A Masters Creed (not for all - BDSM related - if offended, do not open)

[Redmage]

"Pain is the body's signal to the brain to say, "Hey, you're being injured here, so you'd better do something about it, pronto!" Being tickled is a gentle manipulation of nerve endings in a specific way, and has nothing to do with registering damage or injury."

Um, no. Actually:


From http://www.soundmedicine.iu.edu/archive/2001/mystery/tickle.html:

"Scientists have long believed that tickling evolved in early man as a defense mechanism to alert the body when foreign and potentially dangerous objects were touching it. That helps explain why we're ticklish in our most vulnerable spots, such as the belly, which covers many major organs, and the neck, which houses the vital jugular vein."

The thing is that even though both tickling and pain are part of the body's survival mechanism, that's not the only use we can make of them. Anyone who likes very spicy food can tell you that.

The idea that we should only and always make use of our body's mechanisms as they were evolved to be used is silly. It's obviously silly when you step back and look at it face-on. Our endorphins are the natural opiates that evolved to help us function in situations of extreme stress, but many people - runners, strength athletes, and kinksters - have learned to harness their endorphin cascade in ways that give them pleasure, rather than avoid them as their evolution should dictate. Tickle-philes do the same thing with another natural warning mechanism.

We can taste sweet things because it's a survival advantage - it helps us recognize natural sugars that our bodies can use for energy. But is that what we're doing when we buy a candy bar? Of course not - we're using it for pleasure. Did our sense of hearing evolve to allow us to appreciate symphonies? No, we're wasting a perfectly good evolutionary advantage on nothing more important than our own enjoyment.

Our pain receptors evolved to warn us of danger, and they're important for that. But when you can arrange things so that there is no true danger then, if you wish, you can explore pain for other purposes. Nor is this a sign of mental illness, as Drew has often insisted. Mental illness would be ignoring danger in an uncontrolled situation. Taking care to make sure that any risks are minimized and controlled is a sign of due caution and sound mental health.

If you want to talk about crazy people, let's talk about sunbathers. Those lunatics ignore the well-known dangers of ultraviolet radiation, including painful burns and even cancer that could kill them! And for what? All they get out of it is a pleasing tone to their skin. They're risking their very lives just for the sake of vanity! Clearly, these are people who need to be locked away for their own protection, and those heartless bastards who exploit these vulnerable souls just to make money off sunscreen and tanning salons are the lowest of the low.

Or maybe it's just better to let people make their own choices. The ability to explore sensations for their own sake without blindly following instinct is a sign that we've evolved beyond those creatures who aren't able to make such choices.

 

[Ticklerguy4u]

Pain is the body's signal to the brain to say, "Hey, you're being injured here, so you'd better do something about it, pronto!" Being tickled is a gentle manipulation of nerve endings in a specific way, and has nothing to do with registering damage or injury. At first I couldn't understand why you can't see the difference, but now I think I do. And yes, I do go out of my way to avoid injury as most sane people do, but I think I take my lumps about as well as most people.

So you're saying that kick boxers, wrestlers, and football players have a vested interest in receiving pain. Obviously I disagree. Yes, they deal with pain, and they know it is coming. But again, the pain isn't the agenda. It's the endurance and the strengthening that is the agenda. They tolerate the pain as a side effect of their goal to become faster, stronger, and more resilient.

Of course you disagree. It would demolish your whole argument. They tolerate the pain as a side effect of their goal...etc. So when to boxers are in the ring and one boxer swings to hit his opponent and the opponent does the same. They pumple eachother consistantly. And your telling me that its strictly a workout. Funny, I thought the purpose was to knock the opponent out for ten seconds. I must of missed something..you must see something I dont. Maybe they should take up running instead.

I'd call that a woman who does everything I want because she loves me. What do YOU call it?

I thought you called it servitude.

I strive for a relationship of mutual giving and receiving. My wife and I have done well in this regard over the years. If she wanted me to hurt her, I wouldn't do it. Why? Because I love, respect and cherish her too much.

How do you love , respect, and cherish too much by denying what she wants from you?

I'm well past it, in fact. It's just not a factor in the equation from where I sit. Just because somebody likes something that's bad for them doesn't mean you should give it to them. Whether or not the woman likes it, the so-called master enjoys dishing it out. To me, only a sick twisted individual could derive pleasure from inflicting pain. It's about as close to textbook evil as it gets. That's my opinion. Of all the things I've read and re-read about the consensuality, and the mutual respect, the closeness, the so-called equality between master and slave (a truly laughable concept given their definitions)....None of it has served to change my feeling that it is wrong for a man to take pleasure in inflicting pain on a woman. It's an impressive smoke screen, but the underlying insidocity is still at the foundation.

Wow, you seem to see woman as small , little, frail , weaklings huh? That she , unless being somehow manipulated, couldnt make up her own mind about what she likes and turns her on. I do, however I dont go around smacking other women on the street just because as you put it, love smaking them around. As a matter of fact , Ive never laid a hand on a woman unless it was in "play." But then again , I know the difference between reality and fantasy..which you seem to view as the same. I am more wary of you..someone who cant desipher the difference is in danger of becoming their own enemy. Want book facts..that is textbook as well.

Who said I don't understand it? It isn't rocket science, dude. I understand it just fine. I understand the reflexive need to assume a misunderstanding when somebody challenges what you do. There's no misunderstanding here. Mearly disapproval.

The only disapproval I have is not every man should be put into that kind of situation. They can not handle it. They are too hungry for power over a female. I am not and since you really dont know me and never bothered too, Im sure you opinion of me would be the typical stereo-type of your own imagination. You are always welcome to PM me.

Ahhh....So that's the reason for all this hostility toward me. You're one of the guys who enjoys inflicting pain on women, aren't you? Well, that does explain much. If you're looking for an apology, I think they're on sale at Sears. As far as women inflicting pain on the guys, I offer no comment. I haven't yet made up my mind.
Bingo! I can see the lightbulb glowing over your head.
My comments and feelings expressed only apply to men deriving pleasure from inflicting pain on women. As for women on women and women on men, the jury's still out on those.

I don't want an apology. I dont need one. Why no comment on females on guys..is it that women are the weaker sex thing again. I guess it is. or maybe because it hits tooo close to home. As a lee, you are dominated by women. Quit being biaz..dont just accuse the guys.

 

[Redmage]

My comments and feelings expressed only apply to men deriving pleasure from inflicting pain on women. As for women on women and women on men, the jury's still out on those.

Interesting. I wonder why something that's so simple and obvious becomes hard to decide simply because the hand on the whip belongs to a woman instead of a man. That's got to be the first case I've ever heard of where a person's gender entitled them to a different moral standard.

A woman who enjoys sadistically tickling someone is AOK in my book. A man who enjoys sadistically tickling someone? I'm fine with that. Because again, tickling is not destructive or injurious. In such cases I'm inclined to say whatever you like to do is your business.

Pain is not destructive or injurious. Destruction and injury are. Tattoos cause injury. Sunbathing causes injury. Getting punched in the head by the opposing boxer causes injury.

What this amounts to is simply a rationalization for "What I like is OK, but what those people like isn't." This whole thing, from the gender double-standard to the kink double-standard, is an exercise in hypocrisy.

 

[TicklishLurker]

You know, I don't even want to try and show people BDSM isn't destructive or wrong anymore. All I want to do is play. This thread has left me hungry for a good paddling followed by a vicious tickling. Ah - if only Star Trek transporter technology was real. Or Harry Potter type magic. A good old portkey to the nearest Dom(me) I can trust would come in handy right about now. If it was a man it wouldn't hurt if they talked and looked like Professor Snape.

 

[Ticklerguy4u]

You know, I don't even want to try and show people BDSM isn't destructive or wrong anymore. All I want to do is play. This thread has left me hungry for a good paddling followed by a vicious tickling. Ah - if only Star Trek transporter technology was real. Or Harry Potter type magic. A good old portkey to the nearest Dom(me) I can trust would come in handy right about now. If it was a man it wouldn't hurt if they talked and looked like Professor Snape.

Would you settle for one that looks like a Klingon instead.

Interesting. I wonder why something that's so simple and obvious becomes hard to decide simply because the hand on the whip belongs to a woman instead of a man. That's got to be the first case I've ever heard of where a person's gender entitled them to a different moral standard.

Simple..he believes in the old saying "A man should never hit a woman."

 

[Redmage]

Would you settle for one that looks like a Klingon instead.

How'd you know what I look like?

Simple..he believes in the old saying "A man should never hit a woman."

And yet, you know, I've never heard anyone else follow on with that to say, "But maybe women should hit men."

 

[kis123]

You know, I don't even want to try and show people BDSM isn't destructive or wrong anymore. All I want to do is play. This thread has left me hungry for a good paddling followed by a vicious tickling. Ah - if only Star Trek transporter technology was real. Or Harry Potter type magic. A good old portkey to the nearest Dom(me) I can trust would come in handy right about now. If it was a man it wouldn't hurt if they talked and looked like Professor Snape.

Although I'm not in tune with the BDSM lifestyle, I admire the way you have put your feelings into words. It helps me understand your journey and some of the psychological needs that get met through the sessions.

I have a very high aversion to pain mostly due to medical reasons and I'm basically a bondage wimp who's trust issues just don't make room for it. But I'm very curious and am always interested in the opinions of those who have experienced bondage.

And I can understand your comparisons from the vanilla to fetish relationships. During my marriage, it always had to be his way. If he didn't get his way, he tantrumed like a toddler until he did. When The verbal and emotional abuse wasn't enough, he stepped it up to the physical. I was pretty much done from there.

I ended up meeting a man who isn't one of us, but probably should be. He helped me get over "tickling abuse" that was used during my marriage to control me and showed me that when used correctly can be a beautiful thing. We didn't last, but my passion for tickling did and it lead me to all of you here on TMF. So something good came out of the bad I guess!

Don't waste your time attempting to convince others of your position. If it works for you and you feel your needs are being taken care of, then remain happy and forget the rest!

 

[isabeau]

Don't waste your time attempting to convince others of your position. If it works for you and you feel your needs are being taken care of, then remain happy and forget the rest!

damn this girl is smart... that says it all in a nutshell for me.

isabeau

 

[TicklishLurker]

Would you settle for one that looks like a Klingon instead.

That could work. You could be torturing me to find out Starfleet secrets. Only problem is, I'm just a worker in the Enterprise's Ten-Forward, I don't know any secrets.

 

[Ticklerguy4u]

That could work. You could be torturing me to find out Starfleet secrets. Only problem is, I'm just a worker in the Enterprise's Ten-Forward, I don't know any secrets.

Your lying!! I know you know. I am going to tickle you until you until you admit it..

 

[TicklishLurker]

Your lying!! I know you know. I am going to tickle you until you until you admit it..

Ohoohoo nohohooo! I swehehear! I knhohow nohohothing! Nahahaot eheeeven Guananain's fahahahavorite drink!

 

[BellaRisa]

"Don't waste your time attempting to convince others of your position. If it works for you and you feel your needs are being taken care of, then remain happy and forget the rest!"

Thanks Kis, for putting things in perspective so succinctly More non-BDSMmers should have your grace, open-mindedness and pure common sense.

Personally I avoid about 90 percent of debates like this on the various forums of which I'm a member, because A) usually someone else is right there to say what I would have and B) once I realize that the folks disagreeing aren't remotely involved in the Lifestyle and are basing their arguments on phony morals and idle speculation I lose interest. On this board, I occasionally like to wade into the frey because I think there needs to be long-time female BDSMmers discussing things from that POV. Newbies join everyday, and it's nice if they can see things from the viewpoint of women who actually do these things instead of just talking about it, (novel concept, the whole speaking from firsthand experience dealie ) and are happier and more fulfilled because of their activities, I think 😎

Meanwhile, a semi-vanilla friend who's been keeping up with this topic said something I found fascinating. There are a few folks here who are against men hurting women for their own pleasure, and have issue with men who would do such a thing. Those same guys indulge in tickling sessions with women other than their wives. I know, I've seen them. My friend pointed out that going outside the marriage that way is cheating and hurts the wives. When I replied that these wives didn't feel hurt and had no problem with their husbands doing this, in fact often preferred it and encouraged it, it was pointed out that according to some here a man should never do anything to hurt a woman in any way even if she wants him to and it's totally consensual; it's still wrong, and if he loves her he won't want to hurt her. Causing a woman pain and injury, whether physical or mental, is always reprehensible and deplorable, and her wanting and encouraging it doesn't make any difference; giving a woman what she wants is wrong if ultimately it's not good for her, which isn't something you let her decide for herself if she's not going to make the 'right' choices. And any 'man' who can get off in such a bad and selfish way should be ashamed of himself. Again, it doesn't matter if all parties involved are happy and satisfied, preying on the type of woman who would let you do this by marrying her and then cheating on her is just plain *wrong*.

Something to ponder, if one is so inclined...

Bella

 

[drew70]

Redmage. Seems like ages since you and I have chatted, doesn't it? My goodness, where does the time go?! So you've finally dropped the pretense of ignoring me, have you? I was wondering when you'd get around to that. This issue sure must be awfully important to you, to actually stoop to talking to somebody so "hypocritical" and "without understanding" as drew70. Tsk tsk. I'm sure your disciples would disapprove if it were within them to question anything you say or do. But hey, I know you're a busy man, so let's get on with it, shall we? 😀

Interesting. I wonder why something that's so simple and obvious becomes hard to decide simply because the hand on the whip belongs to a woman instead of a man. That's got to be the first case I've ever heard of where a person's gender entitled them to a different moral standard.

In what way is it different? Since I've given no opinion one way or the other, we really don't know if it's different yet, now do we? What if I decide it's no different? I might, you know. Makes it a little tougher to support your allegations of hypocrisy, doesn't it?

Pain is not destructive or injurious. Destruction and injury are. Tattoos cause injury. Sunbathing causes injury. Getting punched in the head by the opposing boxer causes injury.

Agreed. But it's one thing to risk destructive injury to achieve a goal, such as a sun tan, or a tattoo or to better one's ability to compete. It's another thing altogether to invite injury merely to experience the pain of it. I'm glad you mentioned the boxers though, because the one thing you can say about them is that at least they are permitted to...dare I say it...retaliate...defend themselves.... 😱 How distasteful that must seem to you, to actually face somebody on equal terms, who isn't bound and helpless.

What this amounts to is simply a rationalization for "What I like is OK, but what those people like isn't."

Why do I need any such rationalization? We have no problem saying that the likes of pedophiles and cannibals are not okay. Whether you want to admit it or not, there are behaviors out there that fall into the category of "not okay." Where you and I disagree is whether or not the behavior of a man taking pleasure in the beating of a woman falls into it.

This whole thing, from the gender double-standard to the kink double-standard, is an exercise in hypocrisy.

I do have a double standard when it comes to gender, and it's one for which I offer no apology. It's been ingrained in me since day one. Boys don't hit girls. A gentleman does not strike a lady, even when provoked to do so. I allow ladies to go first, and I hold the door open for them. I'll offer my seat to a woman on the bus or train, and I speak to them more gently than I do other men. So yes, the awful truth is out there. *gasp* I'm guilty of treating women differently than I treat men. If that's hypocrisy, I'll gladly wear the label.

As for the tickling vs pain, you've tried unsuccessfully to equate the two, to support your allegations of hypocrisy. "They're both part of the body's warning system" so that makes them equal. First the contention that tickling is part of the body's warning system is little more than a hunch, on which those few scientists have looked into it basically agree on. There's little to no evidence, and certainly no proof. Secondly, even if this theory is true there's a big difference between a warning of an insect crawling in your navel, then a warning that your about to lose a limb or an organ. But the biggest difference still remains unchallenged. Tickling someone even to the extreme causes no injury or damage, beyond a little difficulty breathing, and that is a result of our reactions to tickling rather than the administering of it. While milder inflictions of pain can be achieved without injury, you and Bella have both admitted that BDSM often involves cigar burns, brandings with hot iron, and back punches. Your attempt to liken such injuries to sunburn and tennis elbow is hardly supportable, bordering on laughable.

 

[Redmage]

There are a few folks here who are against men hurting women for their own pleasure, and have issue with men who would do such a thing. Those same guys indulge in tickling sessions with women other than their wives. I know, I've seen them. My friend pointed out that going outside the marriage that way is cheating and hurts the wives. When I replied that these wives didn't feel hurt and had no problem with their husbands doing this, in fact often preferred it and encouraged it, it was pointed out that according to some here a man should never do anything to hurt a woman in any way even if she wants him to and it's totally consensual; it's still wrong, and if he loves her he won't want to hurt her. Causing a woman pain and injury, whether physical or mental, is always reprehensible and deplorable, and her wanting and encouraging it doesn't make any difference; giving a woman what she wants is wrong if ultimately it's not good for her, which isn't something you let her decide for herself if she's not going to make the 'right' choices. And any 'man' who can get off in such a bad and selfish way should be ashamed of himself. Again, it doesn't matter if all parties involved are happy and satisfied, preying on the type of woman who would let you do this by marrying her and then cheating on her is just plain *wrong*.

That does sound awfully familiar. I don't suppose your friend was able to accept that a wife who encourages her husband in this way probably doesn't feel that she's being hurt? Your friend's opinion about that trumps hers, in his mind?

 

[siamese dream]

Drew, you need a new hobby man, this is a lost cause just like it was in the tickling vs. pain thread and both sides have their own point, and there's no way you'll ever see eye-to-eye, and the 'poor helpless' women have a right to enjoy sex play in whatever way they want it, if that means being burned and beat etc. then you may not understand it but it's what they like. I don't understand all of it myself but I'm not gonna say those women have a mental problem or an emotional problem, they just get off on something that I don't. Some women like being screwed in the ass, personally I think it's kinda yucky and would hurt a lot, so I've never done it, but it's not gonna make me think anything less of a girl who has done it. Some women hate being tickled; I would only hope they'd be open-minded enough not to think less of someone like me who loves it. It's fine to be a 'gentleman', and hold doors for your lady, etc. At the end of my date with such a gentleman, if we ended up in bed together, and while making love I yelled out: "Slap me on the ass, as hard as you can!", would a gentleman oblige his lady's request or would he dump me immediately for having too many issues? 😉 Sexuality is complicated, it's not one of those things where you can put everyone in one group and say they're all the same, there's infinite differences in what people like and dislike within the BDSM world and within every sexual pairing.

 

[BellaRisa]

That does sound awfully familiar. I don't suppose your friend was able to accept that a wife who encourages her husband in this way probably doesn't feel that she's being hurt? Your friend's opinion about that trumps hers, in his mind?

Well of course his opinion trumps hers! After all, the craving for monogamy is natural and understandable. A craving to be touched by people other than your spouse is dangerous and self-destructive. To paraphrase someone from another post, "a man who gets a boner from hurting women has no place among human habitation. Dress it up all you like, call it "consensual" or whatever, the bottom line is guys like the ones who play with women other than their wives get a woodie from hurting women." You see, a husband tickling or being tickled by other women harms his wife, even if she doesn't think it does. To quote again, from a remarkably similar and recent thread: "So here we have this sadist, this man who derives pleasure from harming women. By this very nature he's on shaky moral ground already, but he compounds this character flaw with an even greater one, preying on women who through their damaged sense of self-preservation are particularly vulnerable to such men."

Darn these horrible men and their selfish tickling ways...

Bella

 

[Redmage]

Well of course his opinion trumps hers! After all, the craving for monogamy is natural and understandable. A craving to be touched by people other than your spouse is dangerous and self-destructive.

Does your friend think it's OK for women to be non-monogamous? That would complete the analogy, but it's probably a bit much to hope for. Not many people can make that kind of hypocrisy a point of pride.

I'm still waiting for someone to start a crusade to stop those poor benighted souls who sear their skin and risk fatal cancer in the pursuit of suntans. But no one seems willing to step up and help them, or to speak out against the vicious profiteers who exploit the vanity of these vulnerable innocents in the name of money.

 

[BellaRisa]

Does your friend think it's OK for women to be non-monogamous? That would complete the analogy, but it's probably a bit much to hope for. Not many people can make that kind of hypocrisy a point of pride.

He doesn't know, the jury is still out on that aspect of things. Why it would require such deep thought when having any opinion other than 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' would result in a horrendously sad and obvious double standard I don't know, but then again he's a bit irrational when it comes to women; he loves and respects them so very, very much that he's still working on a way to justify thinking of them as intelligent and possibly even superior beings yet deciding for them what's ok and what isn't...boggles the mind.

Don't even get me started on tanning. I've been brown since 1972, it's fun and reasonably attractive but hardly worth frying yourself and risking all kinds of aging and skin disease over.

Bella

 

[kis123]

Don't even get me started on tanning. I've been brown since 1972, it's fun and reasonably attractive but hardly worth frying yourself and risking all kinds of aging and skin disease over.

Bella

Amen sista'!!!!!

 

[Mastertank1]

A master is Demanding & takes full advantage of the power Given to Them, but Knows how to Share the Pleasure that comes from that Precious Gift.​

I get the "demanding" and the "taking full advantage" parts all too well, but I'm wondering with whom the master shares "the Pleasure."? Does he share his slave with his drinking buddies? Let them get in a few whacks and punches, perhaps? I hope you're not going to tell me that he shares "the Pleasure" with his victim, since the pleasure of the sadist differs radically from that of the masochist.

First let me mention that I base these replies not so much on personal experience, as I have seldom given pain to a sub, but I have observed many, many scenes involving pain. When the first hetero BDSM club in NYC opened, a place called Chateau 19 on west 19th street in Chelsea, I was the bouncer, and got to observe a great many different couples and groups interacting. Later, I was also the bouncer at the New York Hellfire club and got to observe even more.
Most Doms I observed, both male and female, 'shared pleasure' by interspersing the blows or pinches with carresses and kisses, and teases, and sometimes both at the same time. They generally made sure the sub climaxed before taking their own pleasure, if they even did so. Some of them preferred to reserve their own climax for later, in private.
Just BTW, I have seen several BDSM couples break up because the dom was NOT willing to give as much pain and or brutality as the sub was asking for, but only once because the reverse was true.

A Master must always show them that Their Guidance Y Tutoring is Knowledgeable & Deserving of their attention, that This is a Person they can Learn from, & that they can Trust Their Direction.​

This point seems to suggest that a master must exhibit intellectual superiority, that the slave can "learn from" him. How does a master determine for himself whether or not he's qualified to teach and give direction? Is there some kind of IQ test, or exam that certifies a master is competent to teach his slave and provide "direction?" I can't help but think of Bella, one of the wisest people on this forum, and how so very few are her intellectual equal, much less her superior. I have to wonder what a self-proclaimed master could teach her.[/QUOTE]

This refers to lifestyle rather than scene only relationships. I've never been in one of those, for two reasons; first, my self opinion, while offensively high, is not high enough to believe I'm fit to own another person 24/7/365. Second, once, when I was young and foolish, I got involved with a girl who wanted to be my 24/7 slave. She wanted to put her house, car and bank account in my name, and the whole nine yards. I discovered that, fantasies aside, I was so constantly worried that the descisions I was making for her life were the right ones for her that I could not enjoy the situation, or much of anything else, due to constant worrying and rethinking. I had to break it off with her. The last thing she sid when we parted was that I'm exactly the kind of guy who should be a king or dictator, because I would bsolutely hate the job and invest so much time, thought and energy into doing it right. No, thanks! (shudders)!

Mastertank1

We who play and dance are thought mad by they who hear no music.

 

[tickledorange]

(I don't know if she quit reading this thread or not, but...) Thanks for posting these, Mimi. I thought they were both very interesting. Someday, just to see how it goes, I'd maybe try something like this (maybe if I grow up more).

 

[BellaRisa]

As for the tickling vs pain, you've tried unsuccessfully to equate the two, to support your allegations of hypocrisy. "They're both part of the body's warning system" so that makes them equal. First the contention that tickling is part of the body's warning system is little more than a hunch, on which those few scientists have looked into it basically agree on. There's little to no evidence, and certainly no proof.

Actually he's been quite successful. The studies that have been done, which are by qualified and highly educated scientists and researchers, all point to the same conclusions. The studies on the origins and reasons behind our reactions to pain lead to those same conclusions, in fact the tickling theories are often part of those pain studies *because* they're so similar, yet no one is speaking against them or conveniently labeled them as mere hunches.

At this point we have actual BDSM participants, years of experience, and published scientific works all being dismissed. Fascinating.

Secondly, even if this theory is true there's a big difference between a warning of an insect crawling in your navel, then a warning that your about to lose a limb or an organ.

Not really. The purpose of both is to alert you of impending and possibly dire harm. An insect who's bite or sting can kill you is every bit as dangerous, if not moreso, than stepping on a rock or cutting your finger. And the body reacts to deeper tickling, rib tickling for instance, the exact same way it reacts to pain. In fact, we all know that many of us freak out way worse in an effort to get away from tickling. Since many folks who can take incredible amounts of pain will often do *anything* short of chewing off a limb or folding themselves in half to avoid even the lightest tickling, some would say that tickling is far too deeply rooted a bodily warning for those folks to overcome. Something to think about.

But the biggest difference still remains unchallenged. Tickling someone even to the extreme causes no injury or damage, beyond a little difficulty breathing, and that is a result of our reactions to tickling rather than the administering of it. While milder inflictions of pain can be achieved without injury, you and Bella have both admitted that BDSM often involves cigar burns, brandings with hot iron, and back punches. Your attempt to liken such injuries to sunburn and tennis elbow is hardly supportable, bordering on laughable.

I know that I did indeed challenge this this once before, but for the record:

When you discuss tickling, the focus seems to stay on vellication style, light play.That's fine, but it's hardly the only form of tickling that warrants discussion. It's not even the kind discussed most often on this board. Many of us prefer to engage in much stronger tickling, the kind that involves very deep kneading and prodding of muscle tissue and can indeed lead to damage, believe me. It has to be done just right and care must be taken to do it safely. Just like cigar burns and brandings and back punches. (And back punching feels wonderful and can be better than a visit to a chiropractor, but I digress.)

Furthermore, burns that a willing person sustains from a branding iron or even a cigar aren't injuries. They're body modifications. There's a mighty big difference, whether those who dislike them want to see that or not. Disapprove of them all you want, heck I don't want a cigar burn either-but don't give them false labels, it disrespect those who have suffered actual injury. (And suffer is a key word, folks.) My best friend's boyfriend was in an African-American fraternity where they all had to get brandings on their upper arms in a big ceremony; he's very proud of it, and if you told him it was an injury he'd look at you like you had lobsters coming out of your ears. Why? Because he wanted it, it healed, and he loves it. A permanent mark does not an injury make. And speaking of ears, mine are pierced and so is my nose. I wasn't injured by the little girl at the piercing shop. If my nose or his branding were done in a dungeon instead of a frat house or a shop they'd be no different, and the reasoning behind them (frat requirement or aesthetics vs pure pleasure) don't change the physical ramifications, which is what we're discussing here. Cigar burns and brandings are very intense and alternative as all get out, but they're superficial and heal just fine and leave the recipient happy and quite able to function. Otherwise BDSMmer's wouldn't do them. Injuries and damage don't leave people happy, simply put.

Now this is the part where someone will say that the difference is this: back punches and brandings and such, in the BDSM context, are done for the sake of the pain, and that's what makes them wrong. Although I know this has been said before, here it is again: it's not about the pain . If it were purely about pain BDSMmer's would just stay home and stub our toes over and over and we darn sure wouldn't buy outfits just for the occasion. Heck, I have a friend G who gets caned black and blue when she plays, but she needs to be under gas just to have her teeth cleaned because it hurts. Yes, I'm serious. (and yes, we all pick on her. )It is sooo not about pain. It's about the submission, the euphoria, the self-control and amazing headspace involved in allowing the activity to occur...lots of things far more mental than physical. If I have to use the word adrenaline one more time I may scream. But it's *not* about the pain itself, and I have yet to meet someone for whom it is. They're probably home doing that toe stubbing dealie.

And one more thing: I've seen several sunbathers, including my mother-in-law, have to go through **horrible** skin surgeries and worse treatments for skin cancer and other lasting actual damage. Meanwhile, people with brandings or cigar burns dab on a little Neosporin and they're absolutely fine, pain free and able to function completely. And they pretty much never get cancer.

B

 

[TicklishLurker]

Drew, when you sent that PM apologising for how you treated me back on AMT, I thought you had changed, obviously not. You still come off the same way you did then - as a troll. An intellegent troll, yes, but a troll all the same, just looking to start a fight. You do it in such an underhanded manner that it's probably why you haven't been banned. But it's growing obvious you get off on making fun of people. So I won't be surprised if someday you will be. Heck, I'm starting to wonder if you're even really into tickling and are only really here because you enjoy starting fights and belittling people. Somehow, I think that gives you more of a hard on then anything.

I'm hardly surprised that you chose to ignore an example of true abuse I've been through since it completely goes against all the crap you're spewing.

No one held a gun to your head and forced you to read this thread. If you don't agree with it - don't read it. I happen to disagree with a lot of stuff said against Bush, so I don't even bother to enter the political forum. Why don't you just grow up and ignore this thread?

 

[Mastertank1]

Well;

You know, I don't even want to try and show people BDSM isn't destructive or wrong anymore. All I want to do is play. This thread has left me hungry for a good paddling followed by a vicious tickling. Ah - if only Star Trek transporter technology was real. Or Harry Potter type magic. A good old portkey to the nearest Dom(me) I can trust would come in handy right about now. If it was a man it wouldn't hurt if they talked and looked like Professor Snape.

I can talk like Snape if you want, but I'm afraid I look alot more like Hagrid. Is that okay?
Mastertank1

We who play and dance are thought mad by they who hear no music.

 

[TicklishLurker]

I can talk like Snape if you want, but I'm afraid I look alot more like Hagrid. Is that okay?
Mastertank1

*giggles* Hey, I bet Hagrid could be a good tickler. It's just Snape's so much more - evil - I can imagine him being totally sadistic in tickling me. Plus he already hangs around a dungeon.