The Psychology of Being a DOM/ME or SUBMISSIVE (very serious subject)

[Amnesiac]

There's been a long-standing disparity within various fetish communities, including This Thing of Ours (sic. MTP Jeff), between those members whose interest is founded on pure knismolagniacs vs. the BDSM Community. The former seem to be the people whose association with tickling is based on a simpler--what some might refer to as "baser"--sensualism of tickling for sexual or platonic gratification; the latter are members who incoporate their TRUE LOVE OF TICKLING (I never said they were posers!) into a wider array of far more intricate and cultivated practices for a more sophisticated appetite. Tickling alone, and for that matter, spanking-caning-tying-trussing-etc. is never the end, but rather a tool in a far larger, more grandiose mechanism built to acheive a far more complex result.

And this unorthodox (not "strange", "weird") mentality is something that has never been adequately explained or described in a manner that makes it accessible or understandable to the "vanilla" personality. Maybe it's because BDSM participants prefer to refer to themselves and their practices in the abstract lexicon they have manufactured to sustain an obfuscating mysticism that shields their sophisticated passions from deconstruction. Maybe they feel that intagible essence out of which their world is built will evaporate when touched by the same language utilized in user's manuals. For whatever reason, there's been no active campaign inside or outside the tickling world to bridge the comprehension gap between the "vanilla" and the "kink" communities.

But I think it can happen. And I'd like to try by starting here with everyone's help.

I consider myself vanilla because my lascivious qualities seem to emanate from a ravenous libido rather than the je ne sais quoi that motivates Dominants or Submissive; my motivations are hedonistic avarice, not the intricate cerebralness of "kinky" people. My tickling is a form of sexual sadism that is independent of context or accoutrements, and sustains itself on the reactions of pure ticklish suffering. For a few years now I've been working on and off on a story called "Phetish" that deals with the conflict between hedonism and philosophy, and that theme will be predominant in an upcoming project I'm working on right now, where one of my characters calls BDSM "a duplicitous sophia", in reference to her belief that BDSM pursues unecessarily ornate thrills that distract from indulging in the pure pleasure of hedonistic excess. In short, I don't need and don't relate to the power-exchange mentality that comes with being dominant or submissive: I don't see myself as a Dom, I see myself as a mad scientist (interested in experiments rather than power).

Conversations with Bella and LeeAllure have helped me determine that the divide between "kink" and "vanilla" is lingusitic, not philosophical. Bella, who LOVES SPANKING, explained to me that associating it with pain was the incorrect perception; that in the proper head space, it was about sensation. Because I only knew of the act in a single context (application of pain), I was unable to correctly view alternative interpretations and reponses to it (pleasure, sensuality, power, etc.), and THIS LACK OF CLARITY is probably the reason why so many of us don't understand the BDSM crowd. Discussions with my therapist (a neurologist as well as a psychiatrist) revealed the relationship between endorphins and prostoglandins (or nociception) and how their role in sense reception can be altered with the right association (a.k.a. "head-space"). It made me very curious about how those associations could form and how they could be both active and inactive depending on certain moods? Could they be called up at will or does it require a more unconscious alignment of neurological processes?

So maybe it's possible to start dispelling the confusion about being a Dominant or a Submissive by describing what it is like being one of them. And I don't mean a general description of the emotions you feel when you are one or the other, but rather the unfolding of events and feelings in your mind as they progress linearly. If you can describe the subtle shifts in the process to include little observations (e.g. "a laugh sounds like what candy would taste like if you could hear it. Peppermint candy, not fruit-flavored because it has pockets of strong flavor when it cracks open...don't ask me why that is, that's what goes through my mind when I hear it") so we can all chart the gradual development of what goes on in the mind of a Dom or Sub as they are being one.

What is it about being a Dom or a Sub that is so vitally important? What individual NEED or RELEASE does it meet? What does it feel like as you shift into that head-space--how do you change? And what are you aware or not aware of? TicklishGiggle is a 100% 'lee, so what is it about being exclusively submissive that has that much import? LeeAllure, Libertine and others are 100% ler so again, what is the urgency and necessity of being Dominant? Bella and Mimi can switch, so that makes it even more interesting to study the architecture of their associations. Maybe this is the equivalent of performing an autopsy on Snow White or drilling core samples out of a Redwood, but I think it will be good for everyone overall.

So what do you lees and lers or tops and bottoms have to say?

 

[chicago]

I'm fairly dominant in personality, at least when I'm comfortable with the people I'm around, and especially on this forum. I have a hard time showing any kind of weakness in my normal life.

So, depending who you are, the fact that I'm submissive kind of makes sense.

Like those CEOs of huge companies that like to go to fetish clubs and be humiliated and spanked.

I guess it's kind of appealing to me to have someone make all the decisions and me just take it. I don't know.

But the process of going from regular Mairead to submissive Mairead is a strange one. I'm pretty tough as a 'lee, or I'd like to think. When I'm getting tickled, I growl, bite, and generally fight back a little. I've been somewhat "trained" not to squirm or thrash around too much by some experienced 'lers. So it's not much of a fight, but actually when the tickling starts I get kinda mad. It's weird. I'm frustrated at first at the thought of being forced to do something, but after a while, that starts to break down and I'm kinda swallowed up by submissive-ness. I will pretty much do anything or say anything at that point (that point being restrained, nearly naked, tired, and sweating profusely).

The submissiveness lasts anywhere from a few hours to a few days where I'm quiet, shy, and almost sweet. Almost.

But I soon go back to being the SAM, I am.

Hope this helped, somewhat.

 

[cloudgazer2k]

A damn fine piece of work, Amnesiac. And compelling as well. I don't know how I can help you in this regard, but here is my two cents worth:

Like, Bella, I am a switch. So is, strangely enough, my fiancee (though many have seen more pics of her tied up than me, that's more or less because of vanity...I is an ugly mofo). However, lately, she has taken to be my Sub for a while, so that we may better understand our Dom/Sub nature. In time, the roles will change and, after a period of exploration and understanding, we'll not only know each other better, but understand each other and how we work.

As a Dom, it is about power: she only has an orgasm when I say so, she has to ask for things, thank me for what I give, etc. But in doing so, I learn about how her body reacts to certain stimuli other than tickling, and how her mind perceives everything. As we venture more into the BDSM lifestyle, she is also becoming more aware of her latent sexuality and once-dormant personality, as am I. I have also learned more about how she communicates, and she has learned how to tell me what it is she wants, rather than me making assumptions. I'm terrible at body language, but our interactions in the past have helped open the lines of communication faster, as I hoped it would.

When I am a Submissive, I am Hers. I give, She takes, and only gives back what I deserve. In that mode, I feel that need to be taken rather than take, to have my vulnerabilities (i.e. foot fetishism, tickling, pain and so on) used against me in the best way She can. But there is also that trust, that bonding that happens when I allow those vulnerabilities to surface. I take care of Her, She takes care of me, and when it's all done we hold each other for hours to let that pleasure and energy wash over us.

I hope, somehow, this helps in your research. In no way do I consider myself an expert in this subject, but it is something I learn about constantly.

 

[drew70]

My feeling is that if it seems like there is confusion around the whole dominance and submission thing, you are probably making it way more complicated than it actually is.

The first myth that needs to be dispelled is the notion that a propensity towards tickling is no different that a prepensity towards pain. The two are completely antonymous with each other. Pain is a big part of self-preservation, the body's way of warning oneself that physical harm is occuring. Tickling is more like an overstimulation of the pleasure sense, which is why we laugh uncontrollably. Those who equate tickling with pain are either ignorant of the nature of the two, or they do so as a means to rationalize and justify brutality.

Sadists the world over have been desperately though unsuccessfully trying to justify their delight in inflicting pain as a "sophisticated" brand of sexual foreplay. The submissives who relish in the pain go along with it because they are...well...submissive. They go along with anything the would-be "master" decrees.

Sadists are an interesting breed of human animal. They enjoy subjugating women and abusing them physically. Some do this to satisfy their vast ego and over inflated self esteem. They feel that hurting women makes them more of a man, or even worse, feel that women are only attractive when miserable and in pain. Others do it simply out of cruely, much the same way a bully enjoys picking on smaller children or pulling wings off an insect.

Then there are the submissives. They look at the pain and injury they receive from their "masters" as acts of love. 🙄 So starved for attention that even the cruel beatings are welcome because they know that at least at that moment, they are the sole focus of the "master's" attention.

It's difficult to imagine a less healthy symbiotic relationship. The submissive feeding the master's ego and self importance while the master feeds the submissives destructive feelings of low self esteem and desire for punishment.

 

[dvnc]

I feel that you're mistaken, Drew.

A deviancy from "normal" interests is just that - a deviancy.

Some folks here are into tickling alone. Some are into bondage. Some are into dominance and submission play. Some are sadist. Some, masochists.

There's more to BDSM than any ONE way. Just like tickling. You were there in AMT days for the whole "F/m is weird" stupidity. Not my kink, and I still respect it. Others didn't, like you don't respect BDSM.

I'm into BDSM aspects. Does this mean you disrespect me?

Sadism isn't only pain. Masochism isn't only receiving pain. BDSM *ISN'T* about HARM for me. Not for most into it that I've met.

I don't personally think your generalizations say anything more than that you don't understand the complexity of the BDSM interest. You're insulting folks, like me, without any apparent intellect usually applied to your arguments.

If this follows pattern, you'll quote me a lot, try to pick at object points, and will seem to be winning or losing something. In fact, you'll alienate me, and others, for no good purpose.

You're better than that. I already know you are.

Tickling, when including bondage especially, when focused on the 'ler controlling the 'lee and doing a 'ler's will on a 'lee, IS a good example of BDSM play. Both parties have to consent, legally, as they do in other BDSM play.

You've misidentified a whole section of this community, man. Did you mean to? Reading the quoted post, below, I can't help feeling that you're confused. Tickling isn't a pleasure sense for MOST of the planet. Studies show it to be a means to teach an infant defenses. Protect these areas. It's why we don't generally have ticklish shoulders or knuckles, . They're already built for defense.

There's folks in other kinks, and in the vanilla world, that are violently opposed to tickling. HATE it. Met 'em. You likely have, too. They're no more right about our interest than you are about BDSM.

It IS accurate to say that a person abusing someone is a negative. It's accurate to say that non-consensual activity in a partnership is a negative.

If, however, folks wanna pee on each other, that's their deal. So long as I don't gotta deal with it, swell. Just leave me outta that.

It's not a myth that some of us have an interest in something that pains others. There are folks opposed to tickling like there are folks opposed to pain (like you). That's okay, too. Just understand, please, that yours is an opinion being stated like it's fact, like it's the "right" way to describe "wrong" things.

There are tastes that folks have. Tastes that are different than yours. Than mine. You're in the wrong place if you can't learn to accept that this is a truth.

This is MY opinion. I disagree with you, and that, too, is okay. I just want to see that there's folks here seeing both sides of such opinions, and that they disagree with one another, inarguably.

I feel you could have stated your opinion in a less inflammatory way. It's still acceptable. Just might've caused problems. Might not, now. Now it just sways opinions about the topic, and about you and me.

So be it.

Regardless, Merry Christmas. Hope you're havin' a good one.

My feeling is that if it seems like there is confusion around the whole dominance and submission thing, you are probably making it way more complicated than it actually is.

The first myth that needs to be dispelled is the notion that a propensity towards tickling is no different that a prepensity towards pain. The two are completely antonymous with each other. Pain is a big part of self-preservation, the body's way of warning oneself that physical harm is occuring. Tickling is more like an overstimulation of the pleasure sense, which is why we laugh uncontrollably. Those who equate tickling with pain are either ignorant of the nature of the two, or they do so as a means to rationalize and justify brutality.

Sadists the world over have been desperately though unsuccessfully trying to justify their delight in inflicting pain as a "sophisticated" brand of sexual foreplay. The submissives who relish in the pain go along with it because they are...well...submissive. They go along with anything the would-be "master" decrees.

Sadists are an interesting breed of human animal. They enjoy subjugating women and abusing them physically. Some do this to satisfy their vast ego and over inflated self esteem. They feel that hurting women makes them more of a man, or even worse, feel that women are only attractive when miserable and in pain. Others do it simply out of cruely, much the same way a bully enjoys picking on smaller children or pulling wings off an insect.

Then there are the submissives. They look at the pain and injury they receive from their "masters" as acts of love. 🙄 So starved for attention that even the cruel beatings are welcome because they know that at least at that moment, they are the sole focus of the "master's" attention.

It's difficult to imagine a less healthy symbiotic relationship. The submissive feeding the master's ego and self importance while the master feeds the submissives destructive feelings of low self esteem and desire for punishment.

 

[ViperGTS]

My feeling is that if it seems like there is confusion around the whole dominance and submission thing, you are probably making it way more complicated than it actually is.

The first myth that needs to be dispelled is the notion that a propensity towards tickling is no different that a prepensity towards pain. The two are completely antonymous with each other. Pain is a big part of self-preservation, the body's way of warning oneself that physical harm is occuring. Tickling is more like an overstimulation of the pleasure sense, which is why we laugh uncontrollably. Those who equate tickling with pain are either ignorant of the nature of the two, or they do so as a means to rationalize and justify brutality.

Sadists the world over have been desperately though unsuccessfully trying to justify their delight in inflicting pain as a "sophisticated" brand of sexual foreplay. The submissives who relish in the pain go along with it because they are...well...submissive. They go along with anything the would-be "master" decrees.

Sadists are an interesting breed of human animal. They enjoy subjugating women and abusing them physically. Some do this to satisfy their vast ego and over inflated self esteem. They feel that hurting women makes them more of a man, or even worse, feel that women are only attractive when miserable and in pain. Others do it simply out of cruely, much the same way a bully enjoys picking on smaller children or pulling wings off an insect.

Then there are the submissives. They look at the pain and injury they receive from their "masters" as acts of love. 🙄 So starved for attention that even the cruel beatings are welcome because they know that at least at that moment, they are the sole focus of the "master's" attention.

It's difficult to imagine a less healthy symbiotic relationship. The submissive feeding the master's ego and self importance while the master feeds the submissives destructive feelings of low self esteem and desire for punishment.

You forgot something: "IMO."

------------------------------------

Many people on this site are switches; they can take on a Dominant role, or a submissive one, based on the scene and the person they are playing with. I am not one of those people, nor have I ever been. I've never been able to switch to the submissive role, because it's just not in my personalty. being Dominant comes naturally to me.

I've never really examined why being in control is such a charge for me. It's intoxicating, like a sensual kind of drug. It's addictive. It's empowering.

I have always enjoyed giving pleasure and pain much more than receiving it. Being in control over a situation (as in, having my partner bound and helpless before me) gives me a perfect opportunity to provide as much pleasure, pain, torture, and release as I wish to, no more, no less.

If I am in a particularly sadistic mood, I can find each button that my partner has...be it having her hair pulled, her ass spanked, her feet tickled, her womanhood lightly teased....and press it as much as I want, making my partner so overbearlingly horny and riled up that she begs me for release, release that only I may allow her. Watching her squirm on the table, watching her toes curl as she screams in ticklish agony, watching the tears fall from her cheeks as my hand strikes her ass over and over (and as he crotch gets more and more moist), listening to her gasp as I surprise her with a grip of her hair...these sensations and reactions are what I revel in as a Dom. She knows I want her, she knows that she is mine, and she enjoys every second of everything I provide her, regardless of the painful or torturous nature of these sensations.

In the end, the ultimate virtue is respect. I respect my partner, and though I might punish her and push her limits near the breaking point...tickling her until she quite literally is about to break, spanking her until she can almost no longer bear the pain, forcing her to climax so many times she fears losing her ability to walk...I would never bring harm to her.

She appreciates this. She enjoys pain, pleasure, and cruel tortures. She associates the sharp sting of my hand on her ass with pleasure, and it gets her off. She's not sick or deranged. She simply has a different association.

*edit: I kinda lost my train of thought and went off on a tangent...I'll revisit this thread later lol

 

[Headsnap]

Erm, this all seems very involved and eloquent. Is this not the forum where people ask what kind of clouds one likes to have floating overhead when one is engaged in tickling? To be honest I don't really see much distinction between people who consider themselves "100% lers" and people who are Dominants in a more BDSM spanky/ slave training type of way; as far as I can tell from my reading up about such things and my (admittedly very limited) contact with such folk they look to be cut from cloth that, whilst maybe not entirely identical, is at least very similarly patterned, with the egos and the power tripping megalomania and the what have you. If you've got someone who is a 100% ler who likes women tied up and tickled until they start crying the chances are he's going to approve of tying up women and spanking them, or just tying them up really tightly. The strange thing is I don't know if the same could be said of "100% lees" and Submissives... Oh it is an interesting discussion indeed, sirs!

As far as I'm concerned I don't really know what category I fall into when it comes to tagging myself. For me the whole thing is about physical contact, intimacy, and a little bit of control freaking, and in that sense I'd just as soon spend an hour kissing and cuddling as I would spend it tickling her. I couldn't tell you the psychology of that, it just is what it is :-O

 

[BellaRisa]

"a laugh sounds like what candy would taste like if you could hear it. Peppermint candy, not fruit-flavored because it has pockets of strong flavor when it cracks open..."

This was absolutely delightful to read, and very accurate .

In response to the original questions...I believe that there's a difference between nouns and verbs here . Speaking for myself, my dominance or submission simply are. They're aspects of myself, like being left-handed. While certainly important to me, it's not that I place importance upon them; it's that they're who I am, and therefore they're naturally expressed when the correct opportunity presents itself. Just as I can get along without my trusty lefty scissors but I'm most comfortable using them instead of the righty kind, I don't have to be actively submissive (or dominant) at any given time but it's lovely and quite naturally comfortable when I can appropriately express those instincts. How does it feel to shift? Like slipping into a warm soapy bath after a long chilly day

Having said that, context is indeed important. I'm 100% switch, but I have to be in the right situation. In the presence of an Alpha male whom I trust, my dominant side feels the way I do when I try to draw with my right hand: awkward and foreign and wrong . On the other hand, give me an uber-submissive little 'lee all nice and bound and...well, you know the rest . The 'switch' in me mind happens as it will; it's very similar to the way I run my household like a little drill sargeant until my husband comes home from work, when I naturally relax into a more relaxed and sub state of mind because I know I don't have to be the main person in charge anymore. I know, how 1953 😛. But that's how it happens.

Frankly, in the near-decade I've been a member of the BDSM/spanking/tickling communities I've learned to take the disparity with a grain of salt. The truth is that those with a bit of sense don't see reason to argue; they understand that some folks have more than one kink. Period. When we looked up the word 'tickle' in the dictionary we also looked up 'spank', and we were just as riveted by Ricky spanking Lucy and Lex Luthor tying up Lois Lane as we were by those cats licking Olive Oyl's feet. And that doesn't take away from our deep callings for any of our individual proclivities, trust me they're equally captivating 😎

 

[kis123]

You forgot something: "IMO."

------------------------------------

Many people on this site are switches; they can take on a Dominant role, or a submissive one, based on the scene and the person they are playing with. I am not one of those people, nor have I ever been. I've never been able to switch to the submissive role, because it's just not in my personalty. being Dominant comes naturally to me.

I've never really examined why being in control is such a charge for me. It's intoxicating, like a sensual kind of drug. It's addictive. It's empowering.

I have always enjoyed giving pleasure and pain much more than receiving it. Being in control over a situation (as in, having my partner bound and helpless before me) gives me a perfect opportunity to provide as much pleasure, pain, torture, and release as I wish to, no more, no less.

If I am in a particularly sadistic mood, I can find each button that my partner has...be it having her hair pulled, her ass spanked, her feet tickled, her womanhood lightly teased....and press it as much as I want, making my partner so overbearlingly horny and riled up that she begs me for release, release that only I may allow her. Watching her squirm on the table, watching her toes curl as she screams in ticklish agony, watching the tears fall from her cheeks as my hand strikes her ass over and over (and as he crotch gets more and more moist), listening to her gasp as I surprise her with a grip of her hair...these sensations and reactions are what I revel in as a Dom. She knows I want her, she knows that she is mine, and she enjoys every second of everything I provide her, regardless of the painful or torturous nature of these sensations.

In the end, the ultimate virtue is respect. I respect my partner, and though I might punish her and push her limits near the breaking point...tickling her until she quite literally is about to break, spanking her until she can almost no longer bear the pain, forcing her to climax so many times she fears losing her ability to walk...I would never bring harm to her.

She appreciates this. She enjoys pain, pleasure, and cruel tortures. She associates the sharp sting of my hand on her ass with pleasure, and it gets her off. She's not sick or deranged. She simply has a different association.

*edit: I kinda lost my train of thought and went off on a tangent...I'll revisit this thread later lol

Interesting thoughts; I've never thought of it this way. Actually it's pretty friggin' hott!

I guess I'm pretty vanilla when it comes to kink; tickling is the only one I seem to have. But I am bondage curious; my need to be in control gets in the way of exploring that side of me. I have trust issues as well.

The only place where I can consider submission is in the bedroom. I don't know why I'm wired like that but I can pretty much try anything with my lover and be who/whatever he wants/needs me to be. It makes me happy to please him so it doesn't matter if he wants to control. But in any other aspect of life, I have no desire to be dominated or controlled. I have no idea why I'm this way and I feel it gets in the way of exploring my sensuality and sexuality.

In the world of single parenthood, I had to be strong and provide for the needs of my children and family. I always have to be strong because people depend on me. It's exhausting and I am at the point that I don't always want to be strong 24/7. I wish I could just release my strength to someone else who would respect it and give me care. I'm not sure if that is the thought process of the submissive and those of you who have the answers can chime right in.

I live in a world where I'm curious about things but afraid to release the control issues to pursue my curiosity. Any suggestions?

 

[BellaRisa]

Interesting thoughts; I've never thought of it this way. Actually it's pretty friggin' hott!

I guess I'm pretty vanilla when it comes to kink; tickling is the only one I seem to have. But I am bondage curious; my need to be in control gets in the way of exploring that side of me. I have trust issues as well.

The only place where I can consider submission is in the bedroom. I don't know why I'm wired like that but I can pretty much try anything with my lover and be who/whatever he wants/needs me to be. It makes me happy to please him so it doesn't matter if he wants to control. But in any other aspect of life, I have no desire to be dominated or controlled. I have no idea why I'm this way and I feel it gets in the way of exploring my sensuality and sexuality.

In the world of single parenthood, I had to be strong and provide for the needs of my children and family. I always have to be strong because people depend on me. It's exhausting and I am at the point that I don't always want to be strong 24/7. I wish I could just release my strength to someone else who would respect it and give me care. I'm not sure if that is the thought process of the submissive and those of you who have the answers can chime right in.

I live in a world where I'm curious about things but afraid to release the control issues to pursue my curiosity. Any suggestions?

If/when you meet the right person, you'll find that you naturally relax and let go around them to whatever degree you personally need to. It takes a LOT of trust, so I totally understand your reluctance to give up your personal control. Even for those of us who have a truly submissive side it takes a ton of trust and caring to reach that delicious place where you feel at ease turning over your personal power. It's a gift and the right dominant appreciates it as such

 

[Amnesiac]

Responses: Part I

Okay, some GREAT responses thus far! I hope to hear from Libertine and KittenToes and LeeAllure sometime on this!

Let's start off with Mairead's as it's a good example of the contextual conflict I mentioned.

But the process of going from regular Mairead to submissive Mairead is a strange one. I'm pretty tough as a 'lee, or I'd like to think. When I'm getting tickled, I growl, bite, and generally fight back a little...So it's not much of a fight, but actually when the tickling starts I get kinda mad. It's weird. I'm frustrated at first at the thought of being forced to do something, but after a while, that starts to break down and I'm kinda swallowed up by submissive-ness. I will pretty much do anything or say anything at that point (that point being restrained, nearly naked, tired, and sweating profusely).
-TicklishGiggle

This DID help, M. Notice how she describes the gradual shift from one state to another; apparently for someone like her it's a transitional process that triggers and eventually shuts down most of the surface defenses. It feels to me like a miniature version of the Kubler-Ross Acceptance of Death Stages, each one breaking down to a more honest and open state. The mention of how she gets mad lends itself to the kind of misinterpretation I anticipated: if I were tickling you, I would TOTALLY perceive that incorrectly: "Uh-oh, she's getting mad, I must be doing something wrong...better stop before she gets REALLY pissed and I regret it!" It'd be hard to interpret the transitional anger from REAL anger.

Does this feel to any of you like the stripping away of artificial behavior tropes from a more real, organic personality that is hidden away? This might explain the cryptic description of BDSM members who talk about "inner being", "whole other person" and "hidden rivers of knowledge." What if these are hidden or suppressed areas of the brain that enhance our sensual responses like a pinched nerve when broght back to life? Like an organ we've never used? If so, what do you think is the nature of that inner self?

The submissiveness lasts anywhere from a few hours to a few days where I'm quiet, shy, and almost sweet. Almost.
-TicklishGiggle

This brings up a few questions (that both TG and others can comment on):

1. Since the dominant side of you can fade away for a few days into a semi-sweet and cuddly submissive, is it a realistic speculation that the dominant side is less authentic (since it seems to be a shielding persona) and the submissive side more true to your nature because its so well defended and is the most sociable?

2. How much of this angry reaction is connected to the % of your 'lee-ness? Do you think that if you had a certain 'ler% it might be stronger or weaker?

2a. Remember how you react when Lee goes after you? Do you experience a different mode shift when she snares you with her "Cobra beams"?

3. Do you ever wish that you HAD any 'ler-ness in you--either out of curiosity or experimentation--or are you totally happy with being a 'lee?

4. Since you have experience with recreational "happy medicines", do you notice a similarity in how your mind and body react--in peaks and lows--when becoming a 'lee, being tickled, or coming back to dominance? Does it have the same semblance as a really good high?

5. You uses the terms "swallowed up by submissiveness" after being "broken down" by something you could stop with a safeword at anytime. Is there a separate sensation(s) that prevents you from feeling the need to resist effectively?

6. Could you describe in detail what thoughts go throigh your mind as you anticipate, endure, and recover from tickling? Could you describe the emotions that go off and how they move around in your head; the subjective emotional trip that unfolds as these things are happening?

7. What kind of positive gratification do you get from the experience of being tickled exclusively? Does the presence of additional 'lers or viewers change the mood? Does tickling affect you differently if you're not 100& IN Sub mode?

8. Lastly, armed with the above information--assuming my assumptions are accurate--how would you encourage or educate 'lers who are unexperienced in tickling you so that they do it right by you and themselves?

Now on to cloudgazer2k:

As a Dom, it is about power: she only has an orgasm when I say so, she has to ask for things, thank me for what I give, etc. But in doing so, I learn about how her body reacts to certain stimuli other than tickling, and how her mind perceives everything.

Now we see firsthand an example that illustrates the importance of "perception". The altered state of mind changes perception and thus, alters the interpretation of sensation. But while there's as much about Submissive to talk about, let's stary with the Dom: if a Sub releases stress by allowing someone else to make the decisions for them, and thus taking control of their stimulus response, for what reason does a Dom require that much control that the Sub's pleasure responses are self-interrupted? Why is it important to control or force the sub to be complicit in their own subjugation? What NEED or IMPORT or WANT is met by reaffriming an asserted authority? A vanilla might label that as insecurity, but that seems an unlikely interpretation...so what would be an ACCURATE intepretation?

Also, I mentioned the possible breaking down of mental barriers both conditioned and probably natural. You mentioned the opening of communication by Dominating...do you think this entire process could exclusively be an opening up and that the mutual pleasure derived from the experience acts as an encourager like orgasms encouraging sexual activity?

When I am a Submissive, I am Hers. I give, She takes, and only gives back what I deserve. In that mode, I feel that need to be taken rather than take, to have my vulnerabilities...used against me in the best way She can.
-cloudgazer2k

This sounds similar to the whole "bad boy" "punishment" scenarios the mainstream is fond of lampooning inaccurately. You mentioned the word "deserve" which seems to imply an unwritten assumption of inferiority or violation and a mutual participation in concocting an association of inferiority. Have you ever analyzed or examined this NEED to be taken? What justification does your mind detect for why it is necessary to happen? When we do something intense or emotional, we always notice--in the back of our minds--some NEED that this meets: "This will happen if this is done." What I'm asking for is a direct confrontation with that little voice for answers to why it tells you to want this. Is the punishment scenario merely a fabrication to suspend disbelief in order to force the mind to connect with the pleasurable associations the stimuli produces?

A note on drew70's quote:

Then there are the submissives. They look at the pain and injury they receive from their "masters" as acts of love. So starved for attention that even the cruel beatings are welcome because they know that at least at that moment, they are the sole focus of the "master's" attention.

This is an accurate description of a hierarchical subordinate in an abusive situation. The association with violence as an expression of love is a result of brutalization conditioning: an abuser beats the other person and conditions them to interpret or they mistakenly intepret the violence as a sign of affection because it fits within the context of THAT relationship. Absuers manipulate the mental state of their subjects to alter their associations to a desireable state and they use pain as a tool to sculpt it; the fact that they get a cathartic rush out of venting their anger on the weaker is probably a bonus for them. But this is why abused women and children will often seek out similar personalities as it is their coerced or formative experience with affection and the cycle of violence repeats itself. It's not categorically the reason why submissives like to be controlled or "punished" by their Doms. As I've assumed here (correctly I hope), the "punishment" and "pain" in a BDSM relationship is not due to damaged or insecure minds, but are rather scenarios that re-establish neural connections and elevate the mind to higher levels of pleasure reception, where "pain" can be re-inrepreted.

I'll get to Viper's comments in my 3rd (much later) response.

The delicious Bella has returned to grace us with some info that I have a very interesting take on:

my dominance or submission simply are. They're aspects of myself, like being left-handed. While certainly important to me, it's not that I place importance upon them; it's that they're who I am, and therefore they're naturally expressed when the correct opportunity presents itself.
-Bella

This confirms some of my suspicions ever since you mentioned the whole "pain is the wrong association" comment months ago. My assumptions above speculate--with request for confirmation--that rather than being aberrant developments these fetishes are outgrowths of natural inclinations and the accoutrements are the manifestation of those inclinations necessary to create a state of mind where association is changed and altered. If this is correct, I'll need to do research on the electro-chemical neuological reasons as to why this is so. Tying you up and spanking/tickling the hell out of you while in an MRI or CAT scan with a painless spinal tap would be incredibly interesting. We might even get the pain-or-pleasure answers that drew mentione dby determining how the endorphins and prostoglandins interact with neurons.

It might help if Bella and the rest of you brought up a little bit of the origin of your "kink". I know it's been done to death on separate threads, but if you can recall the earliest memorable experience and where the little fetish objects, clothes, toys, activities you enjoy first expressed a connection to the rest of it might do a good job of indicating how the neurological architecture might form these dual-edged associations.

How does it feel to shift? Like slipping into a warm soapy bath after a long chilly day

Another indication of stress relief, or the relative emotional description of stress relief. Is this all it is? That stress is necessry for this type of pleasure to be experienced?

In the presence of an Alpha male whom I trust, my dominant side feels the way I do when I try to draw with my right hand: awkward and foreign and wrong...The 'switch' in me mind happens as it will; it's very similar to the way I run my household like a little drill sargeant until my husband comes home from work, when I naturally relax into a more relaxed and sub state of mind because I know I don't have to be the main person in charge anymore.

This is why I'd like to hear from KittenToes, Libertine's wife and submissive who live the entire relationship through and through. To hear a total lifestyle submissive talk about the effect the other Dominant has on their state of mind and the process of the shift would be fascinating.

The truth is that those with a bit of sense don't see reason to argue; they understand that some folks have more than one kink.

Oh, this isn't an argument; not in the way it means in the parlance of our times. This is a collective analysis designed to clear away the inveigling language and interpretations to create a more accurate and deep examination of what it feels like and is to be a DOM or SUBMISSIVE. The point of this thread is CLARIFICATION and UNDERSTANDING by consulting and cross-examining the people who live the life, walk the walk, talk the talk, and experience the feel. Their contribution provides the clarity; I merely try to bring up the unresolved avenues so they can be addressed.

I'm interested in hearing from some of the 100% Lers as well. To have some description of the processes and imports of being in control: the NEED and WANT that it meets, the CLOSURE that observing your own power externally expressed grants and what that feels like.

I'll post Part 2 tomorrow.

 

[cloudgazer2k]

Jumpin' monkeys, there's a lot to read! Amnesiac, I'll try my damndest to respond to the questions you have. I fit seems I go off on a tangent, accept my preemptive apology.

First, to Drew: You have your opinions, I have mine. And you gotta remember that not all D/S relationships are Male/Dom, Female/Sub. Quite often, they are the opposite, and I have seen women be as equally, if not more so, efficient in their methods as a male Dom. You want to see what I call abuse, look into Gorean lifestyles. THAT, to me, is not the way to go, but to each their own.

For Amnesiac: Some of your questions are difficult for my sleep-deprived brain to fully comprehend. For the most part, a Submissive that understand their role gives up a part of herself, and allows for the Dom to say "Here is what is before you. Take it as you will."...if that even makes sense. The Sub can agree, or not, to be a participant in whatever the Dom wants to do. Though the Dom has control, there is still the need to watch for responses, especially if the Sub has had enough of whatever. Safewords are important, in my opinion, to let the Sub know that, no matter what, that word(s) will end whatever is going on, and the Dom (if he's not a fucktard like some of the ones I have heard about/spoken to), will see to it that His Submissive is ok. Also, a Submissive acknowledging who her Dominant is shows trust, a willingness to try out something different and unique. As Bella illustrated earlier, some people spend the better part of their day being in charge, and wan to come home to someone who will take some of that responsibility away, just for a little while, just to be somewhere else.

You mentioned the opening of communication by Dominating...do you think this entire process could exclusively be an opening up and that the mutual pleasure derived from the experience acts as an encourager like orgasms encouraging sexual activity?

A damn good question...one I can't really answer myself, since my girl is in another state at the moment. Personally, I see this as a way to let the other person know you care, she/he has nothing to fear, and that they are safe. I believe that, over time, even when not engaged in the BDSM play or power exchange, the ability to be more open, honest and understanding with one another carries over.

As to your last question...hmm...I guess I have always wanted a strong woman to make me Hers. In my search for a Dominant woman over the years, I always wanted to find someone that would nurture the Submissive side of me, so that I may understand that aspect of myself better and, in turn, have a greater understanding of my Dominant side. This isn't merely about pain, pleasure, and being at my knees to a powerful Dominant, it is also about understanding one's spirituality as well. Many Indian tribes used methods of ritual branding, tattooing and even sweat lodges as a way to transcend to a higher level of understanding. Yes, great amounts of pain was inflicted, but they were in the presence of a spiritually stronger companion that was able to help them attain that moment of spiritual clarity. For me, to be taken and given what I "deserve" is not always the "I've been a bad boy" scenario, but to, instead, be in the hands of someone who can take me to places I have never been before.

 

[Redmage]

My feeling is that if it seems like there is confusion around the whole dominance and submission thing, you are probably making it way more complicated than it actually is.

My feeling is that if you're absolutely sure that you know all there is to know about it, you are probably oversimplifying it. Case in point...

The first myth that needs to be dispelled is the notion that a propensity towards tickling is no different that a prepensity towards pain. The two are completely antonymous with each other.

As it has been every time you float this argument, it's refuted by direct evidence: the substantial number of people who like both.

Consensual fetishes are all pretty much co-equal in terms of moral weight, regardless of where they come from. You might as well say that a fondness for painplay is like a fondness for rollercoasters, or someone who gets turned on by being scared at horror movies (there's a reason why they're traditional date flicks). Fear, too, is part of humans' self-preservation equipment. Inventive pleasure-loving critters that we are, we've turned a lot of that machinery to other uses.

Sadists are an interesting breed of human animal. They enjoy subjugating women and abusing them physically. Some do this to satisfy their vast ego and over inflated self esteem. They feel that hurting women makes them more of a man, or even worse, feel that women are only attractive when miserable and in pain. Others do it simply out of cruely, much the same way a bully enjoys picking on smaller children or pulling wings off an insect.

Oh, my goodness. And what about the female sadists and male masochists? Or the gays of both genders and orientations? Or the switches, who like both sides? And my gracious, what about bisexual switches?

You ought to look up one of the better books on this subject. It's called The Topping Book, and it's written by *gasp* two women: Dossie Easton and Janet Hardy. I'd love to see you tell Janet how much she hates women (and yes, I know her).

You know, it's almost as though you had no idea what any of this was really about. Oh, wait....

 

[BellaRisa]

Whut?

I'll need to do research on the electro-chemical neuological reasons as to why this is so. Tying you up and spanking/tickling the hell out of you while in an MRI or CAT scan with a painless spinal tap would be incredibly interesting.

Talk dirty to me Daddy . Say CAT scan and spinal tap again, I just shiver with lust oooh baby...🙄

Anyway, speaking for myself there's no specific origin of my kinks. They were always there, which is why I'm a believer in this having something to do with genetics. Asking about the origin of my kinks is like asking when I first realized I was a lefty or when I discovered chocolate; while there may be early memories, the instincts and leanings where there from birth as far as I can tell. Just as I naturally picked up crayons and toys with my left hand and chose chocolate over strawberry, tickling felt 'right'. Like home 😎

Stress isn't necessary for the 'shift' to be experienced, it simply enhances one's appreciation for it. Kind of like having your favorite drink when you're seriously thirsty; you'd have enjoyed it anyway, but it's extra good when your parched. I can be in the middle of a lovely, very relaxed and stress-free day and still slip over like Pavlov's sub when my Dominant calls it's a natural transition. I keep using the word 'natural' because it really is like breathing; it just 'is'.

As Bella illustrated earlier, some people spend the better part of their day being in charge, and wan to come home to someone who will take some of that responsibility away, just for a little while, just to be somewhere else.

I know Cloudgazer and most folks contributing already understand, but let me mention something for others: when we discuss how lovely it is to be able to give over our responsibility and control, say at the end of a long day, I sense that it can seem as though we choose to be submissives in order to have this release. That's not the case, not exactly, at least not for myself and the submissives I know. As I've said, I've always, always had my submissive nature (and my dominant nature as well), and while it manifests itself at certain beneficial times it's not exactly a choice I make. The choice is whether to allow it to show itself, but the desire will be there regardless, like seeing a piece of chocolate and choosing whether to have it (natural instinct) or leave it alone (desire to have my jeans fit 😛 )

 

[kis123]

I'm fairly dominant in personality, at least when I'm comfortable with the people I'm around, and especially on this forum. I have a hard time showing any kind of weakness in my normal life.

So, depending who you are, the fact that I'm submissive kind of makes sense.

Like those CEOs of huge companies that like to go to fetish clubs and be humiliated and spanked.

I guess it's kind of appealing to me to have someone make all the decisions and me just take it. I don't know.

Hope this helped, somewhat.

I missed this when I first entered this thread, but this is very interesting. I have an extremely dominant personality (for those of you that just joined yesterday because everyone else around here knows this well ). I just want to be with someone where I can just turn it all off and melt into him. I want to be safe, comfortable, and let him make all the decisions. It's so hard to give that kind of complete trust to someone, but I'd love to learn how. Like TG said in her earlier post, some of the strongest people like to be dominated.

And thanks bella for your answer; it makes total sense. Actually, my SO has an effect on me when we're together. I can just melt, lean back, and know he'll take care of me. If I can just get more time with him........that's still a work in progress!

 

[drew70]

I feel that you're mistaken, Drew.

A deviancy from "normal" interests is just that - a deviancy.

Some folks here are into tickling alone. Some are into bondage. Some are into dominance and submission play. Some are sadist. Some, masochists.

There's more to BDSM than any ONE way. Just like tickling. You were there in AMT days for the whole "F/m is weird" stupidity. Not my kink, and I still respect it. Others didn't, like you don't respect BDSM.

I'm into BDSM aspects. Does this mean you disrespect me?

No, not at all. I have many friends into BDSM and more than just aspects. I was introduced to the BDSM world back in the seventies, just out of high school, and still have long time friends who are involved in it to this day.

This isn't about me judging people for having different interests. If it were, I'd be railing against M/F tickling, M/M anything, etc. And I admit there was a time when I would do exactly that. But I've since learned and embraced the concepts of diversity and how it can strengthen a community rather than divide it. Most aspects of BDSM don't offend me. I've dabbled in it myself, truth be told, but it wasn't for me. I found that I neither like being controlled nor do I enjoy controlling others. I don't like receiving pain, nor am I interested in inflicting it. I know there is a wide variety of interests regarding BDSM, and just because I may not be aware of every aspect of it, that doesn't disqualify me from having an opinion about the aspects I am familiar with.

There is an aspect of BDSM in which sadistic men derive pleasure from inflicting pain on women. My opinion is that this not only morally unethical, but psychologically unhealthy and detrimental to humanity in general. I've seen posts in which a guy will droolingly fantasize about spanking a woman until she has bright red marks all over her. That indicates to me that he's not solely interested in role play or sensory stimulation, but rather inflicting harm and injury. He gets off on seeing the results of his violence against her. This in my opinion speaks not of a simple deviation from vanilla sex, but rather a psychosis; somebody trying to over-compensate for deeply rooted feelings of inadequacy, of which he may not even be aware.


Another aspect to which I object, though not quite as strenuously, are the self-proclaimed masters who insist on dominating women. I can respect the idea of role playing, where the scenarios are more like an elaborate game. But I've seen relationships in which it is no game, it's his way or the highway, and she'd better comply if she knows what's good for her. You're probably thinking that BDSM isn't all about that. I know it isn't. I know many of the guys actually do treat the women with respect. Cloudgazer is a good example. He and his better half switch roles from time to time. A super-inflated ego or true sadist would not likely go for this. He would rather insist on being dominant all the time, believing he is simply "dominant by nature."

Sadism isn't only pain. Masochism isn't only receiving pain. BDSM *ISN'T* about HARM for me. Not for most into it that I've met.

I don't personally think your generalizations say anything more than that you don't understand the complexity of the BDSM interest. You're insulting folks, like me, without any apparent intellect usually applied to your arguments.

If this follows pattern, you'll quote me a lot, try to pick at object points, and will seem to be winning or losing something. In fact, you'll alienate me, and others, for no good purpose.

You're better than that. I already know you are.

I'm not quoting you to win anything. You and I disagree on some things, but we've always been able to discuss them rationally. I've known for a long time you were to some degree involved in BDSM. I've never asked you for specifics. It's simply none of my business, and I honestly have little to no curiosity about what you or anybody else does. If I've mis-communicated that I condemn anybody and everybody into BDSM, I hope this post rectifies that erroneocity.

Tickling, when including bondage especially, when focused on the 'ler controlling the 'lee and doing a 'ler's will on a 'lee, IS a good example of BDSM play. Both parties have to consent, legally, as they do in other BDSM play.

With respect, I disagree. I know that for some BDSM'ers, tickling is simply another means of establishing control and superiority of one person over another. For many bondage enthusiasts, tickling is merely a means of getting the victim to further experience the helplessness of their captivity. For foot fetishists, tickling is used to stimulate the object of their focus. But there are those of us who are tickling purists, who enjoy giving and receiving tickling for no underlying reason other than that we dig tickling simply for what it is. To declare that tickling is a subset of BDSM is as much an erroneous generalization as saying that BDSM is all about pain and control.

You've misidentified a whole section of this community, man. Did you mean to? Reading the quoted post, below, I can't help feeling that you're confused. Tickling isn't a pleasure sense for MOST of the planet. Studies show it to be a means to teach an infant defenses. Protect these areas. It's why we don't generally have ticklish shoulders or knuckles, . They're already built for defense.

There's folks in other kinks, and in the vanilla world, that are violently opposed to tickling. HATE it. Met 'em. You likely have, too. They're no more right about our interest than you are about BDSM.

It IS accurate to say that a person abusing someone is a negative. It's accurate to say that non-consensual activity in a partnership is a negative.

If, however, folks wanna pee on each other, that's their deal. So long as I don't gotta deal with it, swell. Just leave me outta that.

It's not a myth that some of us have an interest in something that pains others. There are folks opposed to tickling like there are folks opposed to pain (like you). That's okay, too. Just understand, please, that yours is an opinion being stated like it's fact, like it's the "right" way to describe "wrong" things.

There are tastes that folks have. Tastes that are different than yours. Than mine. You're in the wrong place if you can't learn to accept that this is a truth.

This is MY opinion. I disagree with you, and that, too, is okay. I just want to see that there's folks here seeing both sides of such opinions, and that they disagree with one another, inarguably.

I feel you could have stated your opinion in a less inflammatory way. It's still acceptable. Just might've caused problems. Might not, now. Now it just sways opinions about the topic, and about you and me.

Hopefully I've clarified myself a little better - made it clear that I'm not casting blanket condemnations, but still feel that certain aspects of BDSM are indeed intrinsically wrong, and not simply a matter of "not my cup of tea."

So be it.

Regardless, Merry Christmas. Hope you're havin' a good one.

I wish you the same, and a happy new year.

This is an accurate description of a hierarchical subordinate in an abusive situation. The association with violence as an expression of love is a result of brutalization conditioning: an abuser beats the other person and conditions them to interpret or they mistakenly intepret the violence as a sign of affection because it fits within the context of THAT relationship. Absuers manipulate the mental state of their subjects to alter their associations to a desireable state and they use pain as a tool to sculpt it; the fact that they get a cathartic rush out of venting their anger on the weaker is probably a bonus for them. But this is why abused women and children will often seek out similar personalities as it is their coerced or formative experience with affection and the cycle of violence repeats itself. It's not categorically the reason why submissives like to be controlled or "punished" by their Doms. As I've assumed here (correctly I hope), the "punishment" and "pain" in a BDSM relationship is not due to damaged or insecure minds, but are rather scenarios that re-establish neural connections and elevate the mind to higher levels of pleasure reception, where "pain" can be re-inrepreted.

Anything's possible, I suppose. However, I can't help thinking that the latter is simply a disingenuous, glossed over cosmetic for the former.

First, to Drew: You have your opinions, I have mine. And you gotta remember that not all D/S relationships are Male/Dom, Female/Sub. Quite often, they are the opposite, and I have seen women be as equally, if not more so, efficient in their methods as a male Dom. You want to see what I call abuse, look into Gorean lifestyles. THAT, to me, is not the way to go, but to each their own.

This is where we differ. I believe abuse is still wrong, even if the abuser gives consent. Now, I’ve never heard the term Gorean lifestyles, but I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that it doesn’t refer to preaching to the world to save energy for the sake of climate change, while living in a giga-watt mansion and flying around in a fuel guzzling personal jet.

My feeling is that if you're absolutely sure that you know all there is to know about it, you are probably oversimplifying it. Case in point...

The first myth that needs to be dispelled is the notion that a propensity towards tickling is no different that a propensity towards pain. The two are completely antonymous with each other.

As it has been every time you float this argument, it's refuted by direct evidence: the substantial number of people who like both.

I like both hot weather and cold weather. I enjoy reaching new heights as well as exploring new depths. Polar opposites aren't canceled out just because somebody embraces both of them. Moreover, I fully admit I don't know all there is to know about BDSM. Can you say the same?

Consensual fetishes are all pretty much co-equal in terms of moral weight, regardless of where they come from. You might as well say that a fondness for painplay is like a fondness for rollercoasters, or someone who gets turned on by being scared at horror movies (there's a reason why they're traditional date flicks). Fear, too, is part of humans' self-preservation equipment. Inventive pleasure-loving critters that we are, we've turned a lot of that machinery to other uses.

Indeed we have. But as for consensual fetishes all being pretty much co-equal, I'm forced to respectfully disagree. There was a case in Germany which involved two men with a death fetish. One killed the other and ate part of him. Records of correspondence between the two men establish that the act was consensual. That doesn't make the man any less of a murderer. Consent is not the vast umbrella of right-making that some would espouse it to be.

Oh, my goodness. And what about the female sadists and male masochists? Or the gays of both genders and orientations? Or the switches, who like both sides? And my gracious, what about bisexual switches?

I'm well aware that other orientations exist, but my objections focus largely on dominant males and submissive females, which seems to be the most popular orientation.

You ought to look up one of the better books on this subject. It's called The Topping Book, and it's written by *gasp* two women: Dossie Easton and Janet Hardy. I'd love to see you tell Janet how much she hates women (and yes, I know her).

I appreciate the referral. I'll make an effort to obtain this book and let you know. As for telling Janet how much she hates women, I'm afraid that unlike you, I don't know her personally. If after reading the book, I feel that she hates women, I may ask you to tell her for me. Or, I may just quietly keep my opinion to myself. The world is full of endless possibilities.

You know, it's almost as though you had no idea what any of this was really about. Oh, wait....

Almost....but not quite. But on the other hand, it's no secret that you and Bella are in competition for the envied title of Most Knowledgeable and Experienced BDSM'er of the Tickling Community. For whatever it's worth, you got my vote, chief.

 

[ViperGTS]

This is where we differ. I believe abuse is still wrong, even if the abuser gives consent.

This is just silly to me.

By this logic, rape is still rape if the victim gives consent. Once the victim says, "yes, rape me", we go from a crime to a consensual sexual act.

If Bella were tied up and her bare bottom exposed, and I were about to give her rump a hell of a beating, and she says, "Go ahead, beat me", we move from abuse to a consensual act, whether you like it or not.

In my opinion, your definitions of BDSM, abuse, and torture are incorrect, as well as your blanket judgments and generalizations about people who are Doms. I just don't understand how you can call something that a person gets off on 'abuse.'

 

[Redmage]

I'm well aware that other orientations exist, but my objections focus largely on dominant males and submissive females, which seems to be the most popular orientation.

Actually the perception in the kink community is that male bottoms outnumber male tops. However female tops are in very short supply, and social stigma keeps many submissive men in the closet. A very common complaint of female bottoms is about guys who come on as tops initially, then ask to switch.

Basically, Drew, male tops are more visible, but not necessarily more numerous.

In any case, I'm aware of where your objections focus. That's what I'm pointing out: your objections are sexist. You apply a double standard to all of this. It's "abuse" when a man tops a woman, but not when a woman tops a woman, or a man tops a man, or a woman tops a man. Het male dominants are abusive, but het female dominants aren't, and let's not even talk about gays, lesbians, bisexuals, or switches.

Your moral judgment depends on the genders of the people involved. Yet if something is really wrong, then it's wrong no matter who does it. If a man hits his wife against her will, that's wrong. If a woman hits her husband likewise, that's also wrong. If a gay man commits murder, that's wrong. If a woman steals from a man, that's wrong. In the real world, gender and sexual orientation don't affect morality.

You don't have any cohesive moral argument against BDSM, and contrary to your claims you really don't know how the people involved in it work inside. When it comes right down to it, you just don't like male tops. And that's fine, you don't have to. But you'd be more truthful and accurate if you just acknowledged that and moved on, rather than pretending to knowledge that you don't have or proposing moral objections that you don't apply consistently. At this point you're like someone who says Thai food is morally wrong but Szechuan is OK.

By this logic, rape is still rape if the victim gives consent. Once the victim says, "yes, rape me", we go from a crime to a consensual sexual act.

Basically in Drew's universe as long as it still looks like rape (a faux struggle, protests, the lady being pinned to the bed beneath her lover) it is rape. He can't seem to process anything but what he sees and how he feels about it. It doesn't matter how the lady in question feels about it.

All of which would make him a fearsomely awful Dom if he ever tried his hand at it, so perhaps it's just as well that he never would.

 

[dvnc]

There is an aspect of BDSM in which sadistic men derive pleasure from inflicting pain on women. My opinion is that this not only morally unethical, but psychologically unhealthy and detrimental to humanity in general. I've seen posts in which a guy will droolingly fantasize about spanking a woman until she has bright red marks all over her. That indicates to me that he's not solely interested in role play or sensory stimulation, but rather inflicting harm and injury. He gets off on seeing the results of his violence against her. This in my opinion speaks not of a simple deviation from vanilla sex, but rather a psychosis; somebody trying to over-compensate for deeply rooted feelings of inadequacy, of which he may not even be aware.


Another aspect to which I object, though not quite as strenuously, are the self-proclaimed masters who insist on dominating women. I can respect the idea of role playing, where the scenarios are more like an elaborate game. But I've seen relationships in which it is no game, it's his way or the highway, and she'd better comply if she knows what's good for her. You're probably thinking that BDSM isn't all about that. I know it isn't. I know many of the guys actually do treat the women with respect. Cloudgazer is a good example. He and his better half switch roles from time to time. A super-inflated ego or true sadist would not likely go for this. He would rather insist on being dominant all the time, believing he is simply "dominant by nature."

Drew, you're objecting to people who treat each other poorly. I object to that, too, brother.

To wit - If my lover and I agree to play in whatever manner we do, it's our biz.

If I mess with a woman without consent, I'm law-breaking, and deserve the punishment that will fit that crime.

I'm not quoting you to win anything. You and I disagree on some things, but we've always been able to discuss them rationally. I've known for a long time you were to some degree involved in BDSM. I've never asked you for specifics. It's simply none of my business, and I honestly have little to no curiosity about what you or anybody else does. If I've mis-communicated that I condemn anybody and everybody into BDSM, I hope this post rectifies that erroneocity.

Such is the clarity I sought. You have a strength of verbiage in posts that sometimes pushes past your point, painting some of us with the same brush when it's not deserved.

That you acknowledge no condemnation is the piece I'd hoped to see, here.

With respect, I disagree. I know that for some BDSM'ers, tickling is simply another means of establishing control and superiority of one person over another. For many bondage enthusiasts, tickling is merely a means of getting the victim to further experience the helplessness of their captivity. For foot fetishists, tickling is used to stimulate the object of their focus. But there are those of us who are tickling purists, who enjoy giving and receiving tickling for no underlying reason other than that we dig tickling simply for what it is. To declare that tickling is a subset of BDSM is as much an erroneous generalization as saying that BDSM is all about pain and control.

I don't disagree with anything beyond the FACT that tickling is ALSO a subset of BDSM. So's spanking, and I've known women who HATED being tied, and whose only sado-masochistic tendency was to be spanked for being "a bad girl."

BDSM practices can include having a slave make a meal. Does this mean all who make meals are kinksters of that form?

No.

BTW, your purist tendencies allow for restraint. Bondage. Even in concepts of purity, lines will blur.

Hopefully I've clarified myself a little better - made it clear that I'm not casting blanket condemnations, but still feel that certain aspects of BDSM are indeed intrinsically wrong, and not simply a matter of "not my cup of tea."

Indeed, and thank you for the clarification...

I wish you the same, and a happy new year.

...and the returned wishes. Happy New Year t'ya too.

This is where we differ. I believe abuse is still wrong, even if the abuser gives consent.

You mean the abusee, I believe, and if my lover wants her butt paddled, so be it. Not my kink, but pleasing a lover is DEFINITELY my orientation.

Abuse IS wrong. We differ in what's abuse.

I see your logic as "anything in this area is abuse" and that's simply, psychologically, not the case.

Moreover, I fully admit I don't know all there is to know about BDSM. Can you say the same?

Aw, Drew... yer baitin' folks, and they're not gonna rise to it. You've better args for things, and clearly this is an arg based on "BDSM is abuse".

Where a large group of people include sane folks you know, do consider that it's possible to participate consensually WITHOUT damage to body or psyche. It happens all the time.

It doesn't mean that some folks do it wrong. There's folks in THIS kink that don't obey basic concepts of safewords and boundaries when they're excited by their ticklings. They forget their 'lee. That's abuse. There's whole discussions on the net with folks who were abused in such a fashion, even non-sexually, as children.

Thus, abuse is abuse. Consensuality is the differentiator. Doesn't mean you must agree to enjoy such. I do ask that you agree to respect that they're different than you, like the /f folks, and give them the same respect you give me as a /f enthusiast.

Indeed we have. But as for consensual fetishes all being pretty much co-equal, I'm forced to respectfully disagree. There was a case in Germany which involved two men with a death fetish. One killed the other and ate part of him. Records of correspondence between the two men establish that the act was consensual. That doesn't make the man any less of a murderer. Consent is not the vast umbrella of right-making that some would espouse it to be.[\QUOTE]

*BZZT* Party foul. By that logic, there's vanilla folks in the US breaking laws going OUT of missionary sexual positioning. Tickling would qualify as abuse therein, as folks have stated it's so for them.

No one's arguing that crazy behavior is sane. It's different to consent to play without damage than to do the same with damage received.

I'm well aware that other orientations exist, but my objections focus largely on dominant males and submissive females, which seems to be the most popular orientation.

Not the most popular. The most vocal in this forum, maybe. Within the BDSM world, what's dominant (M vs. F) depends on the club.

I appreciate your stating it as YOUR objection, and that you object to something in which you don't personally participate. Means you're an outsider in that scenario, judging their play. If they play consensually, that's their biz. Give them their due respect. Disrespect people who fall OUT of the consensual range.

Good to see your perspectives clarified!

 

[chicago]

1. Since the dominant side of you can fade away for a few days into a semi-sweet and cuddly submissive, is it a realistic speculation that the dominant side is less authentic (since it seems to be a shielding persona) and the submissive side more true to your nature because its so well defended and is the most sociable?

I believe so. Anyone that I get really close to will tell you I'm a big softie.

2. How much of this angry reaction is connected to the % of your 'lee-ness? Do you think that if you had a certain 'ler% it might be stronger or weaker?

-I don't get it...

2a. Remember how you react when Lee goes after you? Do you experience a different mode shift when she snares you with her "Cobra beams"?

-Sometimes the process of going from tough girl to sub takes less time than I previously described. At NEST, a lot of people notice I'm nothing like how I am online. That's probably because I'm somewhat already in submissive mode. And as much as I love Lee, she is one scary 'ler.

3. Do you ever wish that you HAD any 'ler-ness in you--either out of curiosity or experimentation--or are you totally happy with being a 'lee?

-I'm totally happy with being a 'lee. For me, tickling people weirds me out. I never do it. Not even in hopes of the person getting revenge. Besides, I'm attracted to dominant males, and seeing a guy get tickled just makes my skin crawl. But that's just me.

4. Since you have experience with recreational "happy medicines", do you notice a similarity in how your mind and body react--in peaks and lows--when becoming a 'lee, being tickled, or coming back to dominance? Does it have the same semblance as a really good high?

-Nah, smoking weed and being tickled are not really similar. Although for some reason I get strangely aroused when I do both. However, being tickled while high is insane. Because weed kind of heightens all your senses (that's why food tastes so good, people stare at colorful shit like morons, etc) so it genuinely makes you more ticklish, or at least it makes me more ticklish. I don't think that answered your question too well, but whatevs.

5. You uses the terms "swallowed up by submissiveness" after being "broken down" by something you could stop with a safeword at anytime. Is there a separate sensation(s) that prevents you from feeling the need to resist effectively?

-Even though I get mad at first and can be mouthy, in the back of my mind I'm waiting for the submissive side to take over. I never use safewords. Even if I had one, I'd hate to use it. I've never been in a situation where I really needed the tickling to stop for one reason or another, and if I can just say a word and make it stop, I feel like I've got more control than I should have.

6. Could you describe in detail what thoughts go throigh your mind as you anticipate, endure, and recover from tickling? Could you describe the emotions that go off and how they move around in your head; the subjective emotional trip that unfolds as these things are happening?

-Anticipation feels kind of like when you're first in line for a really huge roller coaster and you're kind of bouncy and kind of giddy and you feel slightly weak in the knees from all the excitement.
-Enduring is a little harder to explain. And it kind of depends on the tickler too. Because I can kind of get used to the sensation if I have a shitty tickler and thus I don't laugh as much.
-Recovering is sometimes my favorite part. I'm all worn out and tingly and feel somewhat cat-like in that I just kinda want to curl up next to my 'ler and fall asleep. I always feel this strong connection to my 'ler after I'm tickled, almost grateful, although I'd feel weird saying thank you.

7. What kind of positive gratification do you get from the experience of being tickled exclusively? Does the presence of additional 'lers or viewers change the mood? Does tickling affect you differently if you're not 100& IN Sub mode?

-The less "in sub mode" I'm in, the more I fight back, and the more I hold in my laughter. I much prefer one-on-one tickling, although sometimes the humiliation of more than one person watching and commenting can be fun.

8. Lastly, armed with the above information--assuming my assumptions are accurate--how would you encourage or educate 'lers who are unexperienced in tickling you so that they do it right by you and themselves?

-The one thing I would tell 'lers is never underestimate the power of light-touch. Sometimes it works better than the kneading so many of you are fond of. For Christ's sake it's like they're tenderizing meat or something. Honestly, a variety of pressure and sensation will add an element of surprise and, most likely, result in more laughter.

 

[ViperGTS]

-Nah, smoking weed and being tickled are not really similar. Although for some reason I get strangely aroused when I do both. However, being tickled while high is insane. Because weed kind of heightens all your senses (that's why food tastes so good, people stare at colorful shit like morons, etc) so it genuinely makes you more ticklish, or at least it makes me more ticklish. I don't think that answered your question too well, but whatevs.

hehehe speaking of smoking weed and how things taste way better when you're high...


baby back ribs from TGI Fridays + a Hookah = an AWESOME morning!!

 

[Amnesiac]

No Fighting Dammit!

Alright, maybe I should try to nip this drew70 vs. the Redmage-GTS-DVNC Triumvirate in the bud before we forget what the hell it is we're here to do. Part of the reason this debate is hard to solve is because nobody's ENTIRELY wrong. Drew's got some good points (dammit) BUT I think he's casting too far a net, and that's what's provoking the others.

RE: Drew70-Viper-Redmage-DVNC

The key to drew's argument is the "duck" equation: if it looks like a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, doesn't that make it a duck? Mebbe. On the other hand it could be a fucking platypus with an identity crisis in a duck costume.

Drew points out something that "vanilla"s have a hard time with, and "kink"sters have trouble resolving: detecting the truly troubled from the creative. A lot of the kinds of activity and play in the BDSM world can easily be found in torture chambers and abusive homes around the world; the attitudes and personalities found in the DOM/ME personalities can easily mirror real-life sociopathy so well that telling an Alpha Male from a Tyrant can be difficult even for a professional. An experienced SUB can still be fooled into thinking his/her partner is a regular DOM/ME and not find out the truth until it's too late. In this kind of case, the willingness and complicity of a SUB works against them.

Aberrant psychology has shown that "kinky" behavior and psychopathic behavior can come from the same sources, backgrounds, have the same interests, and even show the same symptoms...so how do you know that BDSM isn't simply a mild form of psychopathy? This is what drew is talking about. The way I perceive it, he feels that the two are so similar that even if one is dangerous and the other isn't, it's STILL indicative of an unhealthy personality, a damaged psyche, and bad childhoods, and that no amount of dressing up and rationalization can change that.

I would argue that there is a correlation. However, the scientific method has revealed an indisputable fact: Correlation does not equal causation. We don't know enough about human sexual response and individual psychological development to say for certain that these precipitors are universal. And to assume that they are inherently bad is practically Augustinian.

Another thing the others mention is the double standard of M/F BDSM is abuse, but F/M isn't. This is within the contemporary tradition of indoctrination of "men=predatory, powerful, and evil" and "women=innocent". I've argued in the past that this is extreme overcompensation for millennia of patriarchal oppression, and not based so much on fact. This POV would tell you that men can be serial killers but women can't, which is false. There have been MANY female serial killers, but since we're only familiar with the behavior of the less-than-subtle male serial killers, its assumed that that is the only type that exists. The assumption that F/M DOMME/SUB relationships aren't abusive would imply that it is not so because the man willingly relinquishes his power to the weaker woman, whereas the woman has no power in the reverse to give up; feminism nurtures this idea despite the irony that it is predicated on the anti-feminist notion that women are weaker. Nature abhors a vacuum and favors variation, so it seems likely to me that it is only natural for the unnatural to exist; it's not always a bad thing.

But the issue of detecting and separating the pretenders from the predators will one day have to be resolved.

Drew also objects to tickling and BDSM being connected. Most of the BDSM community despises us and tickling, and as I've already mentioned, BDSM members who practice tickling incorporate it as one of many tools. I don't think this "corrupts" tickling in general.

Now then, onward to more enlightening things.

Originally Posted by Amnesiac
2. How much of this angry reaction is connected to the % of your 'lee-ness? Do you think that if you had a certain 'ler% it might be stronger or weaker?

-I don't get it...
-TicklishGiggle

Sorry. In other words, how much of your anger is connected to lee-ness? if you were part 'ler would you feel less angry because you had some DOMME in you or would you get MORE angry because you had less SUB in you?

Recovering is sometimes my favorite part. I'm all worn out and tingly and feel somewhat cat-like in that I just kinda want to curl up next to my 'ler and fall asleep. I always feel this strong connection to my 'ler after I'm tickled, almost grateful, although I'd feel weird saying thank you.
-TicklishGiggle[/B]

Awww...thas so kyooooooooooooot! Kinda makes me wish I WAS a Dom so I'd get a crack at you some day. But, I kinda like being the sensitive guy.

And now I'll continue the 2nd part of the Last Post

Nah, smoking weed and being tickled are not really similar. Although for some reason I get strangely aroused when I do both.

As a Lee, Do you prefer to be tickled by a male or female, or both?
-Male, primarily...Because I'm straight.
-TicklishGiggle

Before we can get started, let me make a distinction that Giggle has illuminated so well here. There have been innumerable threads questioning the relationship tickling has to sexuality; those of us with lifelong fixations often either don't recall the event or memory that formed that first associations or we can recall the experience exactly to the point of even re-creating it in practice or in our heads whenever we get the chance. At least, this is the case for those of us with sexual connection to tickling. Since BDSM has a sexual element to it, I would also assume this is true for them.

Our sexual preferences, for whatever reasons--that's a whole different ocean of fish, not going into here--have their own limitations and specifications. It seems too, that in the case of sexuall-oriented "kink" attachments that this varies as well according to the individual. Giggle has commented that because she is straight, she preferes to be tickled by males; Bella, who is more flexible, prefers variant types of practice depending on the gender of the playmate in the act. I would assume that gay Acarophiliacs would also feel the same. I would like to urge BDSM community members to verify if this is an accurate assessment of the way their associations work. This does NOT imply that preference indicates or implies homophobia or anti-homosexual viewpoints.

The specificity of the people, acts, and power station involved in order for a tickling/BDSM session to take place and to have its desired effect make it seem like keys to unlock specific tumblers in a lock in order for something to open. Analagously speaking, these ingredients could be the "keys" to "opening the mind."

At this point, I'm considering 2 hypotheses:

I. BDSM practices are specific acts that produce specific stimulation to specific pleasure centers that are hard-wired into our nature.

II. Vanilla conditioning has obstructed the pleasure centers in BDSM-friendly personalities and require ritualistic methods to bypass the inhibitions in order to stimulate the needed reliease.
These 2 hypotheses are both predicated on the assumption that sexual associations with BDSM and/or tickling have occurred and that differentiating or unorthodox personalities are in play.

I.
Redmage and Bella both indicated here and in separate occasions (respectively) that there seems to be an inherently present affinity for the practices we're interested in. Our brains, no matter how screwed up, still operate by reinforcing beneficial things (perceived or actual) with pleasureable reinforcement to encourage us to continue. The pursuit and indulging of pleasurable activities relieves stress and improves emotional well-being. We're never taught these things, especially in sexually-hostile cultures, yet they're a part of us independent of our upbringing.
It's possible AND probable that things we're taught to hate the things we naturally like and to like the things we naturally hate, and those things vary from person to person. If our personalities determine what we like, and our brains seem to be inherently hard-wired to recognize and seek out these things, is it possible that those of us in fetish communities are personalities susceptible to special stress that requires special, complex pleasures to relax?

Often times we're not aware of the things that we like until we're introduced to them, and often by accident. Like Bella, I remember the Olive Oyl-and-the-cats-on-the-Haunted-Ship scene as one of my first tickling cartoon scenes and though it may not have been the same as God talking Moses...it was pretty damn close. In this case, I seemed, like her, to pick up right away that this was something interesting and in need of additional material. My mind, like those of others, sought out something that just seemed "natural" to me, which is a sentiment many others can probably relate to.

But why would my brain know that this particular activity was something desireable? Or why would any of our minds feel that these strange images and sounds with indescipherable hidden undertones we're not consciously aware of yet stand out to us? Is it possible that, because of our unorthodox personalities, our minds are somehow aware of the kinds of stress we're likely to create--if we don't already possess small amounts of stress for it to learn about--and seeks out material that will effectively counter that stress by forming the proper associations? That as the stress becomes more complex in life then the acts themselves become more complex and intricate to compensate?

Did our minds in effect, KNOW what we needed or wanted and through pleasure (endorphins) encourage us to pursue the material and practices to tend to our specific needs? Does this indeed make us preternaturally special even though we don't have superpowers?

II.

The 'switch' in me mind happens as it will; it's very similar to the way I run my household like a little drill sargeant until my husband comes home from work, when I naturally relax into a more relaxed and sub state of mind because I know I don't have to be the main person in charge anymore.
- Bella

I'm fairly dominant in personality, at least when I'm comfortable with the people I'm around, and especially on this forum. I have a hard time showing any kind of weakness in my normal life...So, depending who you are, the fact that I'm submissive kind of makes sense...Like those CEOs of huge companies that like to go to fetish clubs and be humiliated and spanked.

I guess it's kind of appealing to me to have someone make all the decisions and me just take it. I don't know.
-TicklishGiggle

Is the elaborate, ornate, and wonderfully complex interaction of perception and emotional response to specifically manipulated associations act as a sort of stress relief? Do we attach ourselves to behavior we know will forcibly break though our defenses and release our suppressed emotions in a way that is pleasurable so we are encouraged to seek it out in the future? The BDSM community thrives and champions its unique and far more entertaining methods of self-expression, but it is an overglamourization of a simple, natural behavior based entirely on personality?

When we're kids, we roll with what experiences come our way, and interpret them to the best of our ability, carefully documenting the emotional reactions included with the memory, and if they're pleasant, then the urge to revisit them. Some like Drew might perceive this as an indication of "incorrect" learning, but it seems more than likely a result of interpretive capabilities of the individual mind at the time of the experience. The same way a scary movie that terrified you at 4 doesn't scare you at 14 or 24, for various reasons, many of which might also affect interpretative abilities of other subjects.

Now, if these pleasant experiences can be recreated or simulated in some way, perhaps they can be the "key" that is able to bypass the inhibitions that were imprinted within us that obstructed our ability to access our pleasure centers the way we could as children? Think about it: each little piece of detail, sight, sound, texture, etc. that becomes part of the session/scenario gradually induces an exciteable state where tensions rise but facades begin to fall; DOMS use environemntal manipulation to slowly wear down the SUB and get them into a mindset ("head-space") where they are receptive to what will happen to them. Perception starts to change and sensation becomes enhanced or altered, and suddenly, the SUB is now able to experience unfiltered sensation in a way that probably would not have been possible in normal state of mind. What if all the show is simply the environmental conditions necessary to move those tumblers in the lock of the bain and open the pleasure centers so they can be stimulated without inhibition? And said stimulation then forces the pleasure to expel the stress which relaxes and relieves the SUB. The endorphin rush keeps them in semi-sub-space for anywhere from hours to days to weeks, just as Giggle described.

How this would work on the DOMs end is something I've yet to figure out. DOMs, if you have any ideas, then by all means POST!

Stress isn't necessary for the 'shift' to be experienced, it simply enhances one's appreciation for it. Kind of like having your favorite drink when you're seriously thirsty; you'd have enjoyed it anyway, but it's extra good when your parched. I can be in the middle of a lovely, very relaxed and stress-free day and still slip over like Pavlov's sub when my Dominant calls
- Bella

This is where I question Bella's "necessity" assessment. Often on the forum we talk about "The Fix." We talk about that nagging, powerful urge to tickle or be tickled that can sometimes get so fierce it can affect our quality of life to varying degrees unless we get our "fix".

Tickling and BDSM play is probably fun by itself yes; but I imagine that deep down, we NEED it in the same way computers need defragmenting. The fact that indulging is so gratifying, and can change our WHOLE moods raises the question of how integral it is to our personalities. Bella mentioned the "subbing akin to drinking: pleasant on its own, but better when you're thirsty". Here's an expansion: there are varying degrees of thirst, but all of it connected to our NEED for it, and in the case of drinking, it's necessary for our psychical health. Analagously speaking, what if our "kink"s are necessary for our mental health?

The connection of sexual response to "kink" via association would indicate that both can reciprocate their effect and provocation of each other. I would imagine that the BDSM members have a similar connection. But if these two are connected the same way, then wouldn't their symbiosis indicate that each have the same function and therefore subject to the same demands of the person's nature? And if they are, then wouldn't that mean that the trigger for the "kink"--STRESS--not necessary the aneurysm-inducing kind, but of any kind that taxes us ALSO be necessary? And since the kink and the sexuality are uniquely tied together, wouldn't that mean that stress IS necessary to provoke the very kink that performs the same relief of stress regardless of which hypothesis is accurate (assuming that either of them are, they could both be wrong)?

The need for power and to be allowed freedom from power seem to be the most repetetive and interesting motivations behind being Dom or Sub; what's most interesting to me is how people can have both and assume each role with equal measure. This is a stark contrast to exclusive DOMs and SUBs, and this is why I wanted more feedback from them. It's also interesting to me that someone like Giggle could be so dominant in most of their life, but be submissive in one specific field.

Another thing before I go: What is it about the DOM/ME personality that allows someone to willingly or allow themsleves to "give it up?" Is the strain of being in control so long truly that stressful? And does the very act of deferring to someone else's authority cause such relief that sexual or semi-sexual arousal begins toward the person who did the re-assertion?

 

[drew70]

This is just silly to me.

By this logic, rape is still rape if the victim gives consent. Once the victim says, "yes, rape me", we go from a crime to a consensual sexual act.

I was ready to argue that by definition, rape precludes any consent, but as we can see below, that's not necessarily the case. It's sort of implied in definition number 1 by the term "unlawful." However definition number 2 defines rape as any sexual intercourse that is forced on somebody. Now that can be done with or without consent.

From dictionary.com
rape
1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

From dictionary.com
abuse
1. to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority.
2. to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight.
3. to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign.​

According to the above definitions, neither rape nor abuse is necessarily contingent on the presence nor the absense of consent. There are women who get off on the concept of being raped. I've spoken to one or two. Such a woman could ask her man to rape her. He could force himself on her, even as she resists, and by the above definition still have raped her, even though she gave consent to it.

Notice the definition of abuse includes treating something or someone in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way. Again, nothing about consent.

If Bella were tied up and her bare bottom exposed, and I were about to give her rump a hell of a beating, and she says, "Go ahead, beat me", we move from abuse to a consensual act, whether you like it or not.

Technically true, but it would be more accurate to say you've moved from an act of abuse to a consensual act of abuse, whether I like it or not.

In my opinion, your definitions of BDSM, abuse, and torture are incorrect, as well as your blanket judgments and generalizations about people who are Doms. I just don't understand how you can call something that a person gets off on 'abuse.'

As I've already demonstrated, abuse and consent are not mutually exclusive, though I can understand why believing so would be crucial to justifying and rationalizing certain proclivities.

Actually the perception in the kink community is that male bottoms outnumber male tops. However female tops are in very short supply, and social stigma keeps many submissive men in the closet. A very common complaint of female bottoms is about guys who come on as tops initially, then ask to switch.

Basically, Drew, male tops are more visible, but not necessarily more numerous.

That's cool, I have no problem conceding that. I just go by what I see. Either way, it's the male sadists who are more "in your face" about it, and therefore more likely to invite comment.

In any case, I'm aware of where your objections focus. That's what I'm pointing out: your objections are sexist. You apply a double standard to all of this. It's "abuse" when a man tops a woman, but not when a woman tops a woman, or a man tops a man, or a woman tops a man. Het male dominants are abusive, but het female dominants aren't, and let's not even talk about gays, lesbians, bisexuals, or switches.

Show me where I've gone on record as saying these things. I've in fact been very careful to avoid making such statements. There is no double standard, because I've never stated any position whatsoever on M/M, F/M, or F/F consensual abuse, nor do I plan to.

Your moral judgment depends on the genders of the people involved. Yet if something is really wrong, then it's wrong no matter who does it. If a man hits his wife against her will, that's wrong. If a woman hits her husband likewise, that's also wrong. If a gay man commits murder, that's wrong. If a woman steals from a man, that's wrong. In the real world, gender and sexual orientation don't affect morality.

Perhaps not as far as theft and murder go, but as far as personal interaction goes, gender certainly can affect morality. Why do you suppose M/F rape is by and large considered far more heinous than F/M rape? I know they are legally equal to one another, but on a sociological scale of morality, people in general aren't nearly as offended by F/M rape as they are M/F rape. Many actually chuckle at the thought of a woman raping a man. For the record, I'm not one of those many. Women who molest underage boys are with few exceptions given considerably lesser sentences than men who molest underage girls. So yeah, gender does affect morality in some instances.

You don't have any cohesive moral argument against BDSM, and contrary to your claims you really don't know how the people involved in it work inside. When it comes right down to it, you just don't like male tops. And that's fine, you don't have to. But you'd be more truthful and accurate if you just acknowledged that and moved on, rather than pretending to knowledge that you don't have or proposing moral objections that you don't apply consistently. At this point you're like someone who says Thai food is morally wrong but Szechuan is OK.

I think I've been very clear about what I don't like and why, and I've been quite consistent as far as my views go. Some no doubt would say I've been too consistent. But what of your arguments? The best you can come up with is that I don't know as much about BDSM as you do (a fact I'm all too happy to acknowledge), and that my points are invalid because I don't choose to make the same stand with other gender orientations. Neither of these strategies of yours has made so much as a dent in my arguments, so your criticism comes off as hollow.

Basically in Drew's universe as long as it still looks like rape (a faux struggle, protests, the lady being pinned to the bed beneath her lover) it is rape. He can't seem to process anything but what he sees and how he feels about it. It doesn't matter how the lady in question feels about it.

And in Redmage's universe, it's only rape if it is nonconsensual. The question is, which universe lines up more closely with the actual dictionary definitions.

All of which would make him a fearsomely awful Dom if he ever tried his hand at it, so perhaps it's just as well that he never would.

You're right. I just don't have the ego, self-importance, or disregard for honor and character it takes to put women down like that.

Drew, you're objecting to people who treat each other poorly. I object to that, too, brother.

To wit - If my lover and I agree to play in whatever manner we do, it's our biz.

If I mess with a woman without consent, I'm law-breaking, and deserve the punishment that will fit that crime.

I agree to a point. If a guy were thumping on his woman regularly, getting off on it, and she's consensual, then he's probably not breaking any law, nor would it be my place to intervene, but I'd have a low opinion of him nonetheless. I was raised to believe it's wrong for men to deliberately inflict pain on women, but to actually take pleasure in doing so...I'm convinced that such a desire speaks of a profound lack of honor and character. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I feel that a gentleman simply would not treat a woman that way, even if that's what she wanted.

Such is the clarity I sought. You have a strength of verbiage in posts that sometimes pushes past your point, painting some of us with the same brush when it's not deserved.

That you acknowledge no condemnation is the piece I'd hoped to see, here.

Well, actually I didn't say NO condemnation, but rather that I don't condemn anybody and everybody simply for indulging in BDSM. My condemnation is specific and stands as described above.

Redmage: My feeling is that if you're absolutely sure that you know all there is to know about it, you are probably oversimplifying it.

drew70: I fully admit I don't know all there is to know about BDSM. Can you say the same?

dvnc: Aw, Drew... yer baitin' folks, and they're not gonna rise to it. You've better args for things, and clearly this is an arg based on "BDSM is abuse".

No, I'm not baiting. I'm merely clarifying that I don't claim to know everything about BDSM, which is important when debating this issue with Redmage, as he insists on declaring a lack understanding on my part, in his attempts at discreditation. I've found that when debating with certain people on this and similar issues, they tend to equate disapproval with ignorance. Drew disapproves because he "doesn't understand." It's based on an erroneous assumption that it's impossible to understand BDSM pain play and still disapprove of it. Disapproval such as mine can only be born of ignorance, or so these people would have us believe. This tactic is basically an attempt to steer the argument away from the validity of my arguments toward whoever has the greater understanding and experience is the winner by default. By yielding any claims to such superior understanding, I'm attempting to preclude such transparent tactics.

Indeed we have. But as for consensual fetishes all being pretty much co-equal, I'm forced to respectfully disagree. There was a case in Germany which involved two men with a death fetish. One killed the other and ate part of him. Records of correspondence between the two men establish that the act was consensual. That doesn't make the man any less of a murderer. Consent is not the vast umbrella of right-making that some would espouse it to be.

*BZZT* Party foul. By that logic, there's vanilla folks in the US breaking laws going OUT of missionary sexual positioning. Tickling would qualify as abuse therein, as folks have stated it's so for them.

I don't see how that points out any foul, error, or inconsistancy in what I said. There's a mindset I've found in the Tickling Community that says that ANYthing two people do is okay as long as it is CONSENSUAL. Redmage more or less insinuated this by saying that "Consensual fetishes are all pretty much co-equal in terms of moral weight..." I disagreed, and cited an example of a consensual fetish that clearly carried significantly more moral weight than a tickling fetish.

 

[cloudgazer2k]

Well, hell, Drew. Amnesiac was doing something that made sense, and all this had to start. We know you aren't a fan of BDSM. Hell, by your definitions, me tying up a girl and tickling her is abuse. I don't care what the majority say about tickling and BDSM being separate entities; no matter how you work it, I'm still a jerk and a woman beater for doing something consensual. And you are also implying my girl is abusing me when I consent to her dominance.


To hell with this. I'm done here.

 

[minerva]

From dictionary.com
abuse
1. to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority.
2. to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight.
3. to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign. [/indent]

You're right. I just don't have the ego, self-importance, or disregard for honor and character it takes to put women down like that.

.... but I'd have a low opinion of him nonetheless. I was raised to believe it's wrong for men to deliberately inflict pain on women, but to actually take pleasure in doing so...I'm convinced that such a desire speaks of a profound lack of honor and character. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I feel that a gentleman simply would not treat a woman that way, even if that's what she wanted.

No, I'm not baiting. I'm merely clarifying that I don't claim to know everything about BDSM, which is important when debating this issue with Redmage, as he insists on declaring a lack understanding on my part, in his attempts at discreditation. I've found that when debating with certain people on this and similar issues, they tend to equate disapproval with ignorance. Drew disapproves because he "doesn't understand." It's based on an erroneous assumption that it's impossible to understand BDSM pain play and still disapprove of it. Disapproval such as mine can only be born of ignorance, or so these people would have us believe. This tactic is basically an attempt to steer the argument away from the validity of my arguments toward whoever has the greater understanding and experience is the winner by default. By yielding any claims to such superior understanding, I'm attempting to preclude such transparent tactics.

From a lee’s and sub’s POV I can only tell you, there is nothing better than being taken to your limits and beyond, feeling totally out of control and owned, but at the same time feeling completely safe, cherished and taken care of.

A good dom can torture and tease you until you’re about to lose your mind – and if he’s doing that by tickling, spanking, or whatever kind of BDSM activity the two involved enjoy, no matter how crazy it might seem to any outsider, is totally irrelevant – but underneath his evil smile and his taunting tone, you will always feel how he cares for you by the way he carefully watches you and reacts to you.

This is a very fine line to walk but a true dom will know how to do it.
And thats exactly what makes the difference between ‘abuse’ and a terrific, incredibly satisfying session. You know each other, you trust each other completely and you totally understand each others desires and feelings.

I can see how that might be impossible to understand for someone who doesn’t feel that way and has never been to that place. It’s nothing you can read about or have it explained to you and you definitely can’t get it from a dictionary.
If you don’t feel this way, you simply don’t really get it. That doesn’t make you stupid or ignorant, it simply means you’re wired differently, but it also means, you shouldn’t judge anyone who gets the greatest pleasure out of these kind of acitivies, IMO.