traditional sex roles, would be some patriarch-type male**, say orthodox Christian, Jew or Muslim who, at times of his choosing gets it on with his wife, straight, flat back Christian-missionary style. He places his pleasure as primaryin the context of a relationship where he's undisputed authority, the 'head' of the family, who exacts various duties and disciplines on his wife. (Just to be clear, let's assume she married him as an adult, and knew, because of her membership in the community, what she was in for, and agreed to it.)

**for the sake of argument; the sex roles could be reversed.

yes
H

 

[lark sparrow]

My query had to do with absence of kink--i.e. straight, uncomplicated, fucking (heterosexual). But in a context where one partner utterly dominates the other. The question is, can there be a DS relationship with (only) 'straight'(vanilla) sexual content and an absence of kink (fetish, eroticized pain infliction, eroticized bondage, and so on.

The first website clearly indicates that the wife should submit to the husband completely as head of the household and there should be no hint of kinky SM on either side.

Yes, D/s is (and/or was) a rather traditional, prevelant and conservative state of heterosexual, "vanilla" being. Now what?

 

[Pure]

Hi LS, you said,


Yes, D/s is (and/or was) a rather traditional, prevalent and conservative state of heterosexual, "vanilla" being. Now what?

I'm just trying to clarify my thoughts. Perhaps one point is that the SM axis is the main one, underlying most sexual practices involved, when we speak of 'bdsm.'** This point is somewhat confirmed in P. Califia's recent essay on 'topspace', available at www.othersex.com.

He says, among other things,

P. Califia:
when I looked around for masochists who played at my level, I found that they were as scarce as other sadists. There are a lot of people who will take pain if the top demands it. Their suffering is evidence of their commitment to submission. They endure it; agony sends no hot thrill along their chakras. And their willingness to do that strikes me as a very sweet and wonderful gift to the dominant. There are also, thank the goddess, many bottoms who have a decent pain tolerance, who have worked on extending that tolerance, and I'm grateful to them for the consolation they have offered me. But the person who can't come unless you cane them with all your strength, oh! I am undone when I merely remember it.

I'm not sure if this is the thread to delve into the issues. Another related point he makes is that those who wish to cleanse and mainstream 'bdsm' often prefer to speak of DS, iow downplay sexual sadism or masochism. Perhaps this connects with my point about the essentially vanilla possibilities of DS.

I can't really take my thoughts farther right now, but yours are welcome.

J.

**Some of the other practices fall under 'vanilla DS' as I've called it. Hence the connection to this thread.

 

[psiberzerker]

I guess I'm responsible for side tracking the thread into heresy. I appologise, byegones. What I was attempting to ilustrate is that the Ds aspect is there, whether it's aknowledged or not. This damned humanity is intrinsicly compettitive, so there's always a power dynamic.
In "Vanilla" relationships, we referr to "Wearing the pants", and being "Whipped". Now I understand that these are simply quaint exaggerations for effect, but they speak from the natural (and organic, I guess, shit I digress) scrotum pole that has been in place since the whole alpha male thing was invented.
It's my firm, and personal belief that we're healtier than them because of the inner conflict. Sane people don't send each other to the hospital over Peter Pan(c) vs Jiffy(c), or run back to their "loved ones" after they're released. Sure, we beat the crap out of each other, but at least we ask nicely first.

 

[lark sparrow]

Hi LS, you said,


Yes, D/s is (and/or was) a rather traditional, prevalent and conservative state of heterosexual, "vanilla" being. Now what?

I'm just trying to clarify my thoughts. Perhaps one point is that the SM axis is the main one, underlying most sexual practices involved, when we speak of 'bdsm.'**

I'm not sure if this is the thread to delve into the issues. Another related point he makes is that those who wish to cleanse and mainstream 'bdsm' often prefer to speak of DS, iow downplay sexual sadism or masochism. Perhaps this connects with my point about the essentially vanilla possibilities of DS.

I can't really take my thoughts farther right now, but yours are welcome.

J.

**Some of the other practices fall under 'vanilla DS' as I've called it. Hence the connection to this thread.

I can see it starting to shape, and look forward to your thoughts should they go further. my rambling thoughts for the moment...

I'm probably getting off topic again, but then we don't really have a firm topic yet... in regards to SM being the main axis of BDSM rather than D/s, I'm not too sure. I suppose in conscious BDSM - once we give it a name and start actively exploring it can become a main axis, or for those who have always recognized their need for pain, before they knew about SM... but it led me to think about the signs for me, before "BDSM". My girlfriends were either rather dominat personalities and/or very sexually aggressive. My main outlets for encouraging this dynamic was alot of teasing but never directly initiating sex, and resistance - not because I didn't want it, but because I was excited by struggle and aroused by the aspect of being overcome, encouraging their aggression. But never did I think, I really want them to hurt me - it was about power, not pain, though pain can be a side development in the struggle of taking power and ceding control. Once I got into "BDSM", I realized there was a whole world of more sophisticated sexuality that consciously, openly and directly played on these dynamics, and erotic pain became more of a focus. Hmm, maybe this plays into your theory, maybe not.

 

[psiberzerker]

I don't know about the SM aspect being the central axis either, I don't really think there is one for BDSM. There's too much variety here for the whole shebang to rotate about a single unifying concept.
I think the mistake is that the Vanilla world tends only to see the "S&M", or "whips, and chains". For them, it's all about the pain thing because that's something they can see, and understand. The Ds aspect is a bit more subtle, and harder to grasp without experiencing it.
I have a lot of trouble explaining what I do to the uninitiated, or even neophytes. The conversation keeps running into snags like "I Dominated her," "What did you hit her with?" "Nothing, I just talked to her, brought her around to my point of view?" "That sounds boring, didja tie her up?" "No, that would kind of defeat the purpose." "Huh?"
Fortunately, I happened to have such a conversation fresh in my memory. The point is, sweeping statements don't really grasp something as variagated as BDSM. There's always the little exeptions that wriggle out through the holes.

 

[Netzach]

Personally it doesn't freak me out not to have every sexual act I do affiliated witht the BDSM union label. If I'm saying to M

Hey, pussy, we fuck NOW!

and he bends over.

Or to make it more vanilla:

"Hey, fuck me NOW!"

while lying appropriately on my back...

I don't think it enhanced my leather credentials very much. It's part of our thing, but we'd both get bored if that's all there ever was again. It's just sex. It's BDSM, well, only inasmuch as *we* are.

Although it's cool when jobs and stressors make getting the ropes out sound like a chore.

I think that couples who do this kind of vanilla Mastery thing only can be affiliated with BDSM if they wanna be, sure.

I just don't feel like I have a lot in common with that experience and can't really speak to it. For one thing, no powers that be are trying to take away their right to fuck missionary style, not that I'm aware of.

 

[Pure]

Thanks to PB, LS, and N for comments. The thread has a complex theme, not entirely known to me, with the 'vanilla ds' thing being one facet. The theme took on more life after reading P Califia's
'top space' essay. It argued the rarity of sadism and masochism; the link between mainstreaming and a DS emphasis (even to the point of dropping S and M from mention).

From my own musings, another strand of the thread is what Vera called 'kinky sensualism'. Mutually agreeable and fun fetish play.
There is also pure 'pain' play without domination. My impression is that the role playing in these activities gives an impression of domination, without there necessarily being any. The phenomenon of paying for these things, mostly by men, supports the impression. If a man pays to have his balls abused while he's denied relief, then finally allowed (that's the agreed scene), I don't see dominance, unless it's by the man, who's after all calling the shots.

To LS: I don't think I wanted to deny the eroticism of power for some people. Partly that coincides with my experiences, early imagined ones, in reading of such scenes. But the thread is to emphasize the non-erotic possibilities of power set ups, and recognize that exercizing power may 'get you off' more in a narcissistic way, than a sexual one.

It's becuase power has the dual possibilities that SM is more arguably central to a core of 'bdsm practices.' (Not everything, under the sun, PB). Indeed PC, in his essay, speaks of the eroticism of pain increased where there is erotic domination.

Netzach, I fear I've been unclear, and appreciate your input. I don't see the enjoyment of 'straight sex' in an overall kinked relationship as an issue. The reason for bringing in 'straight sex' was to show that considerations of power to not necessarily take you out of the mainstream. In line with what PC says: Have you noticed that advertising for "Domination, no sex" is now common, and presumably the activity is profitable. It's popular because, if this alleged dom/me does as advertized, he or she is within the law. The 'establishment' has no problem with 'leather' costume parties either, provided there's no sex.

Perhaps all these thoughts will 'gel' more with additional discussion, thanks to all.

J.

 

[psiberzerker]

In case it wasn't already implicit in my posts, all I'm stating is my own humble opinion on the proceedings. All definnitions are my own, and apply mostly to me. Your results may differ.

 

[Netzach]

Thanks to PB, LS, and N for comments. The thread has a complex theme, not entirely known to me, with the 'vanilla ds' thing being one facet. The theme took on more life after reading P Califia's
'top space' essay. It argued the rarity of sadism and masochism; the link between mainstreaming and a DS emphasis (even to the point of dropping S and M from mention).

I've noticed these things, found them kind of creepy, myself. When I first learned about the existence of Leather, I learned about tops, bottoms, negotiation. Another queer friend and I were sitting back once, saying "didn't there just used to be Tops and bottoms, and maybe a few boys and Daddies and Masters and stuff if you pressed a little deeper?"

A Master is just a flavor of Top in my world, and SM is the umbrella term I prefer. D/s is a power dynamic that can emerge in SM or overshadow SM, but truly, plain ol' patriarchy at home is just that. Insert psiberzerker's disclaimer here, but it's got nothing to do with what I do or am into.
I don't understand why people into that are trying to affiliate with Leather anyway, is marginalization that much fun?

From my own musings, another strand of the thread is what Vera called 'kinky sensualism'. Mutually agreeable and fun fetish play.
There is also pure 'pain' play without domination. My impression is that the role playing in these activities gives an impression of domination, without there necessarily being any. The phenomenon of paying for these things, mostly by men, supports the impression. If a man pays to have his balls abused while he's denied relief, then finally allowed (that's the agreed scene), I don't see dominance, unless it's by the man, who's after all calling the shots.

Not all painplayers roleplay.

And some do. Some fictions are pretty powerful fictions. And pretty important ones. Is it really less real if I'm only the Mistress when we play and revert to girlfriend afterwards? Does it matter all that much? When it's real for an hour in that hour it's real. It's a different level of living ones life. I'm an artist, not a saleswoman, though I spend 40 hours a week selling and 8 painting.


To LS: I don't think I wanted to deny the eroticism of power for some people. Partly that coincides with my experiences, early imagined ones, in reading of such scenes. But the thread is to emphasize the non-erotic possibilities of power set ups, and recognize that exercizing power may 'get you off' more in a narcissistic way, than a sexual one.

It's becuase power has the dual possibilities that SM is more arguably central to a core of 'bdsm practices.' (Not everything, under the sun, PB). Indeed PC, in his essay, speaks of the eroticism of pain increased where there is erotic domination.

Netzach, I fear I've been unclear, and appreciate your input. I don't see the enjoyment of 'straight sex' in an overall kinked relationship as an issue. The reason for bringing in 'straight sex' was to show that considerations of power to not necessarily take you out of the mainstream.

You're totally clear and I totally agree, that makes sense to me.

In line with what PC says: Have you noticed that advertising for "Domination, no sex" is now common, and presumably the activity is profitable. It's popular because, if this alleged dom/me does as advertized, he or she is within the law. The 'establishment' has no problem with 'leather' costume parties either, provided there's no sex.

Whoa there, fella. You may be living in a lovely metro area, but if you think Bowers V. Hardwicke is still not biting everyone's ass you are being mainstreamed into a false sense of security. Call me paranoid. The "alleged domme" (And personally, there are some pros I respect a lot) attempts to be more compliant with the law, and also might not want to do that kind of sex work. It doesn't mean she can't get busted anyway.


Perhaps all these thoughts will 'gel' more with additional discussion, thanks to all.

J.

 

[Pure]

Pure said:
In line with what PC says: Have you noticed that advertising for "Domination, no sex" is now common, and presumably the activity is profitable. It's popular because, if this alleged dom/me does as advertized, he or she is within the law. The 'establishment' has no problem with 'leather' costume parties either, provided there's no sex.

Netzach said:
Whoa there, fella. You may be living in a lovely metro area, but if you think Bowers V. Hardwicke is still not biting everyone's ass you are being mainstreamed into a false sense of security. Call me paranoid. The "alleged domme" (And personally, there are some pros I respect a lot) attempts to be more compliant with the law, and also might not want to do that kind of sex work. It doesn't mean she can't get busted anyway.

Yes it's lovely metro. And Canada. I see the trend I mentioned: it's the domme's who cut the corners (e.g. with masturbation) that get busted. But then again, we have legal prostitution, but not brothels. (That's why the dommes I mentioned get busted.)

The court cases I've seen generally involve both sex and serious bodily harm, e.g. 'Spanner'. Also they involve more gay folks.
The inference is that if all three factors are not involved, the dom/me is in a much safer position. Local sherriff's mileage may vary, of course, also 'public outrage', election times for DA's etc.

J.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Perhaps an interesting bump for some who wish to discuss....

 

[LunarKitten]

Not sure if this will add anything to the discussion....But I do know of a Male/female relationship, neither are straight. They both play very hard together. The only time sex is EVER involved is when he wants to remind her of who is in charge.

I've always thought this was a very interesting relationship. *shrugs*

 

[raven2]

Not sure if this will add anything to the discussion....But I do know of a Male/female relationship, neither are straight. They both play very hard together. The only time sex is EVER involved is when he wants to remind her of who is in charge.

I've always thought this was a very interesting relationship. *shrugs*

That certainly is a very different and probably interesting relationship.