• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • Reminder - We have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy regarding content involving minors, regardless of intent. Any content containing minors will result in an immediate ban. If you see any such content, please report it using the "report" button on the bottom left of the post.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

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

For Isabeau and Others,

This is a *marvelous* and easy to understand guide to BDSM that I found, enjoy and feel free to ask questions here or in PM :cool2:


All right, so what is "BDSM"?

"BDSM" is an acronym of "B&D" (Bondage & Discipline), "D&S" (Dominance & Submission), and "S&M" (sadomasochism). "BDSM" refers to any or all of these things, and a lot of stuff besides.

Tying up your lover is BDSM; so is flogging that person, or bossing that person around, or any of a thousand other things. BDSM is highly erotic, usually (though not always) involves sex or sexual tension; and is highly psychologically charged. One person (the "submissive") agrees to submit to another person (the "dominant"); or, alternately, one person agrees to receive some sort of sensation, such as spanking, from another.

Some people like to be submissive all the time, some people like to be dominant all the time; some people like to switch, being submissive one day and dominant the next.

Many people practice some element of BDSM in their sexual lives without even necessarily being aware of it. They may think of "S&M" as "That sick stuff that people do with whips and cattle prods and stuff," yet still blindfold one another from time to time, or tie one another down and break out the whipped cream...

All of these things are "BDSM." BDSM is not necessarily hardcore sadomasochism; it can be remarkably subtle and sensual and soft. Pinning your partner to the bed and running silk or ice cubes or rabbit fur over your lover's body qualifies as "BDSM" (specifically, of a variety called "sensation play").

BDSM doesn't have to involve all of these.

There are many people involved in BDSM who enjoy tying others up, or being tied up themselves, but who do not enjoy S&M--that is, they aren't interested in inflicting or receiving pain. Sometimes, one partner just ties up the other, as a form of foreplay. Similarly, there are many people who may like the psychological control they get from ordering their lovers to do things, but do not care for being physically restrained or tied, or for tying up their lovers.

BDSM is as varied as the people who do it.

Some people, myself included, love the aesthetic of an elaborate rope harness, or an elaborate form of bondage; others simply aren't interested in the bondage elements at all. The key to all these different forms of BDSM, though, is the exchange of power. One person (the "bottom" or "submissive") is choosing to allow the other person (the "top" or "dominant") to have control over him or her in some way--perhaps by allowing the dominant to tie them up, perhaps by allowing the dominant to spank them, perhaps simply by doing whatever the dominant instructs them to.

In particular, BDSM is NOT abuse!

People who are practicing BDSM in any of its trillions of forms are doing it voluntarily, for fun. It's a way to explore. Everything that happens in a BDSM relationship is consensual; and believe it or not, it's not just about the dominant getting what he or she wants--it's more about the submissive getting what he or she wants.

An abuser has no regard for the feelings, needs, or limits of the victim. A BDSM dominant is concerned above all else with the needs and desires of the submissive. Pretty straightforward, really.

BDSM isn't what you see in porn flicks.

The image of BDSM that is portrayed in many materials of this sort has about as much to do with BDSM as the child's tale "Jack and the Magic Beanstalk" has to do with agriculture. These materials show little more than women being used in various unoriginal ways for men's enjoyment, usually by force. The reality is that there are actually more male submissives than female submissives; and that BDSM is a mutual activity that is driven more by the needs of the submissive than by the needs of the dominant.

Uh-huh. Sure. The needs of the submissive. Right. The dominant is the one bossing the other person around; you'd have to be some kind of jerk to want to do that.

While that may seem like it makes sense on the surface, the truth is just the opposite. People who are good at dominating or inflicting pain are, in general, LESS likely than many other people to be jerks or assholes.

Why? Because in order to be good at doing it, you need to be highly in-tune with your submissive. People who are self-centered generally make poor dominants, because they lack the empathy required to be able to read and judge their partner's reactions, and bring their partner where that person wants to go. Assholes quickly find that nobody wants to play with them; and people who are empathic tend not to be assholes. All of the real top-notch dominants I've ever met, without exception, are incredibly cool people.

In tune with your submissive? The dominant is the one calling the shots. What does the dominant care about the submissive?

Believe it or not, the dynamics of a BDSM relationship are often driven by the submissive, not by the dominant. The submissive sets the limits; the submissive decides what places can and can not be explored; the submissive has the ability to call a halt to the scene. The dominant, in many ways, is simply a facilitator. It's the dominant's job to create a setting where the people involved can explore the submissive's fantasies.

Dominating your partners does not mean that you don't want to please them. It is not always, or even usually, true that a dominant is interested in his own gratification rather than his submissive's. In fact, many dominants are driven as much by their desire to please their partner as by anything else; the psychology of a healthy BDSM relationship is driven by the submissive as well as by the dominant, and a dominant can take pleasure from gratifying the needs of the submissive just as easily as the submissive can take pleasure from gratifying the needs of the dominant. This kind of thing is not one-directional.

It's all for the submissive's benefit? Yeah, right. The submissive is the one being bossed around or spanked or whatever. How can you say that isn't abuse?

Simple. Two reasons:

In a BDSM relationship, the submissive sets the limits. A victim of abuse doesn't get a vote; the victim can't tell the abuser what to do, or how much to do it. A submissive sets all the limits--what kinds of things can be (and can't be!) done, how much, and for how long.

And while we're on the subject of limits, there is more than one kind of limit in a BDSM relationship. Everybody has "hard" limits--things that they absolutely will not do, and will not even consider. Some people, for example, like to be tied up but don't like the idea of being whipped; if they won't allow themselves to be whipped, ever, that's a hard limit.

There are also "soft" limits--things that someone won't do under ordinary circumstances, but will allow to be "forced" on him or her in the context of a particular scenario that's being acted out. Between soft limits and hard limits lies an interesting psychological territory to explore.

A submissive gets a way to opt out. This may be a code word, or a sign of some sort; if the submissive uses it, he or she has had enough and the scene is over. An abuse victim doesn't tell the abuser when to stop.

So don't you have to be kind of sick or messed up to do that stuff?

No.

C'mon, really. I mean, tying people up...whipping them. Isn't that demented?

No.

For the most part, people who are into this kind of thing are remarkably well-adjusted. People involved in BDSM generally are neither abusive nor come from backgrounds where they were abused, because people with that kind of backgrounds aren't likely to be sexually turned on by giving someone else power over them. That doesn't mean that no BDSM relationship is abusive--since people are what they are, no form of human interaction is immune to abuse. But it does mean that the people you'll find in the BDSM community are, for the most part, very stable. (In fact, if you're going to get involved in this kind of stuff, it helps to have a cast-iron ego and a strong sense of self, particularly if you're a submissive.)Some people think anyone interested in BDSM is suffering from some kind of past abuse. I think that the "BDSM interest=past abuse" assertion is most frequently made by people who don't understand what BDSM is. They see someone being flogged, they say "Oh! People in a BDSM relationship get hit; people in an abusive relationship get hit; ergo, BDSM is like an abusive relationship. QED."

But the fact is, the psychology of a BDSM power exchange is vastly different from the psychology of abuse; and in a BDSM relationship, the psychology is frequently driven by the limitations of the submissive, not the dominant. Typically, it is the submissive who says "This far and no farther"--which is entirely contradictory to the psychology of abuse.

Now I'm not saying that people into BDSM are never victims of abuse, of course. If you survey any arbitrary group of people--all lawyers, all redheads, all Toyota Camry owners, all BDSM participants--you'll find that some people in that group are abuse survivors. But that doesn't imply a direct connection between abuse and the practice of law, or hair color, or choice of transportation...or BDSM.

The psychiatric profession agrees, In fact, according to the DSM-IV, the standard diagnostic reference text "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" published by the American Psychiatric Association, The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors must cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning in order for sexual sadism or masochism to be considered a disorder.

BDSM is not what it looks like from the outside. It's not just tying people up and having sex, and it's not just arbitrarily whipping people. That's very crude, and kind of boring. What it is is a sort of role-playing, where the people involved are acting out a fantasy that involves taking or giving up power. Sex is often involved, but not always.

Role-playing? Fantasy? You make it sound like it's all some kind of game.
It is. You're exercising your imagination, and you're playing a game with the other person. You get to be the dominant; your partner is the submissive; you're playing the role of the mad scientist who's just kidnapped someone and is going to use this poor innocent person for evil experiments. Or whatever. (There are people who do this all the time--one always the dominant, one always the submissive--who will tell you it isn't a game, but that's part of the game.)

At the same time, however, it is very serious. You're creating a framework that allows you to have fun and explore some very powerfully charged areas of human psychology, and push your boundaries at the same time. In this way, BDSM can be a powerful tool for self-discovery and exploration.

You can also explore fantasies by roleplaying scenarios that are highly charged psychologically. One such type of exploration is a form of BDSM called "resistance play," in which one person (the dominant) takes another person (the submissive) by force, and the submissive is expected and encouraged to resist by force. This kind of play is not everyone's cup of tea, of course, but it can be a safe and fun way to explore some of the darker fantasies that are very common in a surprising number of people.

This also can lead you into some highly volatile psychological territory. Even if it seems like something you really want to experiment with, it's possible that it can hit some psychological triggers that produce a reaction you didn't expect. So it pays to go carefully.

Many of the standard rules of BDSM apply doubly or triply to this kind of scenario. For example, using a "safeword"--a code word that means "Stop!"--is absolutely vital when you're experimenting with resistance play; one of the tenants of resistance play is that "no" does not mean "no," so you need a word that does

It also pays to negotiate the basic parameters in which you'll operate beforehand. Different people have different idea of what constitutes "force" or how rough "rough" is. If everyone involved isn't on the same page, someone may get hurt in a way that isn't so fun.

Whoa, wait a minute. Force? Whipping? That's supposed to be FUN??

It is fun, if that's your sort of thing. The experience of being flogged is nothing like what you imagine it would be like. For the most part, it's more stimulating than painful. Ditto for the experience of acting out, say, a resistance-play fantasy.

Quite honestly, there was a time when I drew the line at the whipping thing. I was absolutely certain I'd never, ever, under any circumstances, allow someone to flog me. Not me, no sir.

But then I tried it (long story), and it was absolutely nothing like what I though it'd be like.

Ever have a really deep massage? The kind that hurts, but still feels good? Same thing, only more so.

Besides, when you're sexually aroused, all kind of stimulation can be fun. Ever had a lover who left gouges in your back during sex? Or one who bites? It's very passionate and intense. If you're in the right frame of mind, even a flogging that leaves welts isn't really painful, precisely--not like stubbing your toe, or running into the edge of the bathroom wall at two o'clock in the morning because you didn't turn the light on. It's more like the lover who claws your back when she gets off thing. But hey, if it's not for you, don't do it.

Damn straight! I would never do that; I respect my lover too much.

Experimenting with intense things like resistance play and pain play do not mean you do not respect your lover. Quite the contrary; respect for your lover is absolutely paramount if you wish to do these things safely.

Respect for your lover is not just in behaving according to some ideal about the way "men are supposed to treat women" or whatever. Respect for your lover lies in exploring with your lover, creating with your lover, doing with your lover those things that you and your lover wish to do, sharing yourself on a very deep level with your lover... It's reflected in everything you say, do, express, feel, and think with your lover.

Different people want, need, and value different things. Respect recognizes those differences. And above all else, respect is an integral part of the mutual process of self-exploration and self discovery.

Now hold on a minute, kink-boy. We're talking about kinky S&M here, not Buddhism. What do you mean, "self exploration?"

Just that.

BDSM is a very broad term that encompasses many wildly different practices, and many wildly different beliefs. But central to all these things is the idea of challenging boundaries and testing limits--and that's precisely what self-exploration is all about.

You cannot know your limits if you never test them and never explore them. You may know some general things, but you can't truly know yourself if you have never explored and never experimented. As Francis Bacon wrote, Your true self can be known only by systematic experimentation, and controlled only by being known.

BDSM provides a context and a set of tools for exploring your own personal boundaries in a safe, fun, enjoyable, and mutually reciprocal way. It provides a vehicle by which you can get to know yourself and your lover much more deeply and intimately than you might have thought possible. And hey, you often find along the way that you can be surprised! You probably have turn-ons that you don't even know you have, and you will never discover without exploration.

And that, my friend, can truly enrich your life and the life of your lover.

When it comes right down to it, if your goal is self-knowledge and personal enlightenment, I put six months in a BDSM relationship up there with three years in a Tibetan monastery any day.

But where do you draw the line? How much is too much?

You draw the line wherever you want to. There isn't one way to "do" BDSM, and not everybody is in to the same things. If you like being tied up, but you don't want to be whipped, then don't be whipped! Every person is unique; not everybody has the same turn-ons; if you don't like something, don't do it.

Most people who practice BDSM believe in "safe, sane, and consensual."

That means: Don't do anything blatantly unsafe; don't try anything that's likely to get you killed or injured if you screw up, and don't do something if you aren't sure how. Be reasonable and rational. Know the difference between fantasy and reality. Make sure you're both into it before you do it. Do that, and you'll probably be okay. It's like anything else; exploring an interest in fine cuisine doesn't mean you have to like fish eggs! If it isn't for you, then that's where you draw the line.

But once you get involved in this sort of thing, don't you keep going further and further? Can you ever stop?

This isn't really a question about BDSM. This is a question about human nature.

People are very, very complex creatures, and it's unrealistic to think that you know the whole truth about every aspect of yourself without ever having experimented with the things that turn you on. There are many things that I thought would never appeal to me that experimentation has proven are huge turn-ons for me, and I suspect the same is true of most people.

Not even "most people who are into BDSM"--most people. Nobody is completely static, and nobody can be expected to know absolutely everything about himself or herself from the get-go.

So yeah, when you start experimenting, you may find that there are things that turn you on that you never thought would turn you on. But then again, unless you are hopelessly shallow, as you go through life you'll probably discover new things that turn you on even if you don't get involved with BDSM!

And of course you can stop. Just because you learn something new about yourself, that doesn't mean you're changing into some kind of raving, uncontrolled lunatic! It just means you've discovered something new, that's all.

But how do I know if it is for me? How do I know if I'm a dominant or a submissive? How do I know if I like any of this stuff?

That depends on you. It's not like there's only one kind of person who's into BDSM; and it's not like only men are dominant or only women are submissive. (In fact, the deck seems to be tilted in favor of men who are submissives.)

And you don't necessarily even have to be dominant or submissive! Maybe you like experimenting with being tied up, or tying up your lover, but all that bossing-about stuff does nothing for you. So, the terms "dominant" or "submissive" may not apply to you, even though you do want to experiment with some aspects of BDSM. Don't get hung up on the terminology. It's really not that important.

Are you into any of this at all? Well, that depends. Have you ever had fantasies about being tied up and helpless while unspeakable things are done to your body? Have you ever wanted to be able to tell your lover exactly what to do ("Get on your knees and bark like a dog!")? You might enjoy experimenting with this sort of thing. Hey, there are worse things in the world than having an interesting and varied sex life--and if you experiment and decide it isn't for you, so be it!

So...why? What's the point of tying people up? Why would someone agree to any of this?

That's a complicated question.

The short answer is: Because it's fun, it's highly arousing, and it's tremendously powerful. It's a great vehicle for exploring a number of different kinds of fantasies in a way that's exhilarating.

People are dominant or submissive for different reasons. Being submissive in a BDSM scene can be tremendously liberating, particularly for people who aren't comfortable exploring their sexuality or their personal boundaries. When you agree to act as a submissive, you give up responsibility for what's going on; you sit back and let things happen. Provided you trust the person who's being the dominant, you can mentally relax and concentrate on the role that's being created for you.

As a dominant, the pleasure comes from constructing a scenario and acting it out. You can, at least within reason, determine the submissive's fate; you're the scriptwriter, director, and producer of the entire show; you construct the fantasy world and make it real. Being a good dominant is a lot of work. You have to be creative; you must be able to improvise; and you have to pay attention to your submissive, to maintain the illusion you're creating and make sure your submissive is getting what he or she wants from the scenario. In many ways, the dominant person is a facilitator; the dominant's job is to make a fantasy that takes the submissive wherever he or she wants to go, and bring that fantasy to life.

For many people, BDSM is an intensely personal and meaningful experience, from either side. I am both dominant and submissive--a switch. I am into BDSM because I want more. I want more experience, I want more intensity; I want to feel more, think more, experience more, be more. I want to live life in immoderation, not moderation; I want to experience intensity because I want to live intensely.

I surrender to another because I want to be taken to that place where reason and thought disappears, where the world folds up flat and spins away into its own corner and there's nothing left but what I'm feeling.

I take control of another because I want to take them to that place--because when I become the orchestrator and the director of their world, when I can set the stage and write the script and make them, for a little while, become someone else, somewhere else, then I can feel what it is to wake the sleeping lion--and that is heady stuff indeed.

On top of that, it's very romantic.

What? Romantic? You've got to be joking.

Nope. See, that's one of the things about BDSM that isn't obvious to someone on the outside. When a dominant is creating a BDSM scenario, the dominant needs to focus his or her attention entirely on the submissive. A good dominant pays very close attention to the submissive--how the submissive is reacting, what's going on around the submissive, what the submissive is feeling--everything. Having somebody pay that close attention to you doesn't suck. It's very romantic.

So you've got someone tied to the bed. So what?

It's more than just tying someone to the bed. The good stuff isn't in tying the knots; it's in what you are while you're tying the knots. Think of it as a game that's two parts acting, two parts roleplaying, three parts sex, and two parts psychology.

Or, if you want, think of this: There she (or he, depending on who you are) is, lying helpless beneath you, restrained hand and foot, blindfolded, and you have a feather in your hand...and she's very ticklish...and she doesn't...know...when...you're...going...to...

Uh...wait. Blindfolded?

Yeah! That way, the submissive (a) can't tell what's about to happen (anticipation can be half the fun) and (b) is made to focus more closely on what she's (or he's) feeling.

So, anyway, there she is, restrained hand and foot, and you get out the clothespins, and...

Clothespins?

Yes. You use them to...well, maybe we'll get into that in the "How" section.

The point is: Just tying somebody up is boring. The fun is in the stuff that goes with it. When you're restrained, you have this delicious feeling of helplessness, your lover free to do anything to your vulnerable body...it's fun!

(Incidentally, there's more than one way to tie somebody up. When most people think about bondage, they think of tying someone spreadeagle to the bed. That's a simple form of "restraint bondage"--tying somebody to keep that person from moving.

Another form of bondage is "stimulation bondage"--tying somebody up, not to keep that person from moving, but in a way that stimulates that person sexually. For example, there is a form of rope harness called a "karada" which is typically tied around a woman in such a way that the ropes pass across her breasts, around her back, and up between her legs. This form of bondage does not restrict motion at all--in fact, you can wear it to work under your clothes!--but every time she moves, the ropes shift across her breasts and between her legs, constantly stimulating her and reminding her that they are there.)

The same kind of fun can be had in bossing your lover around. The fun part isn't that you can give orders; anybody can be pushy. The fun part is in the fact that your lover is compelled, within the limits of the game, to obey. She must submit as you tell her to slowly--no, more slowly--peel off her clothes, and caress her own body as she tells you, Maestro, that she'll do anything to make you happy; then, as you direct, pick up the vibrator and...

You get the idea. These are some very tame scenarios, but they illustrate that there's more going on than just tying somebody to your bed or bossing somebody around. There's an entire interaction here that's highly sensual and very intense.

Okay, okay, so, what do you actually DO, anyway?

Ah, now that's the fun part. That bit has been moved to its own page...


I'll post the next page if anyone would like :feets:

Bella
 
Last edited:
thank you Bella for taking the time out to post that wonderful explanation. its what i sort of thought it was anyway, but now i got more clarity about what it is all about. and basically although the submissive is in fact submissive, she or he calls the shots so to speak. they set the soft and hard limits, they can initiate the safeword if and when needed. its a fascinating lifestyle. and trust, its all about trust besides respect.

isabeau
 
Welcome aboard, Rob.

robace252 said:
So this is what the hub-bub is all about.
Far be it from me to enter my dollar and two cents worth here, but as I have now completed my 7th day of no smoking (Im doing good!) and spent the last hour or so reading this entire thread I have noticed quite a few trends and had one or two "makes me say hmmmm" thoughts.
I'm not sure which would be harder: quitting cigarettes or getting through this whole thread at one go. But congratulations on not smoking, at any rate.

sheesh this and the "family" thing I posted got me MORE pm's and emails then Ive ever had. People wondering why I hadnt put anything in writing here.
The family thread I can understand - that's your baby, after all. But why on earth would anyone expect you to have an opinion about this?

Normal (not saying that being not normal is bad) people never put tickling and pain into the same jar.
Actually they very often do. For example there are people who can't stand to be tickled and think that both pain and tickling are torture. And there are folks on this forum whose spouses think that being into tickling and being into pain are both equally sick. I reckon we could argue about whether or not those people are "normal," but they're sure common enough when you start asking around.

Im not huge in BDSM, and my parents sure as hell werent..but Id never call them "vanilla". Thats just a PC way of giving an insult..
Generally speaking it isn't. "Vanilla" is just kink slang for "not kinky." In some cases it means "not kinky in the same ways that we are." The point in any case isn't to be insulting, but simply to distinguish between "people like us" and "people who aren't like us."

It's a useful distinction to make most of the time, like when you're thinking about dating someone you might want to ask yourself "Is she into tickling?" If a person is interested in only one particular kink (as many tickle-fans are), then you don't really need a special word for that. But people who enjoy a wide variety of kinks often just talk about "kinky vs vanilla" rather than list them all out.

I'd say the closest that "vanilla" usually comes to an insult is when its meaning shades over into "people who don't understand what we do." In that sense it often carries connotations of "can't understand and won't even try to." But let's face it, there really are people like that.

There's also a category somewhere between vanilla and kinky that I often use: "kink-friendly." That refers to someone who isn't kinky per se, but who can understand and accept those who are. Or as one of my "kink-friendly" friends puts it, "I'm straight, but I'm not narrow." One of my gaming buddies is like that: he's straight as a pool cue himself, but the fact that I live with three women and enjoy a wide variety of things that he'd never want to try himself doesn't bother him a bit.

Ultimately this is going to be a fuzzy distinction, because it's all a spectrum. Someone who likes playing with handcuffs a little bit now and then might be kinky on some scales. But they might still freak out at many of the things people around here like. In my personal lexicon "kink" involves also a certain flexibility of mind that grants that many things that I don't personally like can still be legitimate. So I don't know offhand whether I'd call your parents vanilla or not. I don't believe that I'd call you that.

And I mean..the whole "Feed the Troll" thing, I mean grow up. You can have a disagreement with someone and agree to disagree without it becoming a "popularity contest".
Really, that doesn't have a thing in the world to do with popularity. A troll is someone who jumps into an online conversation purely to be disruptive and create controversy. This thread was clearly started to provide a place for people to talk about certain BDSM ideas constructively and with a certain mutual respect (both for each other and for the ideas themselves). That's why the title suggests that anyone who can't handle that stay away. I don't think anyone except possibly Drew would suggest that any of his posts on this thread have met those criteria. So I and others here finally decided that since he wasn't here to share anything constructive it was pointless to keep talking to him. Trolling will make the troll unpopular, true. But popularity isn't the point when ignoring the troll; it's just a matter of getting back on track.

Just look at the difference between his posts and yours, Rob. That's the difference between troll and non-troll.

But honestly after thought its a good thing to see that people that want that kind of a relationship or lifestyle actually take the time to have a set of rules and understanding between each other.
We pretty much have to. It's not even just a BDSM thing - there's a set of unwritten rules and understandings even in the tickling scene. It's not brought out as explicitly as the same ideas are in BDSM, mainly because the stuff people play with in BDSM is often more likely to bite if it's not handled right. On the other hand really heavy tickling play might could benefit from a more explicit examination of those rules and understandings than it gets sometimes. People are too likely (in my humble opinion) to say "It's just tickling." Even tickling can have consequences that are worth thinking about sometimes.

Anyway, the "Master's Creed" isn't anything official. No one has to sign it or learn it by memory. It's really just an attempt by someone to put into words many of the ideas that most of us think a responsible top ought to embrace.

When it comes to tickling I can see a similarity between BDSM and tickling, just not a direct correlation.
Eh, it depends on how narrowly we're using the terms. Personally I include tickling in the category of BDSM. It's one facet of a complex set of ideas and techniques. I've noticed a trend in the way people use these and similar words: people who declare that they are not into BDSM (whether or not they're into any sort of kink at all) nearly always say "I'm not into pain." On the other hand, a lot of people who don't enjoy painplay still identify with BDSM, because they understand that pain isn't a necessary part of it. The proof of this, if we really need proof, is the fact that professional Mistresses often have clients whose sessions never involve pain at all, in any way. BDSM is fundamentally about any sort of power exchange, including the sort that involved in tying someone up and tickling them, or teasing the hell out them without letting them have an orgasm (at least, not right away).

There's an interesting parallell between tickling and spanking. I think that most people here would probably classify spanking as part of BDSM. I certainly would. But many people whose primary kink interest is spanking DO NOT consider it that way. And they'll tell you so in no uncertain terms if you make the mistake of saying otherwise. For a dyed in the wool spankophile spanking is often not about the pain - not quite. It's about a certain kind of attitude toward spanking - an approach that might best be described as "romantic." It's almost as though the point was not the spanking itself, but a sort of nurturing and caring attitude that comes out in the form of "discipline." At any rate if you talk about BDSM on a spanking board it will often generate controversy very much like what we've seen here.

My point in all this is just to say that for me and many others who identify with BDSM, those four letters include a much wider range of ideas than we usually see from people who don't identify that way. That's why you've seen bella and others arguing here that pain isn't what it's about.

When it comes to BDSM....Im not into it...I dont like pain, plus my medical condition makes it hard for me to feel those kind of things on the skin at times. But never would I intend to insult someone who is into such a lifestyle and if I did I would make it clear I was being general and not intending personal admonishment of anyone in particular.
Well, I'll grant that you aren't into pain, at any rate. 😉 Ultimately though I think that one's personal identification is less important than the freedom and respect they grant to others. So thanks.
 
Given what I've read in this thread lately,

I want to add Bella and Robace to the list of members I would really enjoy meeting face to face, for a long conversation over dinner which I would happily pay for.

It also reinforces what I wrote a while ago in another thread; I would purely love to have a rambling, wide ranging conversation with Redmage over a bottle of some fine sippin' liquor and (if you smoke, sir, of course) good cigars.

Mastertank1

We who play and dance are thought mad by they who hear no music.
 
Mastertank1 said:
It also reinforces what I wrote a while ago in another thread; I would purely love to have a rambling, wide ranging conversation with Redmage over a bottle of some fine sippin' liquor and (if you smoke, sir, of course) good cigars.
I don't smoke, but you're welcome to. You like single-malt scotch? 🙂

isabeau said:
basically although the submissive is in fact submissive, she or he calls the shots so to speak. they set the soft and hard limits, they can initiate the safeword if and when needed.
Most people don't think of it, but tops have limits and safewords as well. This isn't a subject that gets a lot of play, simply because people do think of the top as the one "in charge," so how could a scene encroach on his or her limits? Still, we do have them, and sometimes that turns out to be important.

One of my limits is that I won't revise sexual limits during play to be less restrictive. I'll renegotiate to make sexual limits more restrictive, but not less. My thinking is that when hormones start going that's not a good time to talk about reducing one's inhibitions. So for example if the scene has been negotiated to exclude sex, I won't renegotiate to bring sex into the scene once we start playing, no matter now much either of us might want it.

This rule has saved me several times from decisions that I think I would have regretted later.
 
Oh, yeah.

Redmage said:
I don't smoke, but you're welcome to. You like single-malt scotch? 🙂

Most people don't think of it, but tops have limits and safewords as well. This isn't a subject that gets a lot of play, simply because people do think of the top as the one "in charge," so how could a scene encroach on his or her limits? Still, we do have them, and sometimes that turns out to be important.

One of my limits is that I won't revise sexual limits during play to be less restrictive. I'll renegotiate to make sexual limits more restrictive, but not less. My thinking is that when hormones start going that's not a good time to talk about reducing one's inhibitions. So for example if the scene has been negotiated to exclude sex, I won't renegotiate to bring sex into the scene once we start playing, no matter now much either of us might want it.

This rule has saved me several times from decisions that I think I would have regretted later.

I love the rich, peaty flavor of Laphroaig, and GlenDronach is exquisite as well.

For me, sexual limits in a scene MUST be negotiated before play begins, and before any alcohol or other mind affecting substance is consumed. After that, I agree that limits can only be made MORE restrictive, never less restrictive. That's been my rule for the past 37 years. Before that I was young enough to do dumb things, which I later regretted.

Mastertank1

We who play and dance are thought mad by they who hear no music.
 
A bit like wrestling, innit Meemster? Remember it's just a character created for fun and entertainment. Don't think it's the real life you or them.
 
Bella said:
You can also explore fantasies by roleplaying scenarios that are highly charged psychologically. One such type of exploration is a form of BDSM called "resistance play," in which one person (the dominant) takes another person (the submissive) by force, and the submissive is expected and encouraged to resist by force. This kind of play is not everyone's cup of tea, of course, but it can be a safe and fun way to explore some of the darker fantasies that are very common in a surprising number of people.
Wow. So the sub is actually permitted to resist on occasion! Who knew?!


- "Using a "BDSM Guide" to prove that all BDSM is benevolent, safe, and consensual, is like citing Lord of the Rings to prove the existence of Frodo" - Drew70
 
drew70 said:
- "Using a "BDSM Guide" to prove that all BDSM is benevolent, safe, and consensual, is like citing Lord of the Rings to prove the existence of Frodo" - Drew70

Considering the original source of that quote and the fact that you're an ardent Christian, I'd say that was a WOW! :couch:
 
I have not posted here cause I was worried about becoming a target for rude remarks but if you all ignore it so can I.... I have been involved in BDSM for as long as I can remember. I never knew it, but now knowing the TRUE meaning I know I have been! It's not about the actual pain for me (although the pain is good)! Its about control! Having someone spank me, slap me, piss on me is just the added bonus! 🙂

I think this thread (although it started a mess) is a great one and taught me a lot! thanks for posting it.
 
tulipangel said:
I
I think this thread (although it started a mess) is a great one and taught me a lot! thanks for posting it.

That's why those of us who actually know about the subject have continued to post; people here who enjoy tickling as an aspect of BDSM deserve info and diverse positive perspectives.

Personally I wouldn't call the thread a mess, though it has been sadly mired down by earnest but misdirected judgement. Frankly, anyone involved in BDSM who doesn't keep that fact 100 % under wraps is going to run into folks who are great people but nurture false notions about the Lifestyle and can't wait to verbalize inaccuracies cloaked as opinion; it's not a bad thing to learn how to calmly state the truth and the facts to back up that truth, in order to properly educate and inform those willing to learn :bubble:

Of course not all BDSM is benevolent, safe and consensual; even the proudest Lifestyle member will tell you this. That's true of just about any activity, there's bad apples in every barrel. But as the onld song goes, one bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch. One of the purposes of discussing such things is to keep people aware of the risks and issues that may occur, and how to handle them; luckily there are many good resources, from books to websites to the knowedgeable folks who post here. Below for instance, are three *very* good sites:

http://gloria-brame.com/domidea/nla/nla4.htm

and

http://www.leathernroses.com/abuse/crimsonlordabuse.htm

and

http://www.xeromag.com/fvbdsafety.html

I like all of these for new folks or those who simply wish to brush up on their info, enjoy :whip:

Bella
 
bella said:
Of course not all BDSM is benevolent, safe and consensual; even the proudest Lifestyle member will tell you this.
Well, there's a thing. Is rape EVER a part of sex? That's similar to the question of whether nonconsensual or unsafe play is EVER a part of BDSM. Some people will tell you that rape isn't sex. Yet it unquestionably has things in common with sex, whether or not it IS sex. Likewise certain types of play may or may not be BDSM, depending on how it's defined.

Personally, I tend to think of rape as twisted and broken sex. And by the same token I think BDSM can be warped out of keeping with its principles. But that doesn't invalidate it, any more than rape invalidates sex. This shouldn't be hard to understand, but for some people it can be.

People can be selective in their idea of what "safe" means too. Strictly speaking, something is safe if it has no possibility of harm. But then, strictly speaking, tickling isn't safe - there's the chance of falls, of bruises, of asthma attacks, of pulled muscles, of simple old-fashioned accidents. Add in bondage and it gets a lot worse.

Practically speaking, though, people ignore risks that they consider either minor or manageable. The risks are still there, but folks decide they aren't worth worrying about, and say they're "safe." It happens in tickling. It happens in BDSM. It even happens in "safe sex." And it's not an unreasonable approach, given that risks can be managed with care.

One of the chief features of BDSM is an obsessive concern with managing and minimizing risk - kinky folks are far more aware if such things than non-kinky people tend to be. Most kinksters I know even use condoms on vibrators and insertable toys, just to be on the safe side (besides, it makes them a lot easier to clean).

I'm glad that this thread finally got around to the central idea of BDSM - power exchange rather than painplay. Hopefully that'll help clarify the issues for many people.
 
Redmage said:
I'm glad that this thread finally got around to the central idea of BDSM - power exchange rather than painplay.

I am so glad you are on this forum! That is the exact way I look at it.... The pain is good but its the giving up power that make it so great (I speak for myself)!
:bouncybou
 
I think some people miss the point of BDSM fantasies. It may replicate a certain incident but its not the incident that is desired but the emotion behind it..such as like a rape scenario or something along that nature. There are a lot more women that fantsize about it than one would think. Does it mean they want to get it done out on the street. I doubt it. Im sure thier are neighborhoods around there area that would suffice.

As I said before its the emotion of fear. Its the same reason some of us go to a horror movie (providing it doesnt suck) or ride a rollercoaster. I mean would you really want to be chased by a maniac in a ski mask carrying a fifty pound chainsaw? NO, but you watch the movie and feel the fear that the character is playing. I mean who in there right mind would want to feel fear some would say..but its widely excepted. Match that with pain/pleasure and you have a roleplay. Its just a thought.
 
Sorry, little O/T. Just wanted to share this. One of the owners of one of the Graphic Arts groups I belong to made this, and I thought it was so gorgeous I had to post it here. 🙂


owned.jpg



:justlips:
 
wow great picture. i would so love to print that out but.... and that saying at the top says it all. about the trust and passion and love that only those who live it can understand. thanks Mimi

isabeau
 
Dear Mimi;

Thank you so much for sharing that lovely, lovely illo. Wow! :smilestar :smilestar :Kiss1: :Kiss1:

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who don't, no explanation will suffice.

Mastertank1

We who play and dance are thought mad by they who hear no music.
 
tulipangel said:
The pain is good but its the giving up power that make it so great (I speak for myself)!
For my own self, I don't like to think in terms of giving up power. I'm not sure that's possible to do. I think the sub still retains all the power he or she had going in, and only the sub can use that power - it can't be given over to anyone else.

So I like to think of it in terms of dedication rather than surrender. The sub makes the decision to dedicate his or her personal abilities to the scene and to the dominant's direction.

Thinking of it that way makes submission a decision that has to be renewed from moment to moment. It means that the sub is an active partner in the scene, not a passive passenger. That's how I prefer to think of the people I top.
 
yeah, I hate typing cause people cant HEAR the tone in which something is meant! I would never mean "give up power" as in I'm a true slave with no say in my life what so ever! I mean it as having the boundaries drawn and then just not having to worry about being in control and not worrying about leaving the control and getting hurt!
 
What's New
1/27/26
Visit Clips4Sale for a great selection of tickling clips!

Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Top