# anyone one else extremely turned off by BDSM?



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

i think i would rather play an hour of hot-potato with a cactus than tie my partner up and pretend to rape them.


----------



## Tridentus (Dec 14, 2009)

I really don't care what people do with a consenting partner, as long as they don't play out the fantasy on someone unconsenting.

I'm extremely turned off by homosexual sex, just like they're probably turned off by hetrosexual sex. As long as no guy tries to sleep with me, and I don't try to sleep with lesbians, I think we're all good.

Same principle in my mind.


----------



## Librarylady (Mar 11, 2017)

Yup, I'm pretty vanilla.


----------



## Fredward (Sep 21, 2013)

That is a _very _​narrow view of BDSM.


----------



## Ermenegildo (Feb 25, 2014)

A typical Personality Café 'Sex and Relationship' thread. The OP has zero experience with BDSM and not even bothered to read a single book about it but feels a need to belittle it.


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

I need free use of my hands. So being tied up is not for me.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

Ermenegildo said:


> A typical Personality Café 'Sex and Relationship' thread. The OP has zero experience with BDSM and not even bothered to read a single book about it but feels a need to belittle it.


Are you into zoophilia?


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Sundae said:


> Are you into zoophilia?


trolling?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

BDSM isn't just bondage and rape role play is not technically a part of BDSM, but sure they can be combined I guess. 
Doesn't seem like you know that much if that's all you have to say though. It's a pretty broad spectrum of activities.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

drmiller100 said:


> trolling?


explain


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

Red Panda said:


> Doesn't seem like you know that much if that's all you have to say though. It's a pretty broad spectrum of activities.


Why would I go into detail explaining something I am disgusted by? the OP was purposely designed to be as succinct as possible. i have no interest in watching videos or reading books about something that turns me off, or sampling all of the BDSM toys in the sex shop to know i'm not into them, hence the zoophilia question.


----------



## Majority (Oct 3, 2016)

Can't say that I see the appeal.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Sundae said:


> Why would I go into detail explaining something I am disgusted by? the OP was purposely designed to be as succinct as possible. i have no interest in watching videos or reading books about something that turns me off, hence the zoophilia question.


Like I said, BDSM is a spectrum of activities. There might be something in BDSM that would interest you, if you are open minded enough to accept at least researching it. How can you know you are disgusted by something as huge as BDSM practices when you don't even know what it encompasses? Zoophilia is incomparable in many ways, but that's another discussion.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

It's a turn off to consider personally for me as a regular thing (fine with exploration and switching things up moderately)

But I guess whatever floats people's boats. I guess I understand that for many who participate it is a mental high and getting off which stimulates them physical. I am just more raw and into physical then the the mental aspect involved in a lot of that stuff. But I can grasp it. 

I think what turns me off is people who seem insecure or having an identity crisis try and pander to playing something which is rather sensationalized ATM. Like the posers of it. But you have those people within almost any sub culture.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

I'm not extremely turned off by anything, though there are many things I don't find appealing, and quite a few I'd find off-putting.

Do you find other things "extremely dislikable" in other realms of your life? I don't. It might be more an way of relating to life thing for you, than a sexuality thing.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Nope (!)


----------



## napkineater (Mar 26, 2013)

Tridentus said:


> I really don't care what people do with a consenting partner, as long as they don't play out the fantasy on someone unconsenting.
> 
> I'm extremely turned off by homosexual sex, just like they're probably turned off by hetrosexual sex. As long as no guy tries to sleep with me, and I don't try to sleep with lesbians, I think we're all good.
> 
> Same principle in my mind.







This ENFP fucks with with logical consistency.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

Catwalk said:


> Nope (!)


:blushed:


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Tridentus said:


> I'm extremely turned off by homosexual sex, just like they're probably turned off by hetrosexual sex. As long as no guy tries to sleep with me, and I don't try to sleep with lesbians, I think we're all good.


That's a good analogy for me as well. I'm not actively "turned off" by BDSM, but if someone was actually trying to get me involved in a lot of the sex acts involved I'd probably be turned off. 

I'm not sure where the line is for BDSM stuff, there are lots of submissive traits I am turned on by, but not that kind that involves bondage, inflicting pain..or being called "master" or "daddy", lol. That's the kinda thing that turns me off.


----------



## Witch of Oreo (Jun 23, 2014)

You have no idea what DSBM is, do you?


----------



## septic tank (Jul 21, 2013)

I love bdsm. I haven't been able to get deeply into it because of circumstances but I wish to explore it more. I can already tell between my boyfriend and I that I'm going to be the crazier one when it comes to that stuff.

Doesn't matter if the OP hates BDSM. I'm not having sex with him so I don't give a damn.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

deathcakes said:


> I love bdsm. I haven't been able to get deeply into it because of circumstances but I wish to explore it more. I can already tell between my boyfriend and I that I'm going to be the crazier one when it comes to that stuff.
> 
> Doesn't matter if the OP hates BDSM. I'm not having sex with him so I don't give a damn.


Good luck! My first boyfriend was very vanilla and it was unfulfilling :[ 
I sure hope it's not the case for you.

Well, it's not about caring really, it's just discussion.


----------



## septic tank (Jul 21, 2013)

Red Panda said:


> Good luck! My first boyfriend was very vanilla and it was unfulfilling :[
> I sure hope it's not the case for you.
> 
> Well, it's not about caring really, it's just discussion.


Thanks!

My bf isn't too vanilla so it's alright. I think I'm just more likely to be an extremist in comparison to him. But considering we've been in an LDR we haven't been able to explore BDSM that much, so who knows.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

No, just people who endlessly insist upon expanding your horizons by trying their product and defend it to the bitter end instead of just accepting that some people can not choose not to like something and live peacefully anyway. The same thing happens with food. There's a very good chance that if a piece of food doesn't look good or smell good, it's not really good to taste. Why force someone to put it in their mouth then? Just let it go. It's nice to be open minded about tastes, but if someone is not, I don't understand the people going that way either.


----------



## pilgrim_12 (Aug 18, 2012)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> No, just people who endlessly insist upon expanding your horizons by trying their product and defend it to the bitter end instead of just accepting that some people can not choose not to like something and live peacefully anyway. The same thing happens with food. There's a very good chance that if a piece of food doesn't look good or smell good, it's not really good to taste. Why force someone to put it in their mouth then? Just let it go. It's nice to be open minded about tastes, but if someone is not, I don't understand the people going that way either.


This is kind of the whole problem with western society today. Isn't it? There is no individualism. It's all about group think. Isn't that the idea behind tribalism, socialism, violence and hatred?


----------



## Vivid Melody (Apr 25, 2011)

An hour of hot potato with a cactus? You tease 


No, I'm into it and practice it within my own relationship. I'm not into every form of it though as it covers a wide spectrum of things as has already been mentioned. Everyone likes different things within it and for different reasons -- sometimes for very different reasons. I would only be turned off if someone got into it for impure reasons. Like if someone was secretly abusive and just using BDSM to hide that fact. I would find that unnerving.


----------



## ThisNameWorks (Mar 11, 2017)

From this point on, we are bitter rivals. :angry:


----------



## ponpiri (Apr 30, 2017)

Not BDSM in its entirety as there is a spectrum to choose from, but the way it's presented in certain types of porn leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Porn in general, though, is less and less attractive as I get older.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

StalksEveryone said:


> From this point on, we are bitter rivals. :angry:


To the end!

Sad turn of events indeed, but tis life old friend...


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

I'm extremely turned on by the idea of Tantric sex. Just throwing that out there. ^_^


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

Chesire Tower said:


> I'm extremely turned on by the idea of Tantric sex. Just throwing that out there. ^_^


----------



## ThisNameWorks (Mar 11, 2017)

You people disgust me! Why can't you do the BDSM like the rest of us!


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Im turned off by watersports but dont need to post about it


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Some of it is a turn off for me, some of it's enjoyable and some of it's a turn on in fantasy, but I wouldn't necessarily do it.


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

Scenes, roleplaying, general bondage, etc., yeah, mostly clunky and irritating, even conceptually. I do identify with the new "primal" thing but, ironically, mostly only in the simplified reflexive sense. While I've taken pains to explain such things in decades past, and it could potentially simplify such, it's still not apparently useful label, given the roleplaying types muddying the "primal" term. My libido was never "friendly" or gentle (and certainly not "respectful" of all the anti-sexual, inhuman bullshit...), and the arousal of anger easily merges with sexual arousal, but I don't think pursuing SM specifically would be a grand idea. It's not like you can feasibly go about that in a "primal" immediate and direct way...


----------



## ThisNameWorks (Mar 11, 2017)

WAIT! Don't you see! This is actually a clever ploy to lure unsuspecting woman into a false sense of security thereby allowing for the exposure of their intimate most secrets!


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

StalksEveryone, always spoiling my diabolical secret plans.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

Ermenegildo said:


> A typical Personality Café 'Sex and Relationship' thread. The OP has zero experience with BDSM and not even bothered to read a single book about it but feels a need to belittle it.


So should we consider the nerve struck? roud:


----------



## LittleOrange (Feb 11, 2012)

Yes, people who like BDSM were abused in childhood and if they tell you differently they are lying.


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

BDSM is not for everyone and that is okay. There is nothing wrong with that. However, BDSM is huge and can be like a multidimensional spectrum. For instance, in the Bondage/Discipline spectrum, it can encompass anything from trying up and flogging (which is also a part of S/M) to little love taps on the butt while telling your partner that they are naughty. A lot of what is considered mainstream (such as light spanking and sometimes even teasing) may be considered a very mild form of BDSM. The thing to remember about BDSM, is that like all sex, it requires consent and trust (even more trust in the more "hardcore" forms). Also, like all sex, it should include all participating members in the sexual acts to be having sex on their terms. BDSM is just a for of play and can be a fetish for many, but that is not everyone's thing and some people prefer very vanilla fornd of flirtation, foreplay, and sex. That is fine too. Some people are not into sex, which is also okay. Some people want to explore a lot to find out what they like and do not like, which is good. As long as everyone is being safe, sane, and consensual then there is not really a wrong way to have sex (some people even combined food, such as chocolate and sushi, into it :shocked: although some food just makes the sex seem fishy :tongue. It is all good and you should enjoy sex on your own terms. If someone else needs a little something extra to enjoy sex that you are not willing to be a part of, then it is simple. Don't have sex with them.


----------



## Mirkwood (Jul 16, 2014)

Not for me either.

Wiki describe it as...

*



The initialism BDSM includes psychological and physiological facets:
Bondage and Discipline (B&D)
Dominant and submissive (D/s)
Sadism and Masochism (or sadomasochism) (S&M)
Female dominance (Femdom)

Click to expand...

*A slight touch of playing "Dominant and submissive" I could maybe be into, could be just a regular matter of who is on top, or wants most.. like "I want you so badly"/"take me".
But not the other parts.


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

WTF? Why's female dominance listed there? It's just a subtype of dominance, like myriad other variations of any other part of the actual initialism. Wiki agenda, you so obviously pretentious...

Was about to mention the test, but it's been here ...again.
Last:
http://personalitycafe.com/sex-relationships/1052833-bdsm-test.html
Possible first:
http://personalitycafe.com/sex-relationships/801929-how-kinky-you-bdsm-test.html


----------



## Mirkwood (Jul 16, 2014)

Mirkwood said:


> Not for me either.
> 
> Wiki describe it as...
> 
> ...



EDIT: By talking to a friend I know there are many many different kinds of ways of being into it, .. tho still, it wouldn't saw I am into it, beyond what is pretty standard, I mean, dummy velcro handcufts or something, fluffy, not leather, rope or anyhting.


----------



## Mirkwood (Jul 16, 2014)

Nephandus said:


> WTF? Why's female dominance listed there? It's just a subtype of dominance, like myriad other variations of any other part of the actual initialism. Wiki agenda, you so obviously pretentious...
> 
> Was about to mention the test, but it's been here ...again.
> Last:
> ...


Was wondering a bit too... I thought of not adding to my qoute, but did.


----------



## Crimson Ash (May 16, 2012)

I like some aspects and dislike other aspects of it.

I also find the how do you say "commercialized?" aspects of it, that is to say a more focus on props and accessories for stimulation a little too much.

In my personal view BDSM is very much a focus on the meeting of the minds and bodies of two individuals in a private space to a level different to that of vanilla in an attempt to foster a closer bond with increased emotional intensity.

Props are merely tools to that end and shouldn't be the main focus.

Edit: Perhaps the umbrella of varied activities and fetishes that encapsulates BDSM is too high.
It's sad to see many people have the misconception of it based on knowledge of one singular aspect that they dislike.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

littleorange said:


> yes, people who like bdsm were abused in childhood and if they tell you differently they are lying.



lol


----------



## birdsintrees (Aug 20, 2012)

Bdsm isn't for everyone. So what. Even for people who are into it, it isn't part of every sexual/romantic relationship. It is a dynamic between two(or more) people and it goes way beyond just the sexual expression of it.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

I honestly don't care either way. Once this guy offered to be my slave. I told him, "okay, so long as you do windows".


----------



## ponpiri (Apr 30, 2017)

Nephandus said:


> WTF? Why's female dominance listed there? It's just a subtype of dominance, like myriad other variations of any other part of the actual initialism. Wiki agenda, you so obviously pretentious...
> 
> Was about to mention the test, but it's been here ...again.
> Last:
> ...


Wow. Just took this test. I guess I should amend my answer to the OP since I'm 98% vanilla. Although it's clear that I am strongly against humiliation. My face was scrunched up whenever those questions appeared. :frustrating:

== Results from bdsmtest.org == 
98% Vanilla 
63% Boy/Girl 
42% Submissive 
35% Brat 
20% Rope bunny 
14% Rigger 
7% Switch 
2% Primal (Prey) 
1% Experimentalist 
1% Dominant


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

Chesire Tower said:


> I honestly don't care either way. Once this guy offered to be my slave. I told him, "okay, so long as you do windows".


Yeah... Got lots of those. Never a chick, though I wouldn't want the production they were likely expecting either way. Once explained what I'd require in a minion to the most persistent guy. He never replied back.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

Crimson Ash said:


> In my personal view BDSM is very much a focus on the meeting of the minds and bodies of two individuals in a private space to a level different to that of vanilla in an attempt to foster a closer bond with increased emotional intensity.
> 
> Props are merely tools to that end and shouldn't be the main focus.


Beautiful ^_^
It's interesting that actual sexual activities dont even have to be part of the BDSM play when really focusing on this psychological and emotional aspect of it.


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

pomPOM said:


> It's interesting that actual sexual activities dont even have to be part of the BDSM play


LOL, exactly why I want nothing to do with it. It's largely NOT-SEX played off as sex, seemingly by people who mustn't really like actual sex. Reminds me of flirting, which I also can't stand, but worse in an even more un-amusingly perverse way. (Incidentally, I regard strip clubs as paying for blue balls within a bizarrely homoerotic context, even as a game.)


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

LMAO
Hey, @Nephandus 
Did you know tomatoes are actually berries and not vegetables?


----------



## Majority (Oct 3, 2016)

I always figured that you could bite, or smack her rear or have a private cosplay show and that that was not BDSM or some other fetish. Can't you just do what you like to? It seems much too strange to call any of that BDSM and to praise BDSM as a great, loving thing. It's just sex if anything but when people start talking about BDSM and stuff that's when it get's way strange for me.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Turned off yup. Add me to the list.


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

@pomPOM
Ignoring as a synonym for vegetation, vegetables are edible bits of plants with nutritional content (as opposed to the entire plant itself, unless entirely edible). Generally, the distinction between herbs is that herbs don't provide notable nutrition (and actually does classify the entire plant). I don't know why pretending savory fruit doesn't exist or that fruits aren't vegetables became an random article of faith for certain culinary pseudo-experts. They didn't even have a word for umami, which is why savory got re-purposed, so how are they experts again? That took a chemist in the 20th century, even over there where umami's the default. I'm guessing the French dominance was involved over here. VERY myopic and monotone palates. Nightshade berries originally scared and confused them, yet they bothered to eat snails, seemingly as a challenge. They just butter and garlic them till you can't taste them. Might as well be shoe leather.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

Majority said:


> I always figured that you could bite, or smack her rear or have a private cosplay show and that that was not BDSM or some other fetish. Can't you just do what you like to? It seems much too strange to call any of that BDSM and to praise BDSM as a great, loving thing. It's just sex if anything but when people start talking about BDSM and stuff that's when it get's way strange for me.


The talking is important because behind a lot of those BDSM plays and fetishes also lies potential for philosophies and a lot of psychology. It can be simply sexual, if one likes to be treated rough, being told what to do/telling what to do turns them on, and many MANY other things.
But one of the most important reasons to talk about it is in being able to differentiate the line between abuse or play!

And no, it can be far more than just sex and can be a loving thing, a therapeutic thing! Just like anything if you approach it with a certain mindset and awareness!
But with BDSM plays it can be such a vulnerable and saturated situation that it offers an environment to really challenge yourself!
To trust someone with their body, their well being like that is quite the journey for some, but considering that this is an environment where rules should be CLEARLY laid out instead of a confusing jungle of mind games and behavior analysis of the other to know whether you can trust them... for some it can really be therapeutic.
@Nephandus one keeps flying over the point! Good luck!


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

pomPOM said:


> one keeps flying over the point! Good luck!


If you had one, you'd make it. Avoiding making one avoids getting called on not really having one. Convenient simplicity...


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

@Nephandus



> It's interesting that actual sexual activities dont even have to be part of the BDSM play


the point with this and the following stem is a=obviously that it DOESN'T HAVE TO be about sex. It's literally spelled out for you



> It's largely NOT-SEX played off as sex, seemingly by people who mustn't really like actual sex.


decides to fly over the actual point and focus, exaggerate the part that triggers his lack of boner most making ridiculous assumptions

Yeah, flew over the point and directly into your subjectivity


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

@pomPOM
Gratz on no point. BDSM are all supposed to refer to sex, which is why I was making my observation. Non-sexual B, D, S, or M aren't "BDSM". Legal imprisonment isn't BDSM bondage, regardless of the restraints involved. Neither is the domination or submission involved. It's quite true that many claiming to be into BDSM aren't actually engaging in sex nor care to, which goes well with how it's primarily fake anyway. That was my point (much like the homoeroticism of the contortedly fake hetero activity in a strip club for the view and approval of other men). Their terms are usually lies. Doms aren't dominate. Subs aren't submissive. Sexy isn't sexual arousing. Getting off doesn't involve getting off. Basically, their kinks are usually hangups. They often don't release in ANY sense, just wind-up more and pinging around within their psychological prisons. So we're back to the thread topic...


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Nephandus said:


> So, as I said.
> 
> 
> No, lack of consent isn't remotely all that I'm getting at. You keep trying to make doms into service tops, which aren't doms but subs. A dom isn't the servant of the sub. That's NOT dominant and won't ever be. A sub consenting to be a sub isn't consenting to BE SERVED and won't ever be.


No, you misunderstand. I'm saying there are all kinds of ways people can express themselves when it comes to such acts. Doms are not servants of the sub, but they have to adhere to their limits. I don't see this as the sub being in charge. I didn't say the sub consents to be served, at all. I don't know how it goes in the world of Dungeons, but in relationships being a dom means to also nurture the sub and help them reach their full potential in submission and in pleasing and serving the dom, reaching or discovering their limits to what they want to be as a sub. Not everyone wants to be a sub the way Master/slave relationships work, but many want to be servants in one way or another. So the dom takes that desire and brings it to fruition to both persons' fulfillment.

But back to what you say, I think it depends on each person. Typically there is actually a distinction between dom and top, though I disagree that a top is a sub necessarily. Overall it just boils down to personal preference and finding a suitable partner to express whatever one wants. You are making it seem like there has to be one way things should be and that's not true and it seems to me that's making you feel deceived or something.


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

Oh, when you run into that domism crowd as a dissenting male, they ARE saying such things and worse. I've yet to find any place THEY specifically meet much if any pushback around the online BDSM communities. True male dom=misogynist, fake male sub=misogynist. Paying a dominatrix to play the part he wants is included in the latter as any male calling himself a dom that isn't a service top specifically is included in the former. (Then there's how any guy interested in something like consensual choking is probably a rapist and shouldn't be allowed to date, which they pulled on OkCupid. Queue the virtue-signaling maginae bragging about how they don't care if they ever get to date, if it'll potentially save one girl. Seriously, you can bloody google that shit.)

Anyway... I'm not after a production, non-sexual servitude, or mostly even sexual servitude. Mostly, I just wanted something simple and direct since anything else is usually a turn-off. That's damn near a mortal sin, apparently, and I need to hail some Mary's, probably by pretending they're Sue's at that. Ironically, I don't do casual sex nor ever tried to specifically get laid in my life, so I was never after randoms or flings of any kind, and I don't care to drag around a load, so I'm not particularly after a passive sub. There, I run aground the "sex positivist" agenda AND the many faux-traditionalist chicks that want to be carried around by a "real man" to wherever THEY feel like, on MY dime at that. Physically, I'm in the US South...right where the hipsters are moving in en masse, so many fun times either way or even contradictorily both. Fuck Fetlife and the like here too. Same shit as IRL.

It's not so much top vs bottom exactly. There seems to be a specific confusion of dom with aggressive and sub with passive. Like I (think I) said, a service top would be an aggressive sub. That "knight" with his "princess" thing would be an aggressive sub (and masochist...) that services his generally passive dom. There's a perverse mixing of brat with dom there too. I keep running into expectations for exactly that, like how "the chase" is supposedly supposed to go. Not primal, just me in servitude to a bloody mistress who gets to sit on her ass and bark commands. That's what I keep running into. It just gets worse when venturing anywhere near BDSM communities.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Nephandus said:


> \
> The other problem... As an example, a "good dom" in the culture is generally, if not explicitly, a service top, which isn't a real dom at all. There's tons of that kind of false labeling, and, aside from merely reflexive BSDM fanbois, you'll run headlong into a WALL of political BS if you point out that their terms don't even mean what they claim. Ever heard of domism, for particularly grave instance? Direct bloody contradiction entirely focused on respective genders and not any other facts of the matter. Mirrored actions and actors are suddenly different when the genders are flipped. That example's not universal, but such issues seem to be. In this thread, it's been explained by even apparent fans, that BDSM isn't what it appears, to the point it couldn't be what it generally claims, yet they trigger when it's stated.
> 
> Doms aren't normally in control in any real sense. They're playing a character according to the sub's rules, often focused on pleasing the sub, which is just aggressive submission, not dominating at all, which would involve the sub focused on pleasing the dom, if anything beyond the dom pleasing the dom and the sub being passive. I'm reminded of how people speak of "the chase" in dating, claiming it rooted in male hunting instincts. Obviously, predation doesn't remotely resemble wooing. Sexual predation would be more like date rape, right? When not something even worse.... Real hunting is not nice or consensual. That's an amazingly obvious fact that can get your head bitten off, if you call one of those "chase" promoters on it. There's similar falsity and bloody-minded deceit/delusion going on here.


You question the assumptions. One assumption is a human being has more value than an animal we hunt, and has independent value and worth. Even a sub. Even a woman.

Another assumption is whether consent is important. I've had subs who I whisper in their ear and they roll over and throw their their ass in the air for me to beat I've shot carp with a shotgun from the front of a boat.

Meh.

I've also guided record big horn sheep hunts, and shot giant mule deer in their home grounds. Both years ago, for the thrill of "hunt" has long since grown thin.

for me, now, I play with Powerful Women, who are strong, and confident, and healthy, and smart. I earn their trust, and their respect, and sometimes their love. I don't "take" them. I'm 6'2, 280 pounds, and "taking" a woman would be trivial and less than meaningless.
I EARN her. 

Tearing someone down is trivial. Taking someone easy. Imagine finding someone who is harder to break than yourself, who is as strong as you, and learning about her, earning her, being loved by her.

That is worthwhile.

“The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer—because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement, not the possession of a brainless slut.”


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

All trophies go in the trash where they belong. Anyone that wants to be "earned" has my contempt eternally. I'm not a chump to run trendy/tacky gauntlets just to service her culturally bloated pretensions. Aside from their being 2 ends to the matter, submission never remotely interested me, and I refuse to put up with arbitrary challenge from a meaningless pain in the ass, much less in supposed romantic matters. Intimacy isn't for that kind anyway, it's just a farce to them to play at, so she'd be entirely worthless for my purposes. Of course, at this point, anyone past half my age is probably worthless to me for various reasons that piss off more people here than I probably already have. :tongue:


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Nephandus said:


> All trophies go in the trash where they belong. Anyone that wants to be "earned" has my contempt eternally. I'm not a chump to run trendy/tacky gauntlets just to service her culturally bloated pretensions. Aside from their being 2 ends to the matter, submission never remotely interested me, and I refuse to put up with arbitrary challenge from a meaningless pain in the ass, much less in supposed romantic matters. Intimacy isn't for that kind anyway, it's just a farce to them to play at, so she'd be entirely worthless for my purposes. Of course, at this point, anyone past half my age is probably worthless to me for various reasons that piss off more people here than I probably already have. :tongue:



Well, it is often said we date people who have the same emotional maturity. Is that why you are interested in people half your age?

Or do you just like to get them young before they figure things out?


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

drmiller100 said:


> Well, it is often said we date people who have the same emotional maturity. Is that why you are interested in people half your age?
> 
> Or do you just like to get them young before they figure things out?


Often said dating memes are common sense of fools who fuck around then overhype their flings because that's their level of intimate capacity. They glorify their failures like doctors gloating over graveyards.

I'm only significantly attracted to petite and cute, which's problem enough. I won't abide living with ghosts or an other trash jammed into an increasing cesspool of a "heart". General socialization's sleazy idiocy enough that most are infected with. Dating enculturates a pretentious lack of intimacy and depersonalization of partners. The notion that a man's inferior from the start's pretty fucking wide spread too, and privileged princesses grow into psychotic queens. I won't tolerate the former and would rather just shoot the latter then go about my business. There's no worth there. Oh, but queue the sycophantic men that play up to such... They're EVERYWHERE. It's pathetic and infuriating.

My experience of "attracteds" is not getting better:


Nephandus said:


> Long ago, probably ESFPs and the occasional INFP, though I'm not remotely sure. Basically, they were either flirts who thought I was cute but a challenge or connectors who thought I was a sensitive loner or possibly bad-boy-ish but lonely, so they'd be the only special one, though they seem to've failed to anticipate any asocial side-effects. Basically, they thought I was some bit of fantasy that didn't add up in reality.
> 
> As of mid-20s into early 30s, abusive pseudo-intellectual INTJ-wannabes, mostly late-30s to late-40s, who thought I was an obedient ass-kisser and badge of their own intellect. Apparently, sex with someone proves your mental capacity as a women as just being a woman proves you're superior to any dissenting male. Yeah... Ironically, the other main group were twinks looking for a bearish dom. THEY were direct but neutral to nice and never remotely abusive. Almost made me wish I was gay. The smallest group were female basketcases, usually butterballs and a few single mothers. They tried to friendzone themselves but would meltdown after being told I had no potential romantic interest. You can't grow my attraction as a rule that's never broken since I was 3, and I don't do friends, so they were way off the rails.
> 
> No one shows any signs in the last few years since I hit mid-30s, barring some remotely potential subtlety from waitressing/cashiering grandmas. I think I expired, though I'm pretty sure I don't want to know who doesn't think so for this entire decade. Fun times.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

What happened when you were 3?

It sounds like you don't want any woman who has any baggage. Do you think you have some baggage? Some preconceived bigotries or prejudices regarding women, or do you think you have a pretty open mind when meeting someone new?

Is there anything you would change about yourself regarding relationships if you could?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

I don't even know what to say after all these posts. I was prepared to answer a few stuff but then I saw the discussion with @drmiller100 and I'm kinda speechless. I think @Nephandus you come across as very resentful from the way you are generalizing and having some emotional issues, but whatever. 

"All trophies go in the trash where they belong. Anyone that wants to be "earned" has my contempt eternally." 
Do you think anyone should just bow to you without you showing you actually deserve the other person's time, affection and vulnerability?


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> I don't even know what to say after all these posts.



Do you think I could turn him into my good little boy?


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> "All trophies go in the trash where they belong. Anyone that wants to be "earned" has my contempt eternally."
> Do you think anyone should just bow to you without you showing you actually deserve the other person's time, affection and vulnerability?


Do you think I should bow in servitude before a spoiled brat because she thinks she's holy and superior for existing? What part of I'm not a service top don't you get yet? I was mostly interested in the D/s shit due to sheer simplicity of not having to clash with that kind of shit. Like I said, I identify primarily with the primal thing and mostly only with the simple directness. I'm not the one throwing around notions of deserving servitude or pretensions of challenge. I don't think that way or react well to such nonsense. I was looking for compatibility and uniqueness. I only EVER wanted ONE. Potential's gone from anyone remotely my age, if any ever had it to begin with, and the culture's getting worse, even for the youth.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Nephandus said:


> Do you think I should bow in servitude before a spoiled brat because she thinks she's holy and superior for existing? What part of I'm not a service top don't you get yet? I was mostly interested in the D/s shit due to sheer simplicity of not having to clash with that kind of shit. Like I said, I identify primarily with the primal thing and mostly only with the simple directness. I'm not the one throwing around notions of deserving servitude or pretensions of challenge. I don't think that way or react well to such nonsense. I was looking for compatibility and uniqueness. I only EVER wanted ONE. Potential's gone from anyone remotely my age, if any ever had it to begin with, and the culture's getting worse, even for the youth.


I didn't say you should bow in servitude. All people regardless of bdsm or not, need to feel the other person is worthy of their precious time and vulnerability. If I understand correctly, Drmiller mentioned the contrast between some subs who are willing to do anything and almost lacking self-identity (and probably rife with horrible self esteem issues if I relate that to some people I know) and those who are healthy people who normally take a longer time to allow and trust him completely. I don't know why you'd think the latter is a spoiled brat who thinks is holy and superior, which is a common thing you have been mentioning.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

drmiller100 said:


> Do you think I could turn him into my good little boy?


oh lord :laughing: that would be interesting to witness :laughing:


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Nephandus said:


> Do you think I should bow in servitude before a spoiled brat because she thinks she's holy and superior for existing? .


What would you look for in a Dom you would bow to? If I were big enough, and strong enough, and powerful enough, and I bent you over a table, and fucked the shit out of you would you accept your place as my bitch?

Yet you want someone else to submit to you without earning their trust?


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

drmiller100 said:


> What would you look for in a Dom you would bow to? If I were big enough, and strong enough, and powerful enough, and I bent you over a table, and fucked the shit out of you would you accept your place as my bitch?
> 
> Yet you want someone else to submit to you without earning their trust?


I'd kill you and possibly your kids if have any, maybe other family or pets.

You didn't describe trust. You described pretentious bullshit, which only festers with age and "experience", just like you're demonstrating bullshit now. I've never met ANY female that didn't think I wasn't the beholden. NONE demonstrated anything but presumption, if not outright contempt. Certainly none thought they had to "deserve" me. I don't abide challenge. There is no "earning" on either side.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Nephandus said:


> II've never met ANY female that didn't think I wasn't the beholden. NONE demonstrated anything but presumption, if not outright contempt. Certainly none thought they had to "deserve" me. I don't abide challenge. There is no "earning" on either side.


What is the common denominator?

Sweety, I think you are kind of cute. I like a little feisty in my subs. I've found most subs want to be a "good boy", or a "bad boy." 

I'm thinking you've been a bad boy. Bad boy's need to learn some manners, and get spanked. Unless of course you like being spanked, in which case I'll find some other punishment.

Do you like to be spanked?


----------



## HermioneG (Jul 1, 2015)

LittleOrange said:


> Yes, people who like BDSM were abused in childhood and if they tell you differently they are lying.


I was not abused. I was a goody-two-shoes and bored as fuck. Now I just wanna be bad. Is that so wrong? 



Nephandus said:


> I've never met ANY female that didn't think I wasn't the beholden.


Can you clarify this? I can't figure out which way to take it...



drmiller100 said:


> I like a little feisty in my subs. Do you like to be spanked?


I am feisty and like to be spanked. I don't think I have any daddy issues, but I do have some frequent flyer miles. Which airport is closest to you and are you free next Thursday?


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Psychological Characteristics of BDSM Practitioners

Not my thing, though I do sometimes have the curiosity that should look into research about sex to get a handle on what the consensus is on the nature of sexual development. Because there are some pretty strange sexual inclinations that one can't readily capture under the story of humans being driven to sexual reproduction. 
I think an interesting element of sexuality is that in our consciousness we have a sort of imaginative sense of the world and it seems because of that, fantasy is seen as pivotal part in our sexuality. The mind being the most prominent sex organ as some say.
The psychology of desire regardless of the framework is a interesting one and to think of how it comes to certain ends is an amazing area of interest beyond the sexual realm but in just understanding human subjectivity.
To which now like to emphasize Schopenhauer's words: "A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants."
This area of where our wants precede our conscious awareness is what we must seek to understand.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

opcorn:


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

HermioneG said:


> I am feisty and like to be spanked. I don't think I have any daddy issues, but I do have some frequent flyer miles. Which airport is closest to you and are you free next Thursday?


boise. I've got a party saturday which would be a little embarassing if I couldn't show appropriate attention. 

I suppose I could bring you as a distraction if you are into girls and boys. 

how many days are you thinking?


----------



## HermioneG (Jul 1, 2015)

drmiller100 said:


> how many days are you thinking?


Three days. One with girls. One with boys. And one with the spankings.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

HermioneG said:


> Three days. One with girls. One with boys. And one with the spankings.


3 days. first day you and me, with some spankings.
one day with other boys and girls.
third day you and me, and check out the town. with some spankings. and stuff. so you are sore on the plane home.


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

HermioneG said:


> Can you clarify this? I can't figure out which way to take it...


Even the basket-cases, I mentioned in my "attracteds" quote, clearly assumed they had me on trial, that I was to impress them, even that I clearly owed them some deference, which they could make up as they went along. There was some unilateral scripting bullshit they were trying to hold me to. The abusive ones explicitly demanded such as part of their idiotic psychology attack attempts. All females seem to think they get to frame both sides however they feel like, and I'm in error or offensive, if I don't play along with their pretensions. They've literally mocked me for answering personal questions "incorrectly", like I was supposed to change my feelings and beliefs to fit them. That's INSANE, especially considering it's also proven ubiquitous, especially in potentially romantic contexts. There's a fucked up culture going on. Hell, in mixed company, guys will play along with this shit most times, like trained dogs. It's disgusting and pathetic.

Ironically, the gay dudes never did that or anything like it, though I appear to have a nasty exception HERE... The males were either simply egalitarian, which the females occasionally lied about being in a massively myopic show of monolithic vapidity, or aggressively compliant, which didn't and couldn't actual work. I don't do male-bonding, even platonically, but there's a world of difference, even for the most oblivious male extroverts compared to the nicest females. You just can't EVER talk to them directly on the level. People even say that's not how you "talk to women", like I'm talking to children or retards or something that needs stilted coddling, only I'm assumed to be the inferior one.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Nephandus said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have no idea why I am quoted, but please leave me out of your personal bickering, thanks. 

Also, on the actual subject, some forms of BDSM are hot as fuck, especially the control aspect.


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

Entropic said:


> I have no idea why I am quoted, but please leave me out of your personal bickering, thanks.
> 
> Also, on the actual subject, some forms of BDSM is hot as fuck, especially the control aspect.


Because you described what was being addressed, duh. Now, stop virtue-signaling and playing illiterate...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Nephandus said:


> Because you described what was being addressed, duh. Now, stop virtue-signaling and playing illiterate...


No, that's not how it works. Next time you just simply formulate your own argument instead of dragging other posters into a thread by quoting them in order to leverage against another member because supposedly my opinion on the subject corresponds with yours. I don't care if it does or if you think what I had to say is a counter to what you think you are arguing against; I'm pretty sure that my argument had nothing to do with your argument since I'm talking about socionics romance styles and @RedPanda is talking about sexual practices in general; furthermore, romance styles got nothing to do with sexual practices such as BDSM. Now stop respond to me if you got nothing else to say that actually addresses the subject at hand.


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

Entropic said:


> No, that's not how it works. Next time you just simply formulate your own argument instead of dragging other posters into a thread by quoting them in order to leverage against another member because supposedly my opinion on the subject corresponds with yours. I don't care if it does or if you think what I had to say is a counter to what you think you are arguing against; I'm pretty sure that my argument had nothing to do with your argument since I'm talking about socionics romance styles and @RedPanda is talking about sexual practices in general; furthermore, romance styles got nothing to do with sexual practices such as BDSM. Now stop respond to me if you got nothing else to say that actually addresses the subject at hand.


Dude, you totally just tried to play stupid and above-it-all simultaneously. You don't get to choose who quotes you or who responds to you. Wow... You really don't get how forums work or how important you aren't.

Your knight is submissive to the princess's domination, but, in the BDSM community, they lie about the knight being a dom and the princess being a sub. The closest to honest would be if they admitted the submissive player of the knight character is pretend to be a dom, while the dominant player of the princess character is pretending to be a sub, but they deny the stark player vs character difference. You had accurately described the false paradox, which I was complaining about before they went after me and a certain someone started cybering in public under pretense of a nonsensical argument, apparently as a show of how dominant he's NOT IRL. I'll buy that Red Panda was explaining and defending her position, drmiller100 not so much...



Nephandus said:


> Literally, their terms don't mean what they're implied. They'll even explain this then pretend to explain away the contradiction they just created.
> ...
> The other problem... As an example, a "good dom" in the culture is generally, if not explicitly, a service top, which isn't a real dom at all.
> ...
> It's LARPing, often without actual sex involved, much less actual sexually getting off. They're playing characters that aren't really the players, just like an RPG. Doms aren't normally in control in any real sense. They're playing a character according to the sub's rules, often focused on pleasing the sub, which is just aggressive submission, not dominating at all, which would involve the sub focused on pleasing the dom, if anything beyond the dom pleasing the dom and the sub being passive.


If you actually like control, that's apparently not likely with a BDSM "sub"(your princess).


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

@Nephandus
how would a truly dominant person be for you, if you consider those in BDSM to be fake?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Nephandus said:


> Dude, you totally just tried to play stupid and above-it-all simultaneously. You don't get to choose who quotes you or who responds to you. Wow... You really don't get how forums work or how important you aren't.


Of course I get to choose who quotes me and who doesn't; that is why this forum has a rule against harassment. If I do not want to be quoted or mentioned by any specific user, that is fully in my right and doing anything less is disrespectful. This is simply not up to debate. 



> Your knight is submissive to the princess's domination, but, in the BDSM community, they lie about the knight being a dom and the princess being a sub. The closest to honest would be if they admitted the submissive player of the knight character is pretend to be a dom, while the dominant player of the princess character is pretending to be a sub, but they deny the stark player vs character difference. You had accurately described the false paradox, which I was complaining about before they went after me and a certain someone started cybering in public under pretense of a nonsensical argument, apparently as a show of how dominant he's NOT IRL. I'll buy that Red Panda was explaining and defending her position, drmiller100 not so much...


I have no fucking idea what you are talking about because my post was not about BDSM in itself, but power dynamics as demonstrated by socionics romance styles. Power dynamics are a part of BDSM practice but that is only insofar the comparison can be applied. Power comes in many different shapes and forms and submission is not necessarily a position without power, since a person can _choose_ to be submissive. 

Clearly, in a colloquial context, dominance is typically seen and correlated to external forms of aggression. In no shape or form does the submissive fit the definition of someone who is dominant because the very definition of submission is the lack of externally aggressive displays. Domination is not equivalent to a position of power, though it is correlated. If it was not, we would have a skewered idea of victimhood. Because BDSM operates on a definition of informed consent among practitioners, the colloquial understanding of perpetrator/victim does not apply, because in regular everyday practice, a victim is a victim precisely because they did *not* choose via informed consent, to be subject to their victimized position. 

And while the submissive partner may have the ultimate power in a BDSM situation based on informed consent, the submissive can equally be stripped away of that power the moment the dominant decides to override said consent. At that point the submissive becomes a victim. 

Thusly, power dynamics are far more nuanced than what you suggest they are.


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

Entropic said:


> Of course I get to choose who quotes me and who doesn't; that is why this forum has a rule against harassment. If I do not want to be quoted or mentioned by any specific user, that is fully in my right and doing anything less is disrespectful. This is simply not up to debate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's not harassment and playing arrogant won't turn it into harassment. You're trying to snub me then shut me up simultaneously now. You still don't forums. Go to my profile. There's "Add to Ignore List" there. You can use it or not. You won't be commanding me about regarding basic forum functions and certainty not by pretentiously waving your ass at me as you go like fucking royalty.

Dominance doesn't require violent aggression or any physical power. It's defined more by the response than the act. You can be dominate without intending. While you need someone to submit to you to be dominate, they needn't be a victim. That's true without anything to do with BDSM conventions. The sub ceases to be a sub when not submitting, likewise with the dom ceasing to dominate at the same time. Yes, if the dom applies force he can remain the dom by turning the sub into a victim as well as a sub, but that's not required.

If playerB scripts a scene, and playerA complies, playerA is the sub in context, regardless of claiming to be a dom, and playerB is the dom in context, regardless of claiming to be a sub. This is true in any context. If there's back and forth and the situation between players is weak/vague/temporary enough, you could argue that dom/sub isn't warranted as a general descriptor of the people. Both of my descriptions would be consistent with all this. A sub following their own script isn't a sub. A dom following another's script isn't a dom. Egalitarianism through the specifics certainly removes any real subs or doms, which is also consistent with what I've said about it being fake. If two players have to verify they both SPECIFICALLY want the same thing, neither is dom or sub, regardless of appearances. There's a degree of blank check involved to be a sub. It doesn't have to be absolute, but it can't be written out by the sub, or they're not a sub.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Nephandus said:


> .
> 
> If playerB scripts a scene, and playerA complies, playerA is the sub in context, regardless of claiming to be a dom, and playerB is the dom in context, regardless of claiming to be a sub. This is true in any context. If there's back and forth and the situation between players is weak/vague/temporary enough, you could argue that dom/sub isn't warranted as a general descriptor of the people. Both of my descriptions would be consistent with all this. A sub following their own script isn't a sub. A dom following another's script isn't a dom. Egalitarianism through the specifics certainly removes any real subs or doms, which is also consistent with what I've said about it being fake. If two players have to verify they both SPECIFICALLY want the same thing, neither is dom or sub, regardless of appearances. There's a degree of blank check involved to be a sub. It doesn't have to be absolute, but it can't be written out by the sub, or they're not a sub.




I've only had BDSM acts within intimate relationships and not in a casual hook-up setting and it never felt scripted like you describe. I've had experiences with both dom and sub men and I've had the sub man top me according to my wants. The differences between dom and sub-top are worlds apart. The dom I had was an INTJ and he did like to strategise our interaction, to what degree I can't be sure, but there was definitely some planning ahead on his part. Otherwise it was all experimental, trying things and see how I respond, having the lead and guiding the interaction and pushing my limits. That kind of dom is usually dom whether they have a sub or not, meaning it's part of their personality to one degree or another (of course you need a recipient to this, but my point is it's not always confined in a role-play style as you think). My dom friend is very dom in his life in general, he holds the power whenever possible out of an innate drive and ability to do so. He has a very charming and dominating personality in an inspiring way, not a scary one, which means that people tend to follow him even if he doesn't try consciously. And this translates to being dom in the bedroom in ways that do not suit what you are describing at all.
I'm not denying some interactions may be how you describe. I can see it being like that in certain cases, especially in the professional realm of BDSMing and perhaps, like I mentioned the more casual hook-ups, or when people deliberately seek out BDSM relationships.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

@Red Panda, sounds like your Dom is competent, and has some power. It is natural for him. And because of that, it just flows.

What you describe in your bedroom is D/s in the bedroom. He takes control, you give up control. You give up power, he accepts your power, cherishes it, and hands ti back when play time is over. The two of you have established a relationship, and you have learned to trust him at least a bit, you are healthy, you are not excessively needy, and you CAN take care of yourself. This is in contrast to a very young, low power, broken sub looking for ANY recognition from ANY Dom. 

I think sometimes D/s forgets control vs power vs fear. You can give up control. A Dom can take control. That's right - if a dom turns up the energy enough, most folks melt and the Dom can take control of a situation. Even a person for a while.

Generally, for most healthy subs, the Dom does not TAKE power. The sub gives up power, which in turn gives up control, and lets the Dom do what he wants in the bedroom or scene. Sometimes 24/7. Some Doms do TAKE power over some subs. Often this turns abusive, as consent can be violated in a big hurry (a slightly different view of Entropic's excellent post.) 

Many Doms have control of a sub, but not power. This is a thing and probably the basis of most Master/slave relationships.

Some Doms assert dominance with Fear. Some subs love this feeling of being out of control, fearful. It is not my thing, but is for sure a valid kink, and consent can indeed be negotiated. 

We all have definitions. To me, the VAST majority of public scenes, ESPECIALLY pickup scenes is a Dom acting as a service top. Nothing wrong with that. Uusally the sub falls into submissive mode. 
I'm a believer that a Dom can be a Dom without a sub, and a sub can be a sub without a Dom.

BTW. Terminology. There is dominate, which is a verb. There is Dominant, which is a noun or adjective.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

drmiller100 said:


> @Red Panda, sounds like your Dom is competent, and has some power. It is natural for him. And because of that, it just flows.
> 
> What you describe in your bedroom is D/s in the bedroom. He takes control, you give up control. You give up power, he accepts your power, cherishes it, and hands ti back when play time is over. The two of you have established a relationship, and you have learned to trust him at least a bit, you are healthy, you are not excessively needy, and you CAN take care of yourself. This is in contrast to a very young, low power, broken sub looking for ANY recognition from ANY Dom.
> 
> ...



I think he is natural leader, in many ways, especially since he is still not even mid 20s and has a lot of negative and positive traits to balance out. He was able to help me express my submissive side which I don't do easily so I think he's that type of person. The melting thing is especially familiar as a feeling.

I knew a Dom who knew a sub who was very desperate to find a Dom and having some pretty deep seated self esteem/worth issues. Just wanting to be treated like trash all the time. He wanted to keep her as a slave-pet but her need to be constantly abused made it impossible for her to please him. She was acting selfish in many ways, perhaps more in need of a service top than a Dom to have a reciprocal Dom/sub relationship with. This whole thing sounded very bizarre to me and I think was an example of a very unhealthy way BDSM kinks manifest.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Nephandus said:


> That's not harassment and playing arrogant won't turn it into harassment.


If I ask you to note quote me and you keep quoting me against my wishes, then it _is_ harassment. Again, that is not up to debate. If you question how the forum is run, I'd take it with the mods, not I. 



> You're trying to snub me then shut me up simultaneously now. You still don't forums. Go to my profile. There's "Add to Ignore List" there. You can use it or not. You won't be commanding me about regarding basic forum functions and certainty not by pretentiously waving your ass at me as you go like fucking royalty.


Ignoring someone does not prevent that user from quoting or mentioning you; all it does is removing the notification that you are. It also does not in any way remove the post content which is the sole reason why someone would ask someone else to stop quote or mention them. Clearly you are the one who does not know how basic social code of conduct works in this situation. 

In this situation, I am miffed over the fact that you take my post, clearly out of context and about a very different subject, injects it into this argument to support your own position without asking me if this is ok and then, without even supporting my opinion with your own reasoning, assuming that I am somehow in agreement with you because I expressed an opinion you think is similar to that of your own. No, I am not in agreement with you just because you found some text in a different part of the forum that I wrote and you happened to agree with or you think demonstrated some kind of dynamic that supports your own argument. Do you seriously think that using my username is going to give more weigh to your opinion and make it seem as if you are less rhetorically isolated than you are? 

I do not and cannot agree with the way you use my post and ignoring you is not going to stop you use my posts in this way. Asking you to stop quote or mention me, however, will. In the very least, common courtesy would assume that you first ask me whether I am fine with you quoting me, but you didn't even do that. You just took my entire post way out of context to support your own position and make it seem as if I am in agreement wtih you while so doing. And I ask you to stop do this, not just to myself, but also to other members. It is not cool at any level whatsoever. 



> Dominance doesn't require violent aggression or any physical power. It's defined more by the response than the act. You can be dominate without intending. While you need someone to submit to you to be dominate, they needn't be a victim. That's true without anything to do with BDSM conventions. The sub ceases to be a sub when not submitting, likewise with the dom ceasing to dominate at the same time. Yes, if the dom applies force he can remain the dom by turning the sub into a victim as well as a sub, but that's not required.


I never wrote "violent aggression or any physical power", but I wrote, to quote myself, "external forms of aggression". Violence and physical power is one way of how a person can externalize aggression, but certainly not the only way. So the rest of your commentary is irrelevant because you are misinterpreting what I wrote in the first place. 



> If playerB scripts a scene, and playerA complies, playerA is the sub in context, regardless of claiming to be a dom, and playerB is the dom in context, regardless of claiming to be a sub. This is true in any context.


What? Why would player A in this situation claim to be a dom but is a sub in-context? If two people clearly can change roles based on context, they aren't per se a dom or a sub, but a switch. I know, because I consider myself a switch, with likely a preference to be a dom but I can do either role depending on who it is with. 



> If there's back and forth and the situation between players is weak/vague/temporary enough, you could argue that dom/sub isn't warranted as a general descriptor of the people. Both of my descriptions would be consistent with all this. A sub following their own script isn't a sub. A dom following another's script isn't a dom. Egalitarianism through the specifics certainly removes any real subs or doms, which is also consistent with what I've said about it being fake. If two players have to verify they both SPECIFICALLY want the same thing, neither is dom or sub, regardless of appearances. There's a degree of blank check involved to be a sub. It doesn't have to be absolute, but it can't be written out by the sub, or they're not a sub.


I have no idea what you're talking about, since BDSM does require trust between two parties as to avoid the dom in particular, take advantage of the sub's position as a sub, but it can also require trust in the sense of the dom being able to trust in their own ability to know where and how to draw boundaries. 

Whatever perception you have of BDSM practices and the dom/sub relationship is not something I personally subscribe to, and I find your idea as to how it should work inherently flawed and not very healthy.


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

Entropic said:


> If I ask you to note quote me and you keep quoting me against my wishes, then it _is_ harassment. Again, that is not up to debate. If you question how the forum is run, I'd take it with the mods, not I.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow... NO. You don't own posts you make once there're part of the forum. You don't dictate anyone else's quoting or what they can say about your posts. If you don't like that, don't post. You sure as hell don't get to single out people to silence at whim. There's a reason ignore exists. Again, use it or stop whining about disobedience. I rarely feel sorry for people, but I'm actually feeling sorry for people who have to deal with you, if you're remotely like this elsewhere. Your name is as irrelevant as your pretense of authority.

Pointing out that hypothetical people COULD change from sub to dom or just neutral, depending on actions or situation, doesn't mean they're REALLY switches. That seems to miss how hypotheticals work. If you mean that in a wider sense, everyone that'll EVER be dominated in any way would be a switch, that's a strangely purist attitude, which was not what I was talking about. Besides, as I KEPT stating, I was pointing out false labels in regards to explicit contexts.

A sub calling himself a dom or vice versa was what we were discussing. WHY they do it wasn't really the issue, at least not yet. I did mention my personal experience of why so-called subs were pretending. They wanted to be served by a fake macho type but were lazy and delusional about it. Also, plenty wanted the so-called dom to be grateful or even explicitly owe them for the opportunity to service them. They'd claim they as the sub that they had serviced the dom, instead of the reverse. Kinda plays into supposed traditional relationship stereotypes about men and women, in an unintentionally revealing way. "The strength of women is the pretense of weakness, and the weakness of men is the pretense of strength." Most men seemed to fall for being allowed false displays of power enough to fork over servitude.

Trust doesn't remove the significant "blank check" requirement from a sub, or they're still not a sub. A dom is supposed to "take advantage" to a significant extent, at least with the dommed context, or it's all the farce I was complaining about.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Nephandus said:


> Wow... NO. You don't own posts you make once there're part of the forum. You don't dictate anyone else's quoting or what they can say about your posts. If you don't like that, don't post. You sure as hell don't get to single out people to silence at whim. There's a reason ignore exists. Again, use it or stop whining about disobedience. I rarely feel sorry for people, but I'm actually feeling sorry for people who have to deal with you, if you're remotely like this elsewhere. Your name is as irrelevant as your pretense of authority.


Yes, I do have the authority. Such are the forum rules here. Get used to them. 



> Pointing out that hypothetical people COULD change from sub to dom or just neutral, depending on actions or situation, doesn't mean they're REALLY switches. That seems to miss how hypotheticals work. If you mean that in a wider sense, everyone that'll EVER be dominated in any way would be a switch, that's a strangely purist attitude, which was not what I was talking about. Besides, as I KEPT stating, I was pointing out false labels in regards to explicit contexts.
> 
> A sub calling himself a dom or vice versa was what we were discussing. WHY they do it wasn't really the issue, at least not yet. I did mention my personal experience of why so-called subs were pretending.* They wanted to be served by a fake macho type but were lazy and delusional about it. Also, plenty wanted the so-called dom to be grateful or even explicitly owe them for the opportunity to service them. They'd claim they as the sub that they had serviced the dom, instead of the reverse. Kinda plays into supposed traditional relationship stereotypes about men and women, in an unintentionally revealing way. "The strength of women is the pretense of weakness, and the weakness of men is the pretense of strength." Most men seemed to fall for being allowed false displays of power enough to fork over servitude.*
> 
> Trust doesn't remove the significant "blank check" requirement from a sub, or they're still not a sub. A dom is supposed to "take advantage" to a significant extent, at least with the dommed context, or it's all the farce I was complaining about.


Yeah, the bolded says all I need to know what you think about relationships in general. You are confusing your own attitudes towards gender roles and stereotypes with BDSM practices. They aren't the same thing, and it shows when you write that "everyone that'll EVER be dominated in any way would be a switch, that's a strangely purist attitude, which was not what I was talking about". The definition of a dom is someone who never plays the sub in a sexual relationship. If you do play a sub, you're not a dom but a switch. It really is that simple. It's not a purist attitude, it's a matter of definitions. 

If you don't even ascribe to the commonly agreed upon terms of BDSM, then why are you even arguing this? You're not talking about BDSM anymore, but something else, and you make it very clear in the bolded, because gender roles got zip to do with BDSM, even if many doms are typically men and subs are typically women. But it doesn't mean these roles are exclusive to men and women, nor is heterosexual sex the only kind of sex at which point again, your entire argument becomes moot.


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

WTF? Is English your second language? Seriously... If you're just trying to bash me, you're doing it wrong.


----------



## Hellfire (Nov 30, 2015)

@Nephandus

His english is fine, but what's your point about men and women exactly?  That women manipulate men by pretending to be submissive? What do we gain out of this exactly? 

Are we going to see a rebuttal to his post?


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

Hellfire said:


> @Nephandus
> 
> His english is fine, but what's your point about men and women exactly?  That women manipulate men by pretending to be submissive? What do we gain out of this exactly?
> 
> Are we going to see a rebuttal to his post?


I was describing why some women posed as subs since he asked why someone would lie about that kind of thing. Either YOUR English sucks, or both of you are trying to strawman me in stupefyingly obvious manner.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Nephandus said:


> A dom is supposed to "take advantage" to a significant extent, at least with the dommed context, or .


Could you clarify, cuz this seems to me on the face to be domineering, predatory, abusive attitude.

"take advantage" I define to be "pushing beyond limits of consent".


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

drmiller100 said:


> Could you clarify, cuz this seems to me on the face to be *domineering*, predatory, abusive attitude.
> 
> "take advantage" I define to be "pushing beyond limits of consent".


*cough*


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

gotta love it when enneagram 8's rally up to disagree on stuff!!!!!!


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Nephandus said:


> *cough*



you equate domineering with dominating?????

AH HA!!!!!! 

NOW I GET IT!


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

drmiller100 said:


> you equate domineering with dominating?????
> 
> AH HA!!!!!!
> 
> NOW I GET IT!


I wasn't being literal.

"Idioms:
take advantage of
1. To put to good use; avail oneself of: take advantage of all educational opportunities.
2. To make use of for selfish reasons; achieve a selfish goal by exploiting: took advantage of him by leaving him with the bill; took advantage of his unsuspecting nature.
3. To seduce."
Taking advantage - definition of taking advantage by The Free Dictionary


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

_







Originally Posted by *Nephandus* 
A dom is supposed to "take advantage" to a significant extent, at least with the dommed context, or .

_

Could you clarify, cuz this seems to me on the face to be domineering, predatory, abusive attitude.

"take advantage" I define to be "pushing beyond limits of consent".


----------



## Majority (Oct 3, 2016)

Here is the scoop: Men must dominate women. When people fail to establish this dynamic in their relationships there arises a need to settle dominion. 

In itself this is not bad but an opportunity to rectify what's broken. When this does not happen people wind up in a limbo that they don't find their way out of. 

Why must men dominate women? Why can't women dominate men? Well what if they like the results?


----------



## Vivid Melody (Apr 25, 2011)

This thread needs a song to break up the tension lol:


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Majority said:


> Here is the scoop: Men must dominate women. When people fail to establish this dynamic in their relationships there arises a need to settle dominion.
> 
> In itself this is not bad but an opportunity to rectify what's broken. When this does not happen people wind up in a limbo that they don't find their way out of.
> 
> Why must men dominate women? Why can't women dominate men? Well what if they like the results?


gag.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Majority said:


> Here is the scoop: Men must dominate women. When people fail to establish this dynamic in their relationships there arises a need to settle dominion.
> 
> In itself this is not bad but an opportunity to rectify what's broken. When this does not happen people wind up in a limbo that they don't find their way out of.
> 
> Why must men dominate women? Why can't women dominate men? Well what if they like the results?


This is completely irrelevant. 
Ever heard of femdom?


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

There is something kind of contrived about it to me, so no, not appealing in theory. Someone being more dominant in general holds some appeal, as does the idea of rough sex, but I think these are common enough things so that BDSM label doesn't really fit; otherwise I find it too humorous. I guess if you are being intentionally silly, then it could be an occasional fun thing to mix it up. I think I like playful and sensual attitudes more. The outfits could be cool; playing dress up is again, more about being playful to me though.

Sex isn't inherently "dirty" to me, so the idea of punishment over it just doesn't strike a chord with me. I think there is some taboo aspect that turns people on (?), but something being taboo doesn't make it more or less appealing to me.

I find it odd that people are offended that someone holds a different preference; the OP didn't seem to be casting moral judgment. BDSM seems really trendy to me, so it seems valid to discuss why as a trend it doesn't appeal to everyone. It seems like the typical way people like to be "kinky" also, sort of rendering it not very kinky, and I don't think kink is automatically superior anyway (the term "vanilla" is very overused...there's kind a big area between wham-baam-thank-you-uh-person and BDSM). I think the trendy aspect makes it cliche to me, which is not very sexy.


----------



## Gorgon (Feb 16, 2015)

There are some parts of BDSM and kink that I don't care for, namely the overly performative, contrived, and even some of the social/community aspects of it. I'm also not into the role aspect of BDSM (D/s, Master/slave, Daddy/little, and so on). With that being said, even within those roles, the power dynamics are highly nuanced, individualized, fluid, and constantly negotiated. Hell, I wouldn't say I'm entirely opposed to being in a D/s relationship if the right person comes along. I've even entertained the idea of becoming a pro domme . If I had to characterize myself in BDSM terms, I would say I'm a sadomasochist (with slight leanings towards masochism) with a predilection towards the rougher or more extreme kinks (fear play, consentual non-consent, etc). Even if the S/M dynamic doesn't involve D/s or M/s, there's always an undercurrent of power play especially where the more psychological aspects of S/M are concerned. The hottest part for me are the fluid and constant shifting (or struggling ;p) of power dynamics, and toying with my physical and psychological limits.


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

== Results from bdsmtest.org == 
94% Rigger 
86% Dominant 
71% Exhibitionist 
62% Primal (Hunter) 
62% Vanilla 
56% Master/Mistress 

Guess I should be heading down to the hardware store....:laughing:


----------



## marybluesky (Apr 23, 2012)

Sundae said:


> i think i would rather play an hour of hot-potato with a cactus than tie my partner up and pretend to rape them.


 I hate it. And as a woman, the more humiliated roles are usually supposed to be played by me which makes it worse. I can't see why it is trend this days. Why someone could be called prude if she/he doesn't want to humiliate/ be humiliated?


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

Rape fantasy is supposedly the #1 female kink. Kinda think it goes with the fake sub getting serviced I was complaining about, though there's also the supposed notion of the guy being so attracted that can't control himself, which is even weirder as a scripted scene.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

marybluesky said:


> I hate it. And as a woman, the more humiliated roles are usually supposed to be played by me which makes it worse. I can't see why it is trend this days. Why someone could be called prude if she/he doesn't want to humiliate/ be humiliated?



I totally get this. FWIW, a LOT of people are into various kinks, including bdsm, who have NO interest in humiliation. 

and I think calling someone a "prude" is shaming, and I do NOT like that either.


----------



## strawberryLola (Sep 19, 2010)

I never understood the notions of it, and 50 Shades of Gray never appealed to me. I don't get the fascination behind getting beat up or wanting to beat up others, especially during sex, but I understand how others can get off on that. Some people like the dominatrix/master/slave position. Others like fantasies and story telling, but choking someone while wanting to make out.. I don't know. Reminds me of how cats have sex or when they're in heat. To each his/her own.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

@*Sundae*

I don't know that I'm interested, but the first thing I do is look at it the other way around. I don't think I would want to be tied up and have someone else pretend to rape me, or belittle me, or make me feel inferior...that just doesn't appeal to me. 

I neither feel a need to be superior, nor inferior, to my lover. I prefer some sort of commingling of equals where each takes a turn being in charge, something that happens spontaneously and organically. 

Nor do I find the idea of giving/receiving serious pain. I did one time experience accidental serious pain at the same time I was in the middle of an orgasm (banged my head off a wrought iron headboard) and the sensation was...curious, but I'm in no hurry to repeat the experience. I'll get a little rough, if I am asked, but I'm not into anything that's going to draw blood, or create serious damage. 

This is not to say I'm judging people who like to play that way. I just never found it all that exciting.


----------



## Sylarz (Sep 4, 2014)

Yeah it weirds me out, and it doesn't appeal to me, but I was beaten senseless as a child so I probably have deep inner baggage.

A little playful roughness and general domination, holding hands down, etc is totally fine and enjoyable though. To my great delight every girl I've been with enjoys that sort of thing.

But BDSM is a few levels above that.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Good thing you have your smug feelings of moral superiority to get off on then.


----------



## Lovable (Apr 1, 2017)

Oh you guys 

Don't knock it till you try it.. No no, don't knock it till you try it with the right partner! 

I have always been really vanilla untill my ex showed me his world and it wasn't bad so I don't think you should close your mind towards it if you one day get a chance with a girl you really like 

bdsm is not about humiliation, it's about prolonging the pleasure..


----------



## Noctis (Apr 4, 2012)

Yep. I am very vanilla myself as well.


----------

