Who Is Jon Jacobs

[Miss Diva]

on another thread (Online and Real Life BDSM) his name is mentioned alot in various degrees of likes and dislikes. Tried to google his name but found nada. Who is he, why is he important, why is he important to BSDM?

thanks / M

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

on another thread (Online and Real Life BDSM) his name is mentioned alot in various degrees of likes and dislikes. Tried to google his name but found nada. Who is he, why is he important, why is he important to BSDM?

thanks / M

Miss Diva I think you will find he co authored several books on BDSM , Ds , Lifestyle, Fetish etc with Gloria and William Brame. I have also read the thread and though have enjoyed Gloria Brames website for several years was unfamiliar with the name of Jon Jacobs untill I recently asked a Dom I know if he knew. I thought at first he must have been a member of the BB prior to his death. I will take a step back now for those who are more familiar then a 'cut & paste' rendition/portrayal which frankly I think would be distasteful under the circumstances.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

I'm sure you will get many answers to this, in various amounts of detail, so I'll keep it short and sweet:

Jon Jacobs was an author and Dominant, co-author with Gloria and Will Brame of "Different Loving". He was an advocate of total power exchange relationships, among other things.

His own web site was "Submissive Women Speak":
http://www.submissivewomenspeak.net/

Gloria Brame's bio of Jacobs:
http://gloriabrame.com/diflove/authorsdiflove.html#jon

An obituary article:
http://www.enslavement.org.uk/weblog/7569/

Wikipedia's bio:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Jacobs

I was only able to find this article outside of Submissive Women Speak
http://www.cuffs.com/stories/discTexts/jonjacobs.htm
but many of his other writings can be found at the SWS site.

There was a lot of controversy around much of what Jacobs did later in his life, you can find some general information about the controversial aspects at:

http://www.enslavement.org.uk/jacobs

I am neither fan, nor foe, I never got to meet or correspond with Mr Jacobs. Some of the ideals he presented I agreed with, some I don't. Since I didn't know the man, I'll leave the character judgements to others.

Hope that helps!

 

[catalina_francisco]

LOL, Francisco got to communicate with him at length, and was very disturbed by some of his views etc. I don't know all the details as it was before our time and not a subject which brings out his happy side, so I don't raise it with him but it does come up at times in discussions.

Catalina

 

[FurryFury]

And I just bought three copies of that book. Did I mess up?

What do people think of the book?

Cause I plan to give two copies to friends. Before I do I'd like to know now that it seems one of the authors is controversial what people think.

Fury

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

And I just bought three copies of that book. Did I mess up?

What do people think of the book?

Cause I plan to give two copies to friends. Before I do I'd like to know now that it seems one of the authors is controversial what people think.

Fury

Miss Fury

IF your refering to 'Different Loving' I have not read it but its spoken very highly of by at least 3 Dominants I know. (bows out in this part for comment by others with first hand knowledge). Its actually on rebecca's long list of must get around to buying the book then must get around to reading list thang.

However I will say that which I have read directly otherwise associated with Gloria Brame has been somewhat cathartic for me personally. Even when I have been uncertain whether I was comfortable with the content . love @}-}rebecca----

 

[Evil_Geoff]

And I just bought three copies of that book. Did I mess up?

What do people think of the book?

Cause I plan to give two copies to friends. Before I do I'd like to know now that it seems one of the authors is controversial what people think.

Fury

If you are refering to Different Loving I recommend it. It gives a very thorough overview of many aspects of BDSM. My copy is autographed by both Will and Gloria Brame... I wish I could have gotten Jacobs autograph as well before he passed away. It was the first non-fiction BDSM book I found and was very useful to me when I was first starting this journey.

 

[catalina_francisco]

And I just bought three copies of that book. Did I mess up?

What do people think of the book?

Cause I plan to give two copies to friends. Before I do I'd like to know now that it seems one of the authors is controversial what people think.

Fury

Haven't read it as when I tried to buy it in Oz some years back, it was out of print..haven't bothered since though I know some who have it and seem to think it is OK. My feeling is reading is always good, even if only to challange and thus form a firmer view for yourself, but I have yet to find a piece of writing I can say I agree with or like everything written in that book. It is like asking questions here, ultimately the answers you get can only go so far in helping , the rest is up to you to find where you fit. The mistake many make though is reading something or several somethings, and thinking that is then the rulebook for how all 'real' submissives and Dominants should act, feel, and behave...it just doesn't work like that and has to come from within those playing and living it as opposed to trying to fit an image portrayed or subscribed to by others. It just isn't a 'one size fits all' kinda world.

Catalina

 

[FurryFury]

Thanks Rebecca, Evil_Geoff and Catalina,

I feel better about the book now!

I do know it's not a one size fits all world. I tend to do tons of research on anything that interest me but I always just take the things that seem to "fit" for me and discard the rest. I think I forget sometimes that not everyone does that.

Fury

 

[Marquis]

I recently bought Different Loving and The Loving Dominant.

I'm looking forward to reading about different perspectives within the community and how they approach different things.

 

[Blushing Bottom]

SWS a Bible of sorts.

Thank-you for posting!

I'm sure you will get many answers to this, in various amounts of detail, so I'll keep it short and sweet:

Jon Jacobs was an author and Dominant, co-author with Gloria and Will Brame of "Different Loving". He was an advocate of total power exchange relationships, among other things.

His own web site was "Submissive Women Speak":
http://www.submissivewomenspeak.net/

Gloria Brame's bio of Jacobs:
http://gloriabrame.com/diflove/authorsdiflove.html#jon

An obituary article:
http://www.enslavement.org.uk/weblog/7569/

Wikipedia's bio:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Jacobs

I was only able to find this article outside of Submissive Women Speak
http://www.cuffs.com/stories/discTexts/jonjacobs.htm
but many of his other writings can be found at the SWS site.

There was a lot of controversy around much of what Jacobs did later in his life, you can find some general information about the controversial aspects at:

http://www.enslavement.org.uk/jacobs

I am neither fan, nor foe, I never got to meet or correspond with Mr Jacobs. Some of the ideals he presented I agreed with, some I don't. Since I didn't know the man, I'll leave the character judgements to others.

Hope that helps!

 

[graceanne]

This thread title is driving me batty. Everytime I see it the song 'John Jacob Jingleheimer Schimdt, his name is my name too . . .' pops into my head. I've had it stuck in my head since this thread started.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

[*curious*]

I recently bought Different Loving and The Loving Dominant.

I'm looking forward to reading about different perspectives within the community and how they approach different things.

Different Loving was the first book I ever bought on BDSM. It was good in an overview sort of way. I enjoyed The Loving Dominant very much. Consensual Sadomasochism was a great book, as well; I highly reccomend it.

 

[Marquis]

I actually met John Warren last night. He did a demo on The Mind Fuck for my local group. That guy has some wicked ideas. Quintessential pervert (holy shit, does Quint get her name from that word? Quint-essential, heh heh.).

I haven't gotten far in his book yet, but I found it interesting how much he seems to want to detach himself from the word sadist. Yet in person, it becomes quite clear. As soon as I brought it up, he seemed to know the question. Something about "artful delivery of pain".

The man is definitely a sadist. It occurs to me how important it must be for the BDSM community to protect its image, but i think we should be able to call ourselves sadists.

 

[FurryFury]

I recently bought Different Loving and The Loving Dominant.

I'm looking forward to reading about different perspectives within the community and how they approach different things.

I just got them both too. I've only had time to skim them and the Screw The Roses book so far but they are interesting. I am thinking of buying Sexual Magic after I work my way through these three.

Fury

 

[rosco rathbone]

(holy shit, does Quint get her name from that word? Quint-essential, heh heh.).

I think her name comes from the Old English word for "vagina".

 

[alice_underneath]

I actually met John Warren last night. He did a demo on The Mind Fuck for my local group. That guy has some wicked ideas. Quintessential pervert (holy shit, does Quint get her name from that word? Quint-essential, heh heh.).

I haven't gotten far in his book yet, but I found it interesting how much he seems to want to detach himself from the word sadist. Yet in person, it becomes quite clear. As soon as I brought it up, he seemed to know the question. Something about "artful delivery of pain".

The man is definitely a sadist. It occurs to me how important it must be for the BDSM community to protect its image, but i think we should be able to call ourselves sadists.

From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

sadism:

1. The deriving of sexual gratification or the tendency to derive sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others.

2. The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from cruelty.

3. Extreme cruelty.

sadist:

an individual who practices sadism

These definitions encapsulate the image of sadism, as viewed by the vanilla world. Note the absence of the word consensual, and the emphasis on cruelty throughout.

Two years ago, if someone had said to me, "John is a sadist", I would have immediately recoiled with images of a bully setting a dog's tail on fire, or a guy who kidnaps and tortures his victims before he kills them.

If someone said the same thing to me today, I would assume that Joe is an aficionado of the pain/pleasure connection, from the Top side.

Leaving aside the many hypocritical, faux-religious, intolerant jerks in the vanilla world (the ones who can't even accept homosexuality as decent behavior), sadists still have an image problem. The problem stems, of course, from ignorance. Even the most non-judgmental person will condemn sexual behavior that is viewed as harming others in a non-consensual way.

On the one hand, you might be thinking: Who cares if they don't understand what I do? It's none of their goddamn business. And of course, you are right!

Unfortunately, however, this image problem has very serious consequences for sadists. Threat of incarceration, loss of employment, etc. These dangers will never really go away without acceptance by at least the tolerant subset of the vanilla world. And acceptance will never be possible without understanding.

I am neither a sadist nor a masochist. So it is not really my place to weigh in on the debate of what you should call yourselves. But my unsolicited advice would be to embrace terminology that clearly distinguishes you from the guy setting the dog's tail on fire.

Alice

 

[rosco rathbone]

Here's how I understand the controversy:

Jacobs was an articulate, psychologically-astute and rhetorically-skilled polemicist for the concept that very few men are capable of handling the responsibility of a "total power exchange" relationship. This idea by itself is enough to enrage many so called masters.

He went further by claiming that a great number of submissive women crave this type of relationship and are never fulfilled. In other words; you, as master, are not off the hook just because you don't claim that your relationship is TPE. Secretly, in the depths of her psyche, your woman wants more. She craves a REAL master--of which only 7 exist in the world, several of them dwelling in remote caves near the border of China and Nepal.

In my considered opinion; Jacobs had most of the makings of a cult leader. However, like other cult leaders (Carlos Castaneda comes to mind), part of his attraction was the fact that he had a great deal of value to say. It's impossible for a thoughtful person to discount his ideas across the board.

A "Jon Jacobs Wannabe" type was brilliantly satirized in my "Ask The Master" thread.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Thanks Rebecca, Evil_Geoff and Catalina,

I feel better about the book now!

I do know it's not a one size fits all world. I tend to do tons of research on anything that interest me but I always just take the things that seem to "fit" for me and discard the rest. I think I forget sometimes that not everyone does that.

Fury

LOL, I know, though hopefully you won't turn out like a couple of others who came here and researched, played in their private life, and then decided it wasn't for them so declared most who liked it were over the top and basically misguided and inferior for wanting this type relationship instead of basically vanilla. One in particular who became quite a part of the board comes to mind. Don't see you as such though.

As to JJ, from what I recall of what F told me of his conversations with him, what he wrote for public consumption was not all he was about and in part served to help his public image, but did not reveal what he really believed personally a Dominant/Master to be and how they should exercise that right. RR touches well on it in saying he was similar to a cult figure, but like many cult figures in their discussions, he made it clear his way was not about consent or even choice, but very much about taking what you want in an illegal and abusive manner. IOW, write and say publicly what you need to to get known, accepted and make money, privately present a very different path to achieving a D/s relationship....and yes, the women in his life, similar to cult converts, worshipped him and his way in an almost blind brainwashed manner.

Catalina

 

[Marquis]

LOL, I know, though hopefully you won't turn out like a couple of others who came here and researched, played in their private life, and then decided it wasn't for them so declared most who liked it were over the top and basically misguided and inferior for wanting this type relationship instead of basically vanilla. One in particular who became quite a part of the board comes to mind. Don't see you as such though.

As to JJ, from what I recall of what F told me of his conversations with him, what he wrote for public consumption was not all he was about and in part served to help his public image, but did not reveal what he really believed personally a Dominant/Master to be and how they should exercise that right. RR touches well on it in saying he was similar to a cult figure, but like many cult figures in their discussions, he made it clear his way was not about consent or even choice, but very much about taking what you want in an illegal and abusive manner. IOW, write and say publicly what you need to to get known, accepted and make money, privately present a very different path to achieving a D/s relationship....and yes, the women in his life, similar to cult converts, worshipped him and his way in an almost blind brainwashed manner.

Catalina

I must read more of this man so that I might learn of his mojo.

 

[rosco rathbone]

he made it clear his way was not about consent or even choice, but very much about taking what you want in an illegal and abusive manner.

This is unfair , I believe.

ALthough there was way more to Jacobs than you'd know from reading his book--most of his activities ,polemics, and public battles with other figures in the world of online domination happened on the internet--and although he was obviously an enormously charismatic figure with a tendency to turn a certain kind of woman into a googly-eyed sub-bot; I see no evidence that he ever acted in an "illegal or abusive" manner.

I had the opportunity, in the course of my online career as a sexual pundit and perverse thinker, to know some of the people he mentored, and some declared their lives forever changed for the better. Other apostate subs characterized his (usually long distance) techniques as emotionally or psychologically abusive--once they'd broken away from his circle. All the people I knew who had been involved with him gave the sense that they had been deeply affected by his ideas and accepted them as more or less valid; regardless of their opinions of the man himself.

One of the keys to understanding Jon Jacobs is to realize that he generally counselled women to avoid most doms. He believed that abuse and emotional damage were certain to result; even in cases where the dom had the best intentions in the world. One of his main activities was counselling and advising women who were seeking 24/7 masters and interviewing their prospective mates. From what I understand; it was rather hard to pass the test--but not impossible (although "real master" status was subject to being revoked at a later date if the dom should slip up).

Naturally; by setting himself up as the Judge Of All Masters and vigourously defending this position against all comers; he earned the malice of masters worldwide. And, just as naturally, he earned the interest of many submissive women.

I'm of two minds on Jacobs. In my opinionhere was definitely a self-serving quality to his whole operation; although he would have claimed selflessness. I think he really needed to be the one true master-even if only a counsellor or mentor--for a large number of people. As far as I know; he never came clean about this glaringly obvious motivation and that made me lose a lot of respect for him. However; he pretty much "wrote the book" as far as TPE, responsible mastery and submissive psychology. His ideas certainly influenced me, almost against my will.

 

[FurryFury]

LOL, I know, though hopefully you won't turn out like a couple of others who came here and researched, played in their private life, and then decided it wasn't for them so declared most who liked it were over the top and basically misguided and inferior for wanting this type relationship instead of basically vanilla. One in particular who became quite a part of the board comes to mind. Don't see you as such though. <snip>

Catalina

You know I saw someone do that and it puzzled me a great deal.

I just don't understand what would drive a person to go balls out for something then forsake it and say anyone who had that was wrong. I can only conclude that some horrible thing happened in that person's life which they are blamming on BDSM urges.

I really don't see myself that way either. I may grown weary of trying to find what I want, define terms or make it happen in my life but what I am and what I need will remain at the core of me. You won't see me denying these things. Rarely will you see me judge others in a unforgiving way either.

Fury

 

[Netzach]

I actually met John Warren last night. He did a demo on The Mind Fuck for my local group. That guy has some wicked ideas. Quintessential pervert (holy shit, does Quint get her name from that word? Quint-essential, heh heh.).

I haven't gotten far in his book yet, but I found it interesting how much he seems to want to detach himself from the word sadist. Yet in person, it becomes quite clear. As soon as I brought it up, he seemed to know the question. Something about "artful delivery of pain".

The man is definitely a sadist. It occurs to me how important it must be for the BDSM community to protect its image, but i think we should be able to call ourselves sadists.

I had Warren and Screw the Roses for my 101 books, and I have to say I liked Warren a lot better. I think I felt more kinship with his deliberation, plotting, planning yet compassionate sadomasochism than I did with the more west-coast feelgood SM of Devon and Miller. It's not that one book is bad the other is good, it's more where you see yourself. I think you'll enjoy the book.

 

[Netzach]

Fair assessment. I didn't get a sense of danger or an endorsement of plucking women off the street and chaining them in basements. I think where people got this vibe was in the assertion that a real submissive woman will need to be in a situation in which she can't leave. What's missing is recognition of the fact that this is a subtle, ongoing process. (also, I'm going on a limb, a real Dominant will also need to be in a situtation where his partner can't leave, would not consider leaving -- it was an emphasis on interdependent needs)

My beef was the limitations of the description of Dom and sub psychology. Basically JJ held up a profile of a certain kind of femsub, held up a certain profile of female psychology that almost any woman can see herself in to some degree (all women are subs or vanilla) and then held up a very specific kind of profile of male psychology (all men are DOMS or they are worthless vanilla wimps.)

It's fine and dandy as MDom/femsub totalitarian TPE descriptions, and it nails a certain kind of slave relationship, but it totally missses on same-sex dynamics and the dynamics of Leather slavery (applying traditionally a same-sex model of relation to participants of whatever genders)
or service slavery, or perish the thought, anything applicable to FemDom.

There are other valid models for slavery. Anyone interested should take a look at Master Jim and slave marsha -- while there's some overlap with this kind of TPE there's also a lot of difference, there are other ways to go that don't involve the infantilization of the slave.

This is unfair , I believe.

ALthough there was way more to Jacobs than you'd know from reading his book--most of his activities ,polemics, and public battles with other figures in the world of online domination happened on the internet--and although he was obviously an enormously charismatic figure with a tendency to turn a certain kind of woman into a googly-eyed sub-bot; I see no evidence that he ever acted in an "illegal or abusive" manner.

I had the opportunity, in the course of my online career as a sexual pundit and perverse thinker, to know some of the people he mentored, and some declared their lives forever changed for the better. Other apostate subs characterized his (usually long distance) techniques as emotionally or psychologically abusive--once they'd broken away from his circle. All the people I knew who had been involved with him gave the sense that they had been deeply affected by his ideas and accepted them as more or less valid; regardless of their opinions of the man himself.

One of the keys to understanding Jon Jacobs is to realize that he generally counselled women to avoid most doms. He believed that abuse and emotional damage were certain to result; even in cases where the dom had the best intentions in the world. One of his main activities was counselling and advising women who were seeking 24/7 masters and interviewing their prospective mates. From what I understand; it was rather hard to pass the test--but not impossible (although "real master" status was subject to being revoked at a later date if the dom should slip up).

Naturally; by setting himself up as the Judge Of All Masters and vigourously defending this position against all comers; he earned the malice of masters worldwide. And, just as naturally, he earned the interest of many submissive women.

I'm of two minds on Jacobs. In my opinionhere was definitely a self-serving quality to his whole operation; although he would have claimed selflessness. I think he really needed to be the one true master-even if only a counsellor or mentor--for a large number of people. As far as I know; he never came clean about this glaringly obvious motivation and that made me lose a lot of respect for him. However; he pretty much "wrote the book" as far as TPE, responsible mastery and submissive psychology. His ideas certainly influenced me, almost against my will.

 

[catalina_francisco]

This is unfair , I believe.

ALthough there was way more to Jacobs than you'd know from reading his book--most of his activities ,polemics, and public battles with other figures in the world of online domination happened on the internet--and although he was obviously an enormously charismatic figure with a tendency to turn a certain kind of woman into a googly-eyed sub-bot; I see no evidence that he ever acted in an "illegal or abusive" manner.

I had the opportunity, in the course of my online career as a sexual pundit and perverse thinker, to know some of the people he mentored, and some declared their lives forever changed for the better. Other apostate subs characterized his (usually long distance) techniques as emotionally or psychologically abusive--once they'd broken away from his circle. All the people I knew who had been involved with him gave the sense that they had been deeply affected by his ideas and accepted them as more or less valid; regardless of their opinions of the man himself.

One of the keys to understanding Jon Jacobs is to realize that he generally counselled women to avoid most doms. He believed that abuse and emotional damage were certain to result; even in cases where the dom had the best intentions in the world. One of his main activities was counselling and advising women who were seeking 24/7 masters and interviewing their prospective mates. From what I understand; it was rather hard to pass the test--but not impossible (although "real master" status was subject to being revoked at a later date if the dom should slip up).

Naturally; by setting himself up as the Judge Of All Masters and vigourously defending this position against all comers; he earned the malice of masters worldwide. And, just as naturally, he earned the interest of many submissive women.

I'm of two minds on Jacobs. In my opinionhere was definitely a self-serving quality to his whole operation; although he would have claimed selflessness. I think he really needed to be the one true master-even if only a counsellor or mentor--for a large number of people. As far as I know; he never came clean about this glaringly obvious motivation and that made me lose a lot of respect for him. However; he pretty much "wrote the book" as far as TPE, responsible mastery and submissive psychology. His ideas certainly influenced me, almost against my will.

Can only go from what came from the horses mouth so to speak, and it is my understanding he was very clear about what he meant. Maybe it is another facet of his personality that he did say many conflicting things to different people depending on how he perceived it would be taken. It is not that unusual for people who feel they have the answers and need as you say, to feel they are the one true xyz and should be respected as such. It also is not unusual that people who feel a need to keep things hidden from most, and contradict themselves with others, that they are not all they profess to be. Usually if you become well known and respected, you do not feel a need to keep quiet about certain aspects, thoughts, motivations unless it is because there is something to hide.

Catalina