NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I've recently become aware of such a thing as a Dom/sub relationship that not only encompasses the bedroom, but the entire relationship. My friend has informed me that his girlfriend is completely subservient to him, not just in the bedroom, but in their entire lives.

Anything he asks her to do, even if it hurts her, she will comply. Even if she doesn't want to, it appears that she has no will of her own, she does everything for him that he asks.

How does NSG feel about this kind of relationship? I'm kind of conflicted about it.

Where does the conflict lie for you?

Where does the conflict lie for you?

I am not sure. I guess I wasn't raised in such a way to take slaves.

It's fine if it's completely consensual and has a clear 'safeword' clause involved. However I feel that there is a danger that coercion or codependency may be involved, which is why i'd say it's probably psychologically healthier to have clear 'playtimes' and not have it permeate every aspect of your life.

If both consent then it's fine.

So, I've recently become aware of such a thing as a Dom/sub relationship that not only encompasses the bedroom, but the entire relationship. My friend has informed me that his girlfriend is completely subservient to him, not just in the bedroom, but in their entire lives.

Anything he asks her to do, even if it hurts her, she will comply. Even if she doesn't want to, it appears that she has no will of her own, she does everything for him that he asks.

How does NSG feel about this kind of relationship? I'm kind of conflicted about it.
She absolutely has a will of her own, she chooses not to use it.

She absolutely has a will of her own, she chooses not to use it.

But, how do we know if she still has it? Wouldn't it deteriorate through lack of use?

whatever people choose to do is fine with me as long as there is no real damage done.

it all seems very drama queen-ish to me.

But, how do we know if she still has it? Wouldn't it deteriorate through lack of use?

No. She isn't subservient to everyone, just to him. (I assume)

whatever people choose to do is fine with me as long as there is no real damage done.

it all seems very drama queen-ish to me.

Why drama queenish if it's kept discrete?

Or were you talking about the Dom in this relationship

But, how do we know if she still has it? Wouldn't it deteriorate through lack of use?

Heh, no, not really.

The thing that people sometimes don't understand about us submissives is that the willingness to submit to one person in no way translates into a willingness to submit to people in general. It's really no different than any other relationship-specific thing - much as a "vanilla" woman will happily let her boyfriend kiss her without a second thought, but will kick the ass of a stranger who tries to kiss her, someone like me will happily obey my boyfriend's orders, but will tell anyone else who tries to boss me around exactly where they can stick it.

Heh, no, not really.

The thing that people sometimes don't understand about us submissives is that the willingness to submit to one person in no way translates into a willingness to submit to people in general. It's really no different than any other relationship-specific thing - much as a "vanilla" woman will happily let her boyfriend kiss her without a second thought, but will kick the ass of a stranger who tries to kiss her, someone like me will happily obey my boyfriend's orders, but will tell anyone else who tries to boss me around exactly where they can stick it.

Exactly. Also, the Dom is in many ways bound by what the sub will allow. It's a conditional submission, there's always a point where things have gone too far.

She absolutely has a will of her own, she chooses not to use it.
I think she is using it, actually. You chose to obey, or not. A choice is made, will is exercised.

That's assuming full and informed consent to the dynamic, absent any form of coercion, fraud or intimidation.

Somebody once told me that in the Master/slave sexual relationship, it's the slave that's in control.

Somebody once told me that in the Master/slave sexual relationship, it's the slave that's in control.

It's true.

Somebody once told me that in the Master/slave sexual relationship, it's the slave that's in control.

Oh? Explain.

Somebody once told me that in the Master/slave sexual relationship, it's the slave that's in control.
Oh boy, now you've done it...now Neo Art is going to come in and post a 3500 word thesis on how that's not exactly correct. With at least 500+ spelling mistakes to burn our eyeballs out of their sockets.

Damn you, LG! Damn you!

Oh? Explain.

DOn't look at me, I'm still trying to get these damned leather pants off!

Leather is not necessary when you're in a D/s relationship, it's more a state of mind. However, it's very much necessary when you're in Manowar or if your name happens to be Rob Halford.

It's true.

Could you explain? LG seems unwilling.

Could you explain? LG seems unwilling.

Well they are starting to chafe.

Heh, no, not really.

The thing that people sometimes don't understand about us submissives is that the willingness to submit to one person in no way translates into a willingness to submit to people in general. It's really no different than any other relationship-specific thing - much as a "vanilla" woman will happily let her boyfriend kiss her without a second thought, but will kick the ass of a stranger who tries to kiss her, someone like me will happily obey my boyfriend's orders, but will tell anyone else who tries to boss me around exactly where they can stick it.

^This.

I will comply, with everything my Keeper asks of me, no matter what and what cost to me. But if someone else tries to do the same, he/she's pretty much done for. His will is everything. That's not the way I see everyone else.

Oh boy, now you've done it...now Neo Art is going to come in and post a 3500 word thesis on how that's not exactly correct. With at least 500+ spelling mistakes to burn our eyeballs out of their sockets.

Damn you, LG! Damn you!

:D

I was thinking of beating him to it, actually, but I'll make my version much shorter (and better spelled). The simple fact is that, assuming a reasonable, consensual, non-abusive relationship, both parties are in control. Both have the option of ending either a particular activity or the relationship as a whole whenever they want; they simply have different ways of doing so.

Could you explain? LG seems unwilling.
Well, there are tons of dynamics, I'm only really intimately familiar with one...but the Dom can't really do whatever the Dom wants, they are limited to doing what is consented to. Now, the things that are consented to might NOT be okay with the majority of random people, and in fact most people wouldn't consent to them at all, but there is a line, and the Dom knows it and when the Dom crosses that line....the sub quits submitting.

:D

I was thinking of beating him to it, actually, but I'll make my version much shorter (and better spelled). The simple fact is that, assuming a reasonable, consensual, non-abusive relationship, both parties are in control. Both have the option of ending either a particular activity or the relationship as a whole whenever they want; they simply have different ways of doing so.

This is why he should have you do all the talking :D

Well, there are tons of dynamics, I'm only really intimately familiar with one...but the Dom can't really do whatever the Dom wants, they are limited to doing what is consented to. Now, the things that are consented to might NOT be okay with the majority of random people, and in fact most people wouldn't consent to them at all, but there is a line, and the Dom knows it and when the Dom crosses that line....the sub quits submitting.

Even if I am driven to my limits, my Keeper's word, my Keeper's needs and wants come first. There's no limit, not physically or mentally, to the things he can do to me.

He wants my pain, he gets pain. He wants me to scream, how loud is all I can ask. He wants me to sleep, I sleep, he wants me to shut up, I will. He wants me to be gone, I vanish. He desires to own me in my sleep, he can own me in my sleep. I belong to him, and nothing else matters.

I am an extension, and I am so humbled by it (and you all may consider me to be sick, it matters not), of his will, of his desires. His word, no matter how harsh or gentle, is my law. I exist for him, and he knows this. He considers me, and that's enough.

Dare I say it? Yes I do, I adore him. I love him. Nothing compares to that feeling. He's all my world, he encompasses it all.

I do not feel this for anyone else.

Even if I am driven to my limits, my Keeper's word, my Keeper's needs and wants come first. There's no limit, not physically or mentally, to the things he can do to me.

He wants my pain, he gets pain. He wants me to scream, how loud is all I can ask. He wants me to sleep, I sleep, he wants me to shut up, I will. He wants me to be gone, I vanish. He desires to own me in my sleep, he can own me in my sleep. I belong to him, and nothing else matters.

I am an extension, and I am so humbled by it (and you all may consider me to be sick, it matters not), of his will, of his desires. His word, no matter how harsh or gentle, is my law. I exist for him, and he knows this. He considers me, and that's enough.

Dare I say it? Yes I do, I adore him. I love him. Nothing compares to that feeling. He's all my world, he encompasses it all.

I do not feel this for anyone else.

I guess......I mean if he wanted to hack off your foot with a rusty hand saw you'd just submit then? I mean you adore him so much that he can cut off your foot?

I think the most important thing, for me, is to know that I really am regarded as an equal. Being told to do something and obeying does not mean that suddenly I'm an inferior in any real sense.

I wouldn't say I'm in a D/s relationship right now, but there are aspects of it that are similar. I'm pretty sure he knows that if were to 'order' me, I'd listen. It's a matter of him actually being comfortable with doing that, or wanting to do it, outside of sex.

Why that is in any way appealing to me is that because even a non-sexual order becomes tinged with a sort of erotic subtext, which is only enjoyable if it's tinged that way for the person giving the order to.

It's simple to understand why, "bend over bitch, I'm going to use your ass now" is hot. It might be a little more difficult from the outside understanding how, "get me a beer, and come sit here by my feet" could be a turn on. Context.

Also, whew, need to take a break for a bit. *fans self*

I guess......I mean if he wanted to hack off your foot with a rusty hand saw you'd just submit then? I mean you adore him so much that he can cut off your foot?

He would never do that. I trust him completely.

But if you want me to respond using your logic. Yes, he can hack it off, if it pleases him. Is your question answered?

It's just a bunch of pretentious live-action roleplaying with sex and immature mind-games. Doesn't impress me.

Why drama queenish if it's kept discrete?

Or were you talking about the Dom in this relationship
roleplaying in your entire life is dramaqueenish.

as if regular existence isnt good enough and you need more .... fantasy to get you through the day.

its kinda pathetic really.

He would never do that. I trust him completely.

But if you want me to respond using your logic. Yes, he can hack it off, if it pleases him. Is your question answered?

I guess I have limits. Must not adore my husband as much or something.

I guess......I mean if he wanted to hack off your foot with a rusty hand saw you'd just submit then? I mean you adore him so much that he can cut off your foot?


Lol.

"What are your limits, slave?"

"i have none, Master!"

"None? None at all?"

"No Sir, none. i am Yours completely!"

"Alright then." Exit, stage left, the sound of a chainsaw being started and revved is heard. Slave cowers in a corner. Master re-enters.

"Now let me ask you this again."

I guess I have limits. Must not adore my husband as much or something.

I don't know about that, Smunkee. You don't need to understand this anymore than I need to understand your relationship. With my Keeper, there are NO limits. Period.

Lol.

"What are your limits, slave?"

"i have none, Master!"

"None? None at all?"

"No Sir, none. i am Yours completely!"

"Alright then." Exit, stage left, the sound of a chainsaw being started and revved is heard. Slave cowers in a corner. Master re-enters.

"Now let me ask you this again."

:tongue: She says there are no limits.

roleplaying in your entire life is dramaqueenish.

as if regular existence isnt good enough and you need more .... fantasy to get you through the day.

its kinda pathetic really.

It's not really roleplay or fantasy though. I mean, it's not like dressing up in a French Maid uniform and pretending to be the hired help who gets ravished by the horny master.

It's like flirting, or showing someone you love them, just in different ways than other couples do it.

It's fine if it's completely consensual
-== Did you know? ==-

Pimp's relationship with his bitches is almost always consensual.

roleplaying in your entire life is dramaqueenish.

as if regular existence isnt good enough and you need more .... fantasy to get you through the day.

its kinda pathetic really.

It's not fantasy if you,re actually doing it. It's real, and if someone can make his or her fantasies come true without hurting someone, why not go for the awesomest?

It's not really roleplay or fantasy though. I mean, it's not like dressing up in a French Maid uniform and pretending to be the hired help who gets ravished by the horny master.

It's like flirting, or showing someone you love them, just in different ways than other couples do it.
if its your whole life, its pathetic.

if its for fun in bed, its no worse than any other thing that people do to enjoy themselves.

I guess......I mean if he wanted to hack off your foot with a rusty hand saw you'd just submit then? I mean you adore him so much that he can cut off your foot?

He would never do that. I trust him completely.

But if you want me to respond using your logic. Yes, he can hack it off, if it pleases him. Is your question answered?

I don't know about that, Smunkee. You don't need to understand this anymore than I need to understand your relationship. With my Keeper, there are NO limits. Period.
If what you're saying is that this would be one of his limits (causing you lasting, extreme physical harm) then that's fine. If what you're saying is that you wouldn't stop him from causing you lasting, extreme physical harm if that's what he wanted, then that's not really so fine.

You might be willing to submit to things that could honestly hurt, or kill you, but I think this shows less love for him, and more of a lack of love for yourself, which is profoundly unhealthy.

roleplaying in your entire life is dramaqueenish.

as if regular existence isnt good enough and you need more .... fantasy to get you through the day.

its kinda pathetic really.

I understand your point, but it doesn't have to be "roleplaying." For me, it's not. There's no acting, no performance - it's just part of my relationship with my boyfriend, no different really than anything else that defines how two people relate to each other. We don't dress up in costumes or pretend; he's simply the one in charge, because we both like it that way. I don't really see how mutually agreeing that he'll be the one calling the shots in general is any more pathetic than deciding that he'll handle the finances and I'll decide on home decor, or something.

if its your whole life, its pathetic.

if its for fun in bed, its no worse than any other thing that people do to enjoy themselves.

But, I'm not role playing, it is my role. It is the dynamic we've chosen.

It's just a bunch of pretentious live-action roleplaying with sex and immature mind-games. Doesn't impress me.

If you wanted, you could characterise any relationship that way, pretty accurately too.

I sort of like D/s because there tend to be less mind games, due to the fact that these things get discussed openly in order to determine what works for both parties.

Did you know?

Pimp's relationship with his bitches is almost always consensual.

Did you know? Consent must be full, and informed, and is vitiated by coercion, fraud or intimidation.

There's no guarantee that a D/s relationship is going to be free of abuse, just like there is no guarantee that a non-D/S relationship will be. An abusive relationship, in either scenario equal super plus ungood.

I understand your point, but it doesn't have to be "roleplaying." For me, it's not. There's no acting, no performance - it's just part of my relationship with my boyfriend, no different really than anything else that defines how two people relate to each other. We don't dress up in costumes or pretend; he's simply the one in charge, because we both like it that way. I don't really see how mutually agreeing that he'll be the one calling the shots in general is any more pathetic than deciding that he'll handle the finances and I'll decide on home decor, or something.
there is a difference between letting the man be in charge and being his slave.

if you are his slave every hour of every day, that IS role playing and its pathetic.

If what you're saying is that this would be one of his limits (causing you lasting, extreme physical harm) then that's fine. If what you're saying is that you wouldn't stop him from causing you lasting, extreme physical harm if that's what he wanted, then that's not really so fine.

What I'm saying is that he would never harm me. Not that way. He's rough in sex, he's a strict master that likes order and obedience, he wants my utter respect, but he would never maim me.

You might be willing to submit to things that could honestly hurt, or kill you, but I think this shows less love for him, and more of a lack of love for yourself, which is profoundly unhealthy.

You may be right, you may not be right. I don't think me willing to suffer for him, regardless of my well-being, shows lack of self-love. To me, it shows the greatest love, the greatest sacrifice. But that's just the way I see it, Neesika.

there is a difference between letting the man be in charge and being his slave.

if you are his slave every hour of every day, that IS role playing and its pathetic.

M/s is only one D/s dynamic.

If you wanted, you could characterise any relationship that way, pretty accurately too.

Not really. Immersion into a role like "slave" is different from simply relating with another person intimately and regularly. You can say the "slave" in you is really you or whatever, but it's not. You're not a slave. It's not even accurate within the context - 'the slave is really the one in control' - but you use the term anyway. Why? Because that's the role. It's like when I put on my robe and wizard hat and become a wizard.

I sort of like D/s because there tend to be less mind games, due to the fact that these things get discussed openly in order to determine what works for both parties.

It's just like discussing the rules of your Vampire LARP beforehand. You have safe-words and shit there too. So the play can be brutally interrupted by the cold face of reality.

And it's all built on a mind-game, so I don't see how the lack of mind-game minigames is any improvement.

if its your whole life, its pathetic.

if its for fun in bed, its no worse than any other thing that people do to enjoy themselves.

I'm not sure how you're defining 'your whole life'.

When you're in a committed relationship, that relationship tinges everything you do, all the decisions you make. To what extent is going to depend on the dynamics in play. You work out the boundaries, the expectations. That's true with D/s as well.

If we send each other messages throughout the day saying things like, "I love you, I miss you", is that pathetic? (I mean other than being sickly sweet, which it is) What if he sent me a message like, "You little slut, when I get home I'm going to fuck you until you cry"...okay what if he said, "Before you get home, I want you to pick up some beer, and since I'm going to be home late, I expect you to have supper made, or there will be consequences"?

I'm not seeing the roleplaying, I'm not seeing the 'your whole life' aspect. Even if all I wanted to do was sit at home and wait for him to come home to use me, wtf is wrong with that? Some people honestly love to serve their loved ones and devote themselves to it...is that roleplaying? Cuz my gran is one living-in-a-fantasy kinkster...

It becomes unhealthy if the people involved are unhappy and doing things agains their will...just like in any other relationship.

there is a difference between letting the man be in charge and being his slave.

if you are his slave every hour of every day, that IS role playing and its pathetic.

Why? I mean, if I like being available to him 24/7 and doing whatever he tells me to do, what "role" am I playing by acting like I like being available to him 24/7 and doing whatever he tells me to do? It seems like I'd be putting on much more of a performance if I pretended I didn't enjoy that just because it's more "normal."

And, further, why is it being 24/7, in itself, pathetic? I mean, I can see an argument for why it's kinda sad to need all the trappings - if you're running around the house in a gimp mask every day, or sleeping on leather sheets because they somehow fit your "lifestyle," yeah, I'm probably going to laugh at you a bit - but why is simply doing what my boyfriend says by default a problem?

What I'm saying is that he would never harm me. Not that way. He's rough in sex, he's a strict master that likes order and obedience, he wants my utter respect, but he would never maim me. Okay, that's what I thought you meant. So it's not that you don't have limits, or that he has no limits...the opposite. You just trust him completely to not harm you in any meaningful way.



You may be right, you may not be right. I don't think me willing to suffer for him, regardless of my well-being, shows lack of self-love. To me, it shows the greatest love, the greatest sacrifice. But that's just the way I see it, Neesika.
I get what you're saying...but I also know from experience that sometimes the person 'suffering' doesn't always know when to stop. There are numerous physiological reasons for this, and if no one was paying attention, there could be trouble. It's why it's important to be with someone who does actually care about your wellbeing so they push you, but not to the point where you're actually going to go too far. Safewords are great, but it shouldn't be entirely up to the sub to know when to stop. It sounds to me like you're saying you trust your Dom to pay attention to this, and stop when it's necessary.


there is a difference between letting the man be in charge and being his slave.

if you are his slave every hour of every day, that IS role playing and its pathetic.
Semantics. There is nothing inherently wrong with dividing up duties however you seem fit, and however you as a couple are comfortable with. No names are needed, no Master/slave, no Sir/slut no whatever. If anyone, male or female, wants to service their SO domestically/sexually/however, then there's no roleplaying, no pathetic aspect, it just is what THEY want. And ultimately, as long as no one is getting hurt, that's all that should matter.

There's always this image in my head that describes our relationship. He's my master, I am his slave.

http://images.inmagine.com/168nwm/photoalto/paa121/paa121000023.jpg

Not really. Immersion into a role like "slave" is different from simply relating with another person intimately and regularly. You can say the "slave" in you is really you or whatever, but it's not. You're not a slave. It's not even accurate within the context - 'the slave is really the one in control' - but you use the term anyway. Why? Because that's the role. It's like when I put on my robe and wizard hat and become a wizard. And if I call you sugarlips, I'm roleplaying because your lips are not in fact made of sugar, so why even say it?

If I can only have sex when the lights are off, is that roleplaying? What if I don't like having sex unless I've had some alcohol first? How is that different from only getting off on being treated roughly?

I don't agree that the slave is the one in control, not completely, because relationships are still give and take, even when it's a D/s dynamic.



It's just like discussing the rules of your Vampire LARP beforehand. You have safe-words and shit there too. So the play can be brutally interrupted by the cold face of reality.

And it's all built on a mind-game, so I don't see how the lack of mind-game minigames is any improvement.
I was saying that any relationship is about mind-games, to a certain extent...because some things are going to work for you in that relationship, and some aren't. If your SO is a nagging bitch and that bothers you, then that dynamic isn't a good one for you. If you like a woman who nags you, then you'll probably choose a partner who does that, and you'll encourage that sort of thing in your relationship. Sicko roleplayer.

Okay, that's what I thought you meant. So it's not that you don't have limits, or that he has no limits...the opposite. You just trust him completely to not harm you in any meaningful way.

When we decided that this was the right thing to do. We did set it all, laid on the table how things were going to be. It was so easy, so easy and so... right (for lack of a better word), to understand that he is and will always be the Keeper. And he considers me so much. I can feel it in his touch, even when he demands obedience, I can hear it in his words, even when he scolds. I can see it in his eyes, even if he disproves of something I've done.

I get what you're saying...but I also know from experience that sometimes the person 'suffering' doesn't always know when to stop. There are numerous physiological reasons for this, and if no one was paying attention, there could be trouble. It's why it's important to be with someone who does actually care about your wellbeing so they push you, but not to the point where you're actually going to go too far. Safewords are great, but it shouldn't be entirely up to the sub to know when to stop. It sounds to me like you're saying you trust your Dom to pay attention to this, and stop when it's necessary.

Yes, I trust him completely, and he knows when to stop if I am getting hurt.

Did you know? Consent must be full, and informed, and is vitiated by coercion, fraud or intimidation.
No coercion. No fraud. No intimidation.

There are "pimps" that use coercion, but they're not the ones that succeed. Pimping is a much more fine and psychological process than the stereotypes depict. Threats don't work in the long run.
Pimping is about the talent of attaching a woman to you. It's about the art of breaking a human being, so that she herself wants, desires, finds herself in working for you.


The most effective weapon in a pimp's arsenal is his personality. Why is Snoop Dog considered a pimp-- blessed by the Bishop Don "Magic" Juan, an ex-pimp himself? He perfected the pimp mannerisms; he had game.

Ho's are never taken. They give themselves to a pimp. The process is called "choosing." A ho chooses her pimp, or the pimp needs to walk away.

In all relationships, the most reptilian, soulless partner will be the more dominant. Why? Because they don't care and the other person does. The pimp makes no compromise and for the pimp's respect, or affection, the ho must give up herself totally. It takes charm to achieve this effect-- a mix of dominance, style and psychological acumen. A pimp must learn a ho through and through, to know what buttons make her wet and what wets her cheek with tears.



If you can not get a ho to choose you, you might have to find a woman, and break her down into a ho.

The process is a stripping away of the woman's ego, a cultivation of her dependency and need, until she is nothing but a ho, willing to sell herself to a pimp for affection and security.
[...]

The ho must be isolated from everyone who would speak ill of the pimp; the pimp must mold the ho's language, so force her to use YOUR words. Call her Philly and make her call herself YOUR philly.
[...]
The ho should be taken away from her familiar life, shipped out to friend's houses in other states; taken to rich places and nice restaurants and all the while she must be SHOWN she is inferior to the pimp and that if the pimp takes his hand away, the ho will have nothing. Take her somewhere and threaten to leave her if she disobeys a particularly nasty order, like licking the pimp's asshole. If she disobeys, let her go: pimps don't chase.

After the ho obeys enough of the pimp's orders to know her place, enough of a routine is established, the ho needs to be broken further [...]
Finally, have her suck a friend's dick. When she's sucking dick, under the pimp's supervision, she is sufficiently broken to be given the official Ho status.

The rest is upkeep. Keep her broken. But keep her in need, above all else: needing your money, your security, and most of all, your attention.

And if I call you sugarlips, I'm roleplaying because your lips are not in fact made of sugar, so why even say it?

No, a term of endearment is not roleplaying. And using one is quite different from a "D/s" relationship.

If I can only have sex when the lights are off, is that roleplaying?

That would be a personal preference. Bit of an odd one if you literally "can" only have sex under that condition, or if you simply strongly prefer it, or fear the light, or....

What if I don't like having sex unless I've had some alcohol first?

That's an alcohol dependency waiting to happen. You have the positive reinforcement going, as if alcohol wasn't already addictive enough. Tsk tsk!

How is that different from only getting off on being treated roughly?

I guess they're not that different - dependency is dependency whether on alcohol or physical abuse.

I don't agree that the slave is the one in control, not completely, because relationships are still give and take, even when it's a D/s dynamic.

See. Mind-games.

I was saying that any relationship is about mind-games, to a certain extent...because some things are going to work for you in that relationship, and some aren't. If your SO is a nagging bitch and that bothers you, then that dynamic isn't a good one for you. If you like a woman who nags you, then you'll probably choose a partner who does that, and you'll encourage that sort of thing in your relationship. Sicko roleplayer.

Simply having needs and preferences is not a mind-game in the sense of playing the role of "slave" or "dom," and it's not comparable to "D/s dynamics" for that reason.

I don't know about that, Smunkee. You don't need to understand this anymore than I need to understand your relationship. With my Keeper, there are NO limits. Period.

Even death?

Even death?

I think I already established that. But just to make sure, why do you want to know?

I think I already established that.

I hadn't read your late posts when I wrote that.

But just to make sure, why do you want to know?

Because I think if you're willing to die because your partner says to, you're a little unstable.

I hadn't read your late posts when I wrote that.

Ok.

Because I think if you're willing to die because your partner says to, you're a little unstable.

Then, by all means, believe I am a little unstable. To me, it only matters if he thinks ill of me. What anyone else thinks, it's inconsequential.

((And I'm not saying this to spite.))

Then, by all means, believe I am a little unstable. To me, it only matters if he thinks ill of me. What anyone else thinks, it's inconsequential.

((And I'm not saying this to spite.))

All right, fair enough then.

Complete submission is... Boring. She should at least give me reason to spank her, otherwise there's something missing :/

For the same reason, 'Slave'... No, thanks. The term describes something that goes a wee 'lil far. Domestic Discipline style relationship all the way - I love the idea -, but if there's no... Resistance may be the wrong word, since it hints at coercion, but lets say, if there's no second will on its own, personally... Nah. Again, it'd get old very, very quickly.

Of course, that's theoretical, anyway. I couldn't be a Dominant for more than a few hours, since I'd fail at taking myself serious after that (And no, being the submissive doesn't really cross my mind). I like the idea, but actually living it? I'll pass, not my style.

Simply having needs and preferences is not a mind-game in the sense of playing the role of "slave" or "dom," and it's not comparable to "D/s dynamics" for that reason.

lol. I have a fetish, I think that's safe enough to say. I can have 'normal' sex but it's not as good. My needs and preferences aren't role playing, they are my actual needs and preferences. Some women need a bit of cunnilingus to get their juices flowing. I need other things.

Sex is always about mind games, because what we find pleasurable it not only the physical aspect of it...or we'd all be willing to just fuck random strangers. Fucking someone you're genuinely attracted to, who is attracted to you, and with whom you have an emotional bond is much better than fucking a random stranger...for most people, true? Why? The emotional/mental aspect has to be a major part of that.

What we characterise as D/s is going to vary in practice, but it's just another kind of relationship dynamic, with a mental aspect, and a physical aspect. I just don't get turned on by guys who get turned on by 'pleasing me'. I get turned on by a guy who does what feels best for him. He happens to know that this is what I want, thus really, it serves us both best.

So what are you telling me? That he should refrain from making me happy, and I should refrain from being happy and making him happy...because you think it's roleplaying? Je suis tres fucking confused.

Complete submission is... Boring. She should at least give me reason to spank her, otherwise there's something missing :/

For the same reason, 'Slave'... No, thanks. The term describes something that goes a wee 'lil far. Domestic Discipline style relationship all the way - I love the idea -, but if there's no... Resistance may be the wrong word, since it hints at coercion, but lets say, if there's no second will on its own, personally... Nah. Again, it'd get old very, very quickly.

Of course, that's theoretical, anyway. I couldn't be a Dominant for more than a few hours, since I'd fail at taking myself serious after that (And no, being the submissive doesn't really cross my mind). I like the idea, but actually living it? I'll pass, not my style.

What you're describing is a little more like what I enjoy. I don't want to happily submit, and bounce around in bubbly joy dusting, cleaning, doing whatever my SO wants. I want to fight, I want to struggle, I want to be overcome and I want to have no choice.

Now this might be why some people characterise it as role play...because of course I'm going to have a choice, I'm going to be able to stop it, so that whole thing about 'having no choice' is just a game, right?

Except it's not purely fantasy, it's not me pretending to be raped, or whatever...it's me feeling his strength, it's me testing it, and it's me enjoying it, it's him enjoying me fighting him.

Meh, but maybe people are more willing to accept things when it's just sexual, and not beyond that.

...."get me a beer, and some sit here by my feet" ...

Hmm.

Hmm.

:eek: Oh noeses!

Though I doubt I'd just be sitting, twiddling my thumbs. Not for long, anyway.

Oooh fuck, except I just thought of a really, really hot scenario where that would work on many levels.

No coercion. No fraud. No intimidation.

There are "pimps" that use coercion, but they're not the ones that succeed. Pimping is a much more fine and psychological process than the stereotypes depict. Threats don't work in the long run.
Pimping is about the talent of attaching a woman to you. It's about the art of breaking a human being, so that she herself wants, desires, finds herself in working for you.

You just described coercion and intimidation.

You just described coercion and intimidation.

Ayup.

Separating a person from friends and family. Red flag for an abusive relationship.

Etc, etc, etc.


Btw, I don't see how licking a man's ass is particularly nasty. lol

I would not want to be totally obedient to anyone, and I could not stand a significant other who wanted to be my servant; I would want an equal to go through life with, not a pet.

I have been subservient in past relationships. In my current relationship, we're more on equal footing. It depends on the person, it depends on the relationship. I'm not going to pass judgement on which is right or wrong, having been on both sides of the fence.

I don't think I could be a Dom, though. It's not in my personality.

I would not want to be totally obedient to anyone, and I could not stand a significant other who wanted to be my servant; I would want an equal to go through life with, not a pet.If you ever owed a cat, you'd know that you're subservient to your pet, not the other way around.

Which ties in nicely with page 1 & 2 of this thread, I should add.

If you ever owed a cat, you'd know that you're subservient to your pet, not the other way around.

Which ties in nicely with page 1 & 2 of this thread, I should add.

I could not stand that, either.

I would not want to be totally obedient to anyone, and I could not stand a significant other who wanted to be my servant; I would want an equal to go through life with, not a pet.

Ok, I have actually been in a relationship where I was not considered an equal. That is a really fucked up, terrible thing, and not something I'd ever willingly get into again.

I couldn't 'submit' to someone I didn't respect, and I can't respect someone who doesn't respect me. If I honestly got the sense that I was being looked down upon, or thought of as inferior in any way that DIDN'T turn me on, there'd be a whole lot of fuck-this-shit going on.

And this whole, 'the sub is really in charge' thing is too simplistic. I don't get off on secretly controlling my SO. He's going to quite happily tell me to fuck off if I try dicking him around like that, which is another reason I respect him.

I sort of like D/s because there tend to be less mind games, due to the fact that these things get discussed openly in order to determine what works for both parties.
True.

On topic: the actual D/s lifestyle is still completely alien & unimaginable to me. Threads like this remind me every time just how big of a distance there is between submitting in sexual situations and submitting in the rest of one's life. I seriously can't even begin to wrap my head around relationships like Smunkee's or Poli's, even though they've explained the dynamics so often.

You just described coercion and intimidation.
Not exactly. Coercion and intimidation are crimes, they're about threats. But there are no threats here. The only threat is that you might leave her. Break up. That doesn't count as intimidation.

No violence. No nothing. All you ever threaten her with is weakening or breaking your relationship, which you're completely in your right to do.


Separating a person from friends and family. Red flag for an abusive relationship.
But voluntarily. You don't stick her into the trunk and carry away. You just take her where she enjoys to be - and that doesn't happen to be nearby her friends and family. She always does it all herself, out of her own will.


Yes, of course it is abusive, pimping is abuse. But it never quite crosses the line to criminal behavior (except when prostitution itself is illegal). Rather, it's building up a relationship where you're the dominant one, and gradually increasing that dominance until the would-be ho is completely psychologically dependent on you.

Ok, I have actually been in a relationship where I was not considered an equal. That is a really fucked up, terrible thing, and not something I'd ever willingly get into again.

I couldn't 'submit' to someone I didn't respect, and I can't respect someone who doesn't respect me. If I honestly got the sense that I was being looked down upon, or thought of as inferior in any way that DIDN'T turn me on, there'd be a whole lot of fuck-this-shit going on.

And this whole, 'the sub is really in charge' thing is too simplistic. I don't get off on secretly controlling my SO. He's going to quite happily tell me to fuck off if I try dicking him around like that, which is another reason I respect him.

Neesika, you have perfectly summed-up my feelings.

But voluntarily. You don't stick her into the trunk and carry away. You just take her where she enjoys to be - and that doesn't happen to be nearby her friends and family. She always does it all herself, out of her own will. Yes. That's what happened to me, in my abusive relationship. Red flag.

So far none of my D/s experiences have involved trying to separate me from my friends or family, no attempts have been made to limit my exposure to people who might talk smack about the other person. There has been no passive-aggressive controlling behaviour. No guilt trips (guilt trips are excellent ways to manipulate others), etc.




Yes, of course it is abusive, pimping is abuse. But it never quite crosses the line to criminal behavior (except when prostitution itself is illegal). Rather, it's building up a relationship where you're the dominant one, and gradually increasing that dominance until the would-be ho is completely psychologically dependent on you.
Which is coercion and vitiates consent. Glad you see how that works.

I'm not sure why you think pimping is a good analogy to D/s. Would I fuck my SO's friends? Sure. I'd like for him to fuck mine. Oh no! I'm being psychologically controlled!

Or maybe it's because I've always been into this shit, and I've found someone who turns my crank, and then some.

I would not want to be totally obedient to anyone, and I could not stand a significant other who wanted to be my servant; I would want an equal to go through life with, not a pet.
I'm nobody's pet. I fail to see the inequality.

I fail to see the inequality.

If your husband gives your orders, then you are not equals.

I think there is something wrong but to each his/her own I suppose. Yuck don't touch me without a note from your doctor. Even then only with rubber gloves.

If your husband gives your orders, then you are not equals.

How so?

If your husband gives your orders, then you are not equals.


...

Look, you don't have to be into this sort of thing, or understand it, but kindly refrain from telling us that the nature of our relationships means that we are inferior to our SOs. I suggest you reread the post you replied to up top there. I'm not sure you actually understood what I was saying there.

How so?

Would someone need to take order if she were capable in life? it means neither you nor he trusts your judgment.

Would someone need to take order if she were capable in life? it means neither you nor he trusts your judgment.
Anyone who knows me knows I'm quite capable. My husband trusts my judgement as do I, which is why I don't believe I made a wrong choice when choosing this relationship dynamic. Evidenced further by the fact that it's been working for us for nearly 10 years.

...

Look, you don't have to be into this sort of thing, or understand it, but kindly refrain from telling us that the nature of our relationships means that we are inferior to our SOs. I suggest you reread the post you replied to up top there. I'm not sure you actually understood what I was saying there.

"I couldn't 'submit' to someone I didn't respect, and I can't respect someone who doesn't respect me."

You implied that anyone submissive is not respected by her partner. If one partner does not respect the other, then the relationship is not equal.

Anyone who knows me knows I'm quite capable. My husband trusts my judgement as do I, which is why I don't believe I made a wrong choice when choosing this relationship dynamic. Evidenced further by the fact that it's been working for us for nearly 10 years.

Your choice. Why did you pick that "dynamic", if you do not mind my asking?

Your choice. Why did you pick that "dynamic", if you do not mind my asking?

Because I like it.

Yes. That's what happened to me, in my abusive relationship. Red flag.
Well, you're out now. Not everyone gets out. It can be very hard if the starting position is low and the pimp is good at his job.


Which is coercion and vitiates consent. Glad you see how that works.
It's not. It may be called coercion in an extremely broad sense, but it's not criminal coercion, and it's still consensual.

Let's see what is commonly called coercion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion
"Physical coercion [...] where the content of the conditional threat is the use of force against a victim, their dear ones or property." - Not present.
"In psychological coercion, the threatened injury regards the victim’s relationships with other people. The most obvious example is blackmail," - No blackmailing, no threat of injury to relations with other people.
"Economic coercion is when a controller of a vital resource uses his advantage to compel a person to do something [...] If someone is the owner of the only water supply," - No control of any resource.
Well, if we go broader...
"Some people include deception in their definition of (psychological) coercion. Yet deception does not generally involve any threat at all" - So, deception is not coercion, though may be mistaken for such. But pimping isn't even deception, the pimp doesn't have to pretend he isn't one.

Pimping isn't coercion. Rather, it's exploitation of the victim's sexuality, insecurity and submissiveness for making financial gains off her or him. But the pimp doesn't coerce his hoes and johns into following his orders. Rather, he satisfies their insecurity, gives them psychological comfort - and then exploits them. He doesn't threaten them with anything; rather, they themselves are afraid to lose the pimp and the feeling of your place in the world he provides.

It's not all that different from some unclean employers and job agencies, who convince the applicant that he's not gonna get a better job, and their low-paying, crappy job is more than he's worth.


I'm not sure why you think pimping is a good analogy to D/s. Would I fuck my SO's friends? Sure. I'd like for him to fuck mine. Oh no! I'm being psychologically controlled!
Pimping is not an analogy of D/S. Rather, D/S is the key component of pimping.
Not everyone who builds up heavy dominance in a relationship is a practicing pimp. Many just waste their talent for personal enjoyment. Their victims can consider themselves relatively lucky, for they could be used for commercial purposes instead.


P.S. By the way, what would you do, if, later on, you learned that his friends happen to financially help him sometimes? It never happens at once, it's always gradual. It's not happening to you, of course. But if it were, you wouldn't necessarily see red flashing signs and big green pimpmobiles; it starts small, one insignificant step at a time.

"I couldn't 'submit' to someone I didn't respect, and I can't respect someone who doesn't respect me."

You implied that anyone submissive is not respected by her partner. If one partner does not respect the other, then the relationship is not equal.

*facepalm*

That is the exact opposite of the message I was attempting to convey. As a submissive, I could not submit to someone I did not respect...and a person who doesn't respect me is not someone I respect in turn. Therefore, to me, submission is conditional on respect being mutual. Respect is not inherently absent when my partner slams me to the floor, grabs me by the hips and shoves himself into me. Not when that is exactly what I want him to do.

*facepalm*

That is the exact opposite of the message I was attempting to convey. As a submissive, I could not submit to someone I did not respect...and a person who doesn't respect me is not someone I respect in turn. Therefore, to me, submission is conditional on respect being mutual. Respect is not inherently absent when my partner slams me to the floor, grabs me by the hips and shoves himself into me. Not when that is exactly what I want him to do.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can respect an adult who is subservient to him unless submission is part of a job (like the military).

Because I like it.

Things are beginning to make sense to me: Many persons enjoy being told what to do.

Would someone need to take order if she were capable in life? it means neither you nor he trusts your judgment.

What a load of hooey.

I don't "need" to take my boyfriend's orders. I don't buzz around his apartment going, "Oh, what do I do now? I'm so confused!" until he says, "Hey, get me a Coke." I enjoy taking orders from him. The idea that somehow my consenting to get him a Coke whenever he tells me to means he doesn't "trust my judgment" is just comically stupid. He asks my opinion on a regular basis. We have long, complicated discussions about all sorts of subjects, and it's perfectly obvious that we each respect the other's point of view, but somehow, the fact that I'm happy to serve him means he's superior to me? That's crap, pure and simple.

Pimping is not an analogy of D/S. Rather, D/S is the key component of pimping.
Not everyone who builds up heavy dominance in a relationship is a practicing pimp. Many just waste their talent for personal enjoyment. Their victims can consider themselves relatively lucky, for they could be used for commercial purposes instead.
Not going to bother with this right now, not to mention your legal analysis is flawed. I'm in a pretty good position to know what my situation is, thanks.

Things are beginning to make sense to me: Many persons enjoy being told what to do.

By certain people. Everyone else can kiss my ass.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can respect an adult who is subservient to him unless submission is part of a job (like the military).

Because I'm still an intelligent, strong woman who can support myself and my children, who has strong ties with my community, a fantastic education, well thought out opinions, my own hobbies and interests and passions, my own friends, my own life?

I sacrifice none of these things when I sumbit to him, whether that submission is during the course of sex, or just throughout the day. If he can't respect those things, then there is a problem between us entirely removed from any D/s dynamic that may exist.

By certain people. Everyone else can kiss my ass.

I could understand that a bit, as I feel that way about Napoléon. But aside from him, being told what to do would irritate the Hell out of me.

By certain people. Everyone else can kiss my ass.

A-motherfuckin-men.

I could understand that a bit, as I feel that way about Napoléon. But aside from him, being told what to would irritate the Hell out of me.
Maybe because you're arrogant.

*facepalm*

That is the exact opposite of the message I was attempting to convey. As a submissive, I could not submit to someone I did not respect...and a person who doesn't respect me is not someone I respect in turn. Therefore, to me, submission is conditional on respect being mutual. Respect is not inherently absent when my partner slams me to the floor, grabs me by the hips and shoves himself into me. Not when that is exactly what I want him to do.

So many things, just so many things I could say.


Okay to heck with it.

Sex is not suppose to be a contact sport. You shouldn't need to stretch or get warmed up beforehand. It should not require padding. You should not need a helmet to participate.

This seem to me to be more about pain than about love. But I guess what do I know.

Not going to bother with this right now, not to mention your legal analysis is flawed.
Since when is it legal analysis? AFAIK there isn't even a crime called "Coercion".

Nor does the pimp necessarily [and normally] commit any specific crimes on his way to submitting a woman. He does what any BF could do. Instead, they use anti-prostitution laws to crack down on pimping, and occasionally other laws, engaging the behavior as a whole, not specific techniques.

Leather, riding crops, ball gags, sensory deprivation. None of these are okay unless you are riding a horse.

Sex is not suppose to be a contact sport. You shouldn't need to stretch or get warmed up beforehand. It should not require padding. You should not need a helmet to participate.

Why? That's a lot of "should" and "supposed" without any actual, y'know, reasons.


This seem to me to be more about pain than about love. But I guess what do I know.

Not very much on this subject, as far as I can tell. Who says love and pain are mutually exclusive?

Sex is not suppose to be a contact sport. You shouldn't need to stretch or get warmed up beforehand.

All sports require stretching and warming up beforehand, if you want a better performance. Smae with sex.

It should not require padding. You should not need a helmet to participate.

You should not tell people how to have sex.

Not exactly. Coercion and intimidation are crimes, they're about threats. But there are no threats here. The only threat is that you might leave her. Break up. That doesn't count as intimidation.
Since when is it legal analysis? AFAIK there isn't even a crime called "Coercion".

...

Leather, riding crops, ball gags, sensory deprivation. None of these are okay unless you are riding a horse.

And who the fuck are you to tell people how they can enjoy themselves and live their sex lives?

Leather, riding crops, ball gags, sensory deprivation. None of these are okay unless you are riding a horse.

I disagree. It's when you use the horse that the line is crossed.

...
AIUI, there's a number of crimes associated with what can be called coercion. However, there isn't always a crime specifically named coercion.

And, in the jurisdictions where there is such a crime, pimping doesn't qualify.

So many things, just so many things I could say.


Okay to heck with it.

Sex is not suppose to be a contact sport. You shouldn't need to stretch or get warmed up beforehand. It should not require padding. You should not need a helmet to participate.

This seem to me to be more about pain than about love. But I guess what do I know.

You're catching on, I'm a masochist. Nice cuddly soft sex doesn't do much for me. Doesn't matter to me how you do it, and it shouldn't matter to you how I do it.

Since when is it legal analysis? AFAIK there isn't even a crime called "Coercion".

Nor does the pimp necessarily [and normally] commit any specific crimes on his way to submitting a woman. He does what any BF could do. Instead, they use anti-prostitution laws to crack down on pimping, and occasionally other laws, engaging the behavior as a whole, not specific techniques.

Coercion has a legal definition, however. This is necessary since coercion, as I have pointed out, legally vitiates consent. Specific techniques will be analysed to determine whether or not there has been coercion. You'd know this if you had legal training.

I'm more interested in other threads at the moment, but I suggest reading up on some of the definitions of human trafficking (http://www.uncjin.org/Documents/Conventions/dcatoc/final_documents_2/convention_%20traff_eng.pdf), specifically in regards to sexual exploitation. Ignore the stuff about minors, since consent is not legally permitted, and try to understand the various ways in which a person can be trafficked even within a country, even if consent is originally given, even if there is no physical force used or threatened. Pay particular attention to the concept of abuse of power, or position of vulnerability.

Abuse of power is not an inherent aspect of D/s, but it is an inherent part of pimping.

Maybe because you're arrogant.

You have found my only flaw! But if someone was demonstrated to be a super-genius, I would not mind doing what he said. I have just been given screwed-up orders by nit-wits too many times in my life to take future commands lightly.

now are we talking about a D/s or a gorean lifestyle i dont mind either as long as they are Safe, sane and consensual

now are we talking about a D/s or a gorean lifestyle i dont mind either as long as they are Safe, sane and consensual

hmmm Gorean... NOW yer talkin'!

AIUI, there's a number of crimes associated with what can be called coercion. However, there isn't always a crime specifically named coercion.

And, in the jurisdictions where there is such a crime, pimping doesn't qualify.

Pimp's relationship with his bitches is almost always consensual.

...

Would non-consensual pimping really never qualify as coercion?

now are we talking about a D/s or a gorean lifestyle i dont mind either as long as they are Safe, sane and consensual

Oh, ye gods, Gor....

...I mean, don't get me wrong, if everyone involved is happy and consenting, people can do whatever the hell they like, but Gor is...well, let's just stick with "very much not for me." :p

some of the definitions of human trafficking It comes from United Nations, which is basically a circus gone international. Nations only remember about UN when it endorses their actions. Much less individuals.

Coercion has a legal definition, however. This is necessary since coercion, as I have pointed out, legally vitiates consent.
Sometimes. From what I've looked up, coercion is covered (or not covered) by state laws, not federal.

For instance, in Alabama: http://www.legislature.state.al.us/codeofalabama/1975/13A-6-25.htm
(a) A person commits the crime of criminal coercion if, without legal authority, he threatens to confine, restrain or to cause physical injury to the threatened person or another, or to damage the property or reputation of the threatened person or another with intent thereby to induce the threatened person or another against his will to do an unlawful act or refrain from doing a lawful act.

Pimping requires no confinement, restraining, causing any physical injury, or damaging the property or reputation; and the act induced is not unlawful. Seems pretty clean on the charge.

Connecticut law is more inclusive: http://law.justia.com/connecticut/codes/title53a/sec53a-192.html
...if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will: (1) Commit any criminal offense; or (2) accuse any person of a criminal offense; or (3) expose any secret tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to impair any person's credit or business repute; or (4) take or withhold action as an official, or cause an official to take or withhold action.


But still nothing. No criminal offense, no accusation, no exposure of a secret, and a pimp isn't an official. The only threat is breaking up the relationship - and that's something everyone is in his right to do at any time, as long as it's not marriage, and even then just with some paperwork.


Abuse of power is not an inherent aspect of D/s, but it is an inherent part of pimping.
Yes. Exactly.

Acquiring and maintaining power is an inherent aspect of both D/S and pimping.
What separates D/S from pimping is abuse of that power.

hmmm Gorean... NOW yer talkin'!

*ugh*

PUKE.

Yes. Nothing like forming an entire relationship on a sub-par fantasy series predicated on the notion that all women are meant to be sexual slaves, and any woman who disagrees simply hasn't found the 'right man' yet.

*ugh*

PUKE.

Yes. Nothing like forming an entire relationship on a sub-par fantasy series predicated on the notion that all women are meant to be sexual slaves, and any woman who disagrees simply hasn't found the 'right man' yet.

Ick indeed.

It comes from United Nations, which is basically a circus gone international. Nations only remember about UN when it endorses their actions. Much less individuals.
Kindly shut up (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/105501.pdf).

This is on its way to becoming a threadjack. Go start another thread so we can tear apart your pathetic armchair lawyering there, thanks.

It's true.

no, it's not "true". Its just another pithy phrase that tries to somehow cast those types of relationships in an unusual light. The phrase "it is the submissive who has control" is not true, because, on a very basic level, no party has true control. Either party can say no. Either party can opt out. Either party can leave if he or she chooses.

The whole point about those kinds of relationships is that the TRUE control remains exactly where it always is, in the hands of the individual.

Oh boy, now you've done it...now Neo Art is going to come in and post a 3500 word thesis on how that's not exactly correct. With at least 500+ spelling mistakes to burn our eyeballs out of their sockets.


Damn it!

no, it's not "true". Its just another pithy phrase that tries to somehow cast those types of relationships in an unusual light. The phrase "it is the submissive who has control" is not true, because, on a very basic level, no party has true control. Either party can say no. Either party can opt out. Either party can leave if he or she chooses.

The whole point about those kinds of relationships is that the TRUE control remains exactly where it always is, in the hands of the individual.

well, yeah. geez.

no, it's not "true". Its just another pithy phrase that tries to somehow cast those types of relationships in an unusual light. The phrase "it is the submissive who has control" is not true, because, on a very basic level, no party has true control. Either party can say no. Either party can opt out. Either party can leave if he or she chooses.

The whole point about those kinds of relationships is that the TRUE control remains exactly where it always is, in the hands of the individual.

Well called, Sin. Although he seems to have spelled everything correctly. :D

Would someone need to take order if she were capable in life?

because.....she wants to. I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept to understand.

Well called, Sin. Although he seems to have spelled everything correctly. :D

And less verbiage than I expected!

That's it. BOTH OF YOU. In the basement.

Now.

That's it. BOTH OF YOU. In the basement.

Now.

Nobody ever invites me to the fun parties. :(

That's it. BOTH OF YOU. In the basement.

Now.

This is me, all unrepentant.

This is me, all unrepentant.

for now...

That's it. BOTH OF YOU. In the basement.

Now.

Both of us, huh? Somebody's still got his hopes up after that post I made the other day... ;)

To be serious for a moment, I think threads like this exemplify a point that WYTYG made earlier, about the idea of these kind of relationships being so utterly foreign to some people, that they can't understand HOW it works.

Like, even if you're straight, you can envision a homosexual relationship. Just replace penis for vagina (or vice versa) and more or less everything proceeds as normal.

But d/s relationships, especially those that are more intensely involved in the dynamic, are just so utterly different then what others are used to, that they just can't get their head around HOW it is enjoyable. If you're the kind of person who is independent, and likes to have equal responsibility in a relationship, you can't possibly fathom how obeying someone, or having someone to obey, can be enjoyable.

And the thing is, even those of us who ARE into it probably cant explain why it's enjoyable. Any more than you can explain, on some deeper level, WHY something is enjoyable to you. It just...is.

It comes from United Nations, which is basically a circus gone international. Nations only remember about UN when it endorses their actions. Much less individuals.

Nice to know that you can be safely dismissed now.

This is on its way to becoming a threadjack. Go start another thread so we can tear apart your pathetic armchair lawyering there, thanks.
...Named "Is it possible to organize a prostitution business without committing the offense of criminal coercion?"
That's a bit overspecific and pointless, especially since it would be a crime anyway, just, AIUI, a different offense.

If you have a clear explanation of how maintaining control over a woman (GF) through the threat of ending your non-marriage relationship falls under the offense of coercion (by, say, AL, or IL law, these were the first two I found, though say WA or VA will do too), please just post it. Shouldn't take long.
Or message, I'm genuinely interested, since from what I've been led to believe, some pimps manage to do their business without breaking any laws except for specifically anti-prostitution ones.

I'm genuinely interested, since from what I've been led to believe, some pimps manage to do their business without breaking any laws except for specifically anti-prostitution ones.

There are pimps who treat the prostitution ring largely as an agent would treat an actor client. The "pimp" makes the arrangements, schedules the appointments, selects the girl, and retains a cut. It's advantageous to the prostitutes involved for the same reason that, despite taking a cut, it is advantageous for an actor to have an agent. Economies of scale. From that standpoint, it's a mutually beneficial business relationship.

To be serious for a moment, I think threads like this exemplify a point that WYTYG made earlier, about the idea of these kind of relationships being so utterly foreign to some people, that they can't understand HOW it works.

Like, even if you're straight, you can envision a homosexual relationship. Just replace penis for vagina (or vice versa) and more or less everything proceeds as normal.

But d/s relationships, especially those that are more intensely involved in the dynamic, are just so utterly different then what others are used to, that they just can't get their head around HOW it is enjoyable. If you're the kind of person who is independent, and likes to have equal responsibility in a relationship, you can't possibly fathom how obeying someone, or having someone to obey, can be enjoyable.

And the thing is, even those of us who ARE into it probably cant explain why it's enjoyable. Any more than you can explain, on some deeper level, WHY something is enjoyable to you. It just...is.

I'm way overdue to be leaving to run errands, but this thread keeps sucking me back in. I just wanted to note as I run out the door that this is a very good point - on some level, fundamentally, the reason why I like submission is going to come down to "because I just do." In much the same way, if I really like chocolate and Bob doesn't, I can try to explain exactly what it is I like about chocolate, I can show him scientific evidence as to how compounds in chocolate interact with pleasure centers in the brain, I can offer up testimonials from other people who like chocolate, and so on and so forth, but in the end it's always going to boil down to "I like chocolate because I like it, and you don't because you don't." I like submitting to my boyfriend because it makes me really happy. Simple as that. :)

There are pimps who treat the prostitution ring largely as an agent would treat an actor client. The "pimp" makes the arrangements, schedules the appointments, selects the girl, and retains a cut. Yes. That's clean.

Now, let's go to the more sinister kind - the turning of a woman (normally already in a poor position) into your, so to speak, employee, through a domination/submission relationship (only not roleplay D/S, but actual domination). Basically, following the guidelines from the pimping textbook (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14662558&postcount=55).

We all understand that it's wrong, but does it legally qualify as the crime of coercion, assuming that prostitution per se is/was legal in the jurisdiction, and that the pimp takes care to stay on the right side of the law? And if it does, how specifically (which clause)?

We all understand that it's wrong, but does it legally qualify as the crime of coercion, assuming that prostitution per se is/was legal in the jurisdiction, and that the pimp takes care to stay on the right side of the law? And if it does, how specifically (which clause)?

There is NO SUCH THING as the crime of coercion. Coercion has a legal meaning yes, and is an element of many crimes, yes, but coercion, itself, is no crime. It's when you coerce someone into doing something that it becomes a crime, and the crime is specific to what you coerced the person to do.

And if what you are asking is, if a "pimp" uses coercive methods, as the law legally defines coercion, into coercing someone into having sex with other people, then yes, that's a crime.

We call it rape.

There is NO SUCH THING as the crime of coercion. Coercion has a legal meaning yes, and is an element of many crimes, yes, but coercion, itself, is no crime. It's when you coerce someone into doing something that it becomes a crime, and the crime is specific to what you coerced the person to do.
I see. Though I've found some state laws that address it specifically as coercion.


And if what you are asking is, if a "pimp" uses coercive methods, as the law legally defines coercion, into coercing someone into having sex with other people, then yes, that's a crime.
No, that's not the question. Rather, the question is, does the explicit or implied threat of damaging your relationship legally qualify as coercive methods?

Basically, the threat of "If you don't want to [1) have sex with me, 2) have sex with my friends too], we probably shouldn't date".

Such a relationship scares and disturbs me. Any place where someone is completely subserviant to another... It goes against the very fiber of my being. I also think it presents a very low level of self-esteem, a lack of love for oneself. A truly scary situation.

Such a relationship scares and disturbs me. Any place where someone is completely subserviant to another... It goes against the very fiber of my being. I also think it presents a very low level of self-esteem, a lack of love for oneself. A truly scary situation.

I don't think you understand the dynamic then.

No, that's not the question. Rather, the question is, does the explicit or implied threat of damaging your relationship legally qualify as coercive methods?

Not in and of itself, no.

I don't think you understand the dynamic then.

I probably don't, actually. I won't deny that. But I do know that reading Nanatsu's posts here have me shivering, and here it's 70+ Fahrenheit, and I'm dressed rather warmly. There's just something about the whole thing that unsettles me.

Now, let's go to the more sinister kind - the turning of a woman (normally already in a poor position) into your, so to speak, employee, through a domination/submission relationship (only not roleplay D/S, but actual domination). Basically, following the guidelines from the pimping textbook (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14662558&postcount=55).

How many pimps actually follow this "pimping textbook" of yours?

What percentage of pimps never use force, fraud, or coercion (and by "coercion" I mean threats of serious harm to or physical restraint against any person; any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that failure to perform an act would result in serious harm to or physical restraint against any person; or the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process.)?

I also think it presents a very low level of self-esteem, a lack of love for oneself.

You can think that if you want. You'd be wrong, however.

I probably don't, actually. I won't deny that. But I do know that reading Nanatsu's posts here have me shivering, and here it's 70+ Fahrenheit, and I'm dressed rather warmly. There's just something about the whole thing that unsettles me.

Well, her situation kinda irks me too but I'm willing to believe I've misunderstood her when she said it was okay if he kills her or hacks her foot off.

I'm in a completely different situation, it is NOT okay if my husband kills me or cuts off any of my limbs. If I turn up dead in such a situation I assure you I did not consent to that.

I probably don't, actually. I won't deny that. But I do know that reading Nanatsu's posts here have me shivering, and here it's 70+ Fahrenheit, and I'm dressed rather warmly. There's just something about the whole thing that unsettles me.

So does the reading of posts like "I can't live without her; I'll die if she leaves me! And if she should die before I do I will end it all and join her in the afterlife!", I take it?

I would bet that it's more due to the dramatic flare of the post than the actual content.

Well, her situation kinda irks me too but I'm willing to believe I've misunderstood her when she said it was okay if he kills her or hacks her foot off.

I'm in a completely different situation, it is NOT okay if my husband kills me or cuts off any of my limbs. If I turn up dead in such a situation I assure you I did not consent to that.

I'm speaking of that kind of situation, not of the kind where someone wears the pants in the relationship. I'm speaking of where it gets to the point where they will literally allow anything to happen to them, as long as the dominant partner wants it to be done.

I'm speaking of that kind of situation, not of the kind where someone wears the pants in the relationship. I'm speaking of where it gets to the point where they will literally allow anything to happen to them, as long as the dominant partner wants it to be done.

Ah, I have a line, it's called abuse, when/if he ever crosses it, we're done.

Such a relationship scares and disturbs me. Any place where someone is completely subserviant to another... It goes against the very fiber of my being. I also think it presents a very low level of self-esteem, a lack of love for oneself. A truly scary situation.

I feel that way myself. I suppose we are a little old-fashioned...or not old-fashioned enough.

Ah, I have a line, it's called abuse, when/if he ever crosses it, we're done.

And there is the deciding factor, I believe. When there are limits, somewhere, reasonable ones (like you said, abuse), it's not something that sends dark chills up my spine. But when it's blind helplessness, and willing helplessness at that...

I feel that way myself. I suppose we are a little old-fashioned...or not old-fashioned enough.

We're ahead of our time! We're progressives! :tongue: *throws up*

Ah, I have a line, it's called abuse, when/if he ever crosses it, we're done.

He might have been thinking of this:

I don't know about that, Smunkee. You don't need to understand this anymore than I need to understand your relationship. With my Keeper, there are NO limits. Period.

He might have been thinking of this:

Yeah, I'm in a D/s and that irked me. I'm willing to believe she isn't being clear or something (so I can sleep at night).

We're ahead of our time! We're progressives! :tongue: *throws up*

We have turned into whiny intellectual idealists! :eek:

Yeah, I'm in a D/s and that irked me. I'm willing to believe she isn't being clear or something (so I can sleep at night).
You see, I believe we are, or were, on different levels here. When I say D/s relationship, I mean the kind of total control, no limits thing that Nanatsu seems to be going through. I think that a relationship where someone 'wears the pants', so to speak, is a normal relationship.

And I feel that Nantsu is being perfectly clear, and it doesn't matter, because I still don't sleep at night anyway. :D
We have turned into whiny intellectual idealists! :eek:

I don't whiiiiiiiiiiine!:p

How many pimps actually follow this "pimping textbook" of yours?

What percentage of pimps never use force, fraud, or coercion (and by "coercion" I mean threats of serious harm to or physical restraint against any person; any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that failure to perform an act would result in serious harm to or physical restraint against any person; or the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process.)?
I don't live in the underworld or work in law enforcement. But if the people who do (I don't filter my friends and acquaintances on the basis of criminal record, seeing as I myself was once an inch away from getting one) are to be trusted, the majority.

You have worded it well enough that even the "never" bit can stay - the term "pimp slap" hasn't come out of nowhere, and they're certainly not saints - but considerable violence and threats of violence are not the way pimping works. The prostitutes aren't forced into it, they are gradually dragged into it. A boyfriend, a certain kind of relationship, a new social circle, new values, and, bit by bit, the woman doesn't feel so reluctant to exchange sex for money, or doesn't even notice as she's starting to do it.

Indeed, consider how much better a willing prostitute is, and how dangerous the violent approach is, in a country with strong law enforcement and some civic values, where any client could anonymously tip the police off.

Of course, there are exceptions, like international human trafficking, but these are rather slavery and organized crime, not pimping as we know it.

Yeah, I'm in a D/s and that irked me. I'm willing to believe she isn't being clear or something (so I can sleep at night).

Let's pretend that she is being clear. How would you feel about such a relationship as that?

Also, what is this "sleeping at night" business?

My question is why would they show this private area of there relationship? I should think that they would not show it to other people. How do you know if it is a dom/sub thing of abusive relationship? I do not get it. some explain plz.

Such a relationship scares and disturbs me. Any place where someone is completely subserviant to another... It goes against the very fiber of my being. I also think it presents a very low level of self-esteem, a lack of love for oneself. A truly scary situation.

I don't think you understand the dynamic then.

I probably don't, actually. I won't deny that. But I do know that reading Nanatsu's posts here have me shivering, and here it's 70+ Fahrenheit, and I'm dressed rather warmly. There's just something about the whole thing that unsettles me.

Nan doesn't necessarily present it in the most pragmatic way. I'm fairly certain she understands the difference between D/s and abuse, but that might not come across in her posts, what with all the flowery language.

If I had a really low level of self-esteem and a lack of love for myself, I couldn't engage in the activities that most turn me on...because to be frank, I like to be degraded. It really, really gets me off. But at the end of the day, if I actually felt low, or inferior or had even the slightest sense that my SO thought of me in this fashion, it would be extremely damaging. I have enough sense not to do things that can actually bring me harm like that. I am confident enough in my own psychological and emotional health to be certain that being called horrible names, mocked, used, hurt, and humiliated, is not going to send me plummeting into a funk of self-loathing.

For a while I used to worry about why I like what I do, but it doesn't really bother me anymore. I've worked through it, I'm certain of my beliefs and my values, and I'm not sacrificing anything by engaging in this kind of relationship. The personal is not always political.

It is truly awesome to be so comfortable with someone that I can tell him about all these sick things that turn me on, and not only NOT have to be embarrassed or afraid I'll scare him, but have him be willing to explore them with me. The fact that I can tell him these very intimate and compromising things without fear pretty much guarantees that there is nothing I'm going to think of or experience that I can't be completely honest with him about.

My question is why would they show this private area of there relationship? I should think that they would not show it to other people. How do you know if it is a dom/sub thing of abusive relationship? I do not get it. some explain plz.

Well, perhaps you could explain what you're asking about a little more. Do you mean, "Why do they extend this kind of relationship outside the bedroom?" Or is it something else. Perhaps you could alter your wording to make more sense.

As to how do we/you know that a couple are in an abusive relationship, in short, we don't. What one couple could regard as abusive, could be something normal and consensually accepted in another relationship. If you're asking for more than that, you'll have to ask again, in a different, more understandable way.

Nan doesn't necessarily present it in the most pragmatic way. I'm fairly certain she understands the difference between D/s and abuse, but that might not come across in her posts, what with all the flowery language.

If I had a really low level of self-esteem and a lack of love for myself, I couldn't engage in the activities that most turn me on...because to be frank, I like to be degraded. It really, really gets me off. But at the end of the day, if I actually felt low, or inferior or had even the slightest sense that my SO thought of me in this fashion, it would be extremely damaging. I have enough sense not to do things that can actually bring me harm like that. I am confident enough in my own psychological and emotional health to be certain that being called horrible names, mocked, used, hurt, and humiliated, is not going to send me plummeting into a funk of self-loathing.

For a while I used to worry about why I like what I do, but it doesn't really bother me anymore. I've worked through it, I'm certain of my beliefs and my values, and I'm not sacrificing anything by engaging in this kind of relationship. The personal is not always political.

It is truly awesome to be so comfortable with someone that I can tell him about all these sick things that turn me on, and not only NOT have to be embarrassed or afraid I'll scare him, but have him be willing to explore them with me. The fact that I can tell him these very intimate and compromising things without fear pretty much guarantees that there is nothing I'm going to think of or experience that I can't be completely honest with him about.

I'm not talking about the D/s thing in the bedroom, which, from your post, I presume is what you're speaking of. I'm talking of the D/s, no limits going beyond the bedroom, and encompassing their entire lives.

Of course, there are exceptions, like international human trafficking, but these are rather slavery and organized crime, not pimping as we know it.

Your own source talks about how it's important to take the ho away from what she's used to. If you had bothered to read the definitions on trafficking that I supplied you with, both the Trafficking Protocol and the definitions provided for in the USian link, you would note that you can be trafficked within a country, you can be trafficked even if you aren't moved anywhere. That's because trafficking is about the kind of control being exercised on a person. And I fucking asked you to take this elsewhere. Have some manners.

I think it depends on the case. If they both consent, and are both aware of exactly what the relationship means to the other person, then it's fine to me. If one of them is being forced or tricked into it [blackmail or another form of coercion], then it's not okay in my book.
I would never want that kind of relationship, nor would I want one of my loved ones to be in one, but that's not really up to me: people should be able to do what they want.

He might have been thinking of this:
Mind you, she also said this:

What I'm saying is that he would never harm me. Not that way. He's rough in sex, he's a strict master that likes order and obedience, he wants my utter respect, but he would never maim me.
When we decided that this was the right thing to do. We did set it all, laid on the table how things were going to be. It was so easy, so easy and so... right (for lack of a better word), to understand that he is and will always be the Keeper.

[...]

Yes, I trust him completely, and he knows when to stop if I am getting hurt.

Seems to me that there's some (unspoken?) limits even in that relationship.

I don't live in the underworld or work in law enforcement. But if the people who do (I don't filter my friends and acquaintances on the basis of criminal record, seeing as I myself was once an inch away from getting one) are to be trusted, the majority.
So all you base this on is... anecdotal evidence?

And you think it applies to the thousands of prostitutes in the US (or indeed the millions across the world)?

You have worded it well enough that even the "never" bit can stay - the term "pimp slap" hasn't come out of nowhere, and they're certainly not saints - but considerable violence and threats of violence are not the way pimping works.
So you say, based on nothing except your anecdotal evidence.

The DOJ rather bluntly state
Pimps use violence and drug dependency as means to control
prostitutes.
in this pdf-brochure (http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/e05021552.pdf).


The prostitutes aren't forced into it, they are gradually dragged into it. A boyfriend, a certain kind of relationship, a new social circle, new values, and, bit by bit, the woman doesn't feel so reluctant to exchange sex for money, or doesn't even notice as she's starting to do it.
But you cannot show how many pimps never use force or coercion - and what you talk about here might fall into the "fraud" category.

Indeed, consider how much better a willing prostitute is, and how dangerous the violent approach is, in a country with strong law enforcement and some civic values, where any client could anonymously tip the police off.
How dangerous is it really? (Except to the prostitute, of course) Especially where prostitution is also illegal?

Of course, there are exceptions, like international human trafficking, but these are rather slavery and organized crime, not pimping as we know it.
I think you are naïve.

Sex traffickers target children because of their vulnerability and gullibility, as well as the market demand for young victims. The average age of entry into prostitution is 12 to 14 years old and traffickers (also called "pimps") are known to recruit at schools and after-school programs. Recruitment can take multiple forms, including: 1) kidnapping; 2) solicitation by other women or girls recruiting on behalf of the sex trafficker; and 3) the "loverboy" approach of appearing genuinely interested in a romantic relationship while gradually coercing the victim into prostitution.
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osdfs/factsheet.html

FAQ: Does physical violence have to be involved in human trafficking cases?
Answer: No. Under the federal law, an individual who uses physical or psychological violence to force someone into a labor or sex industry is considered a human trafficker. Therefore, while some victims experience beatings, rape, and other forms of physical violence, many victims are controlled by traffickers through psychological means, such as threats of violence, manipulation, and lies. In many cases, traffickers use a combination of direct violence and mental abuse.
It is important to note that for minors force, fraud, or coercion are not required elements of the crime, meaning that anyone under the age of 18 in the commercial sex industry is a sex trafficking victim.
FAQ: Under the Federal definition, are trafficking victims only foreign nationals or immigrants?
Answer: No. The Federal definition of human trafficking includes both U.S. citizens and foreign nationals – both are equally protected under the Federal trafficking law and have been since the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. Human trafficking encompasses both transnational trafficking that crosses borders and domestic or internal trafficking that occurs within a country. Statistics about trafficking, estimates of the scope of trafficking, and descriptions of trafficking should be mindful to include both transnational and internal trafficking to be most accurate.

http://actioncenter.polarisproject.org/learn-more/human-trafficking-faq

So to sum up, and end my part in this threadjack (Sorry Neesika!)

Some pimp/prostitute relationships might be or have elements of a D/s situation. But I see nothing to suggest that that's the norm. Rather, I see that violence, coercion and fraud is all too common in these cases. So my conclusion would be that you are very wrong, and appart from the stories of your acquaintances you've failed to show me any evidence to the contrary to support your claim.

[/threadjack]

I'm not talking about the D/s thing in the bedroom, which, from your post, I presume is what you're speaking of. I'm talking of the D/s, no limits going beyond the bedroom, and encompassing their entire lives.

I have no problem with D/s going beyond the bedroom. Then again, 'in the bedroom' is not something you can always define very clearly. As well, there are NEVER no limits, I don't care what you've been led to believe by nan's post.

There are things I might want my SO to do that he's not comfortable with. I have to respect that, and it's not just because I'm the 'sub'. There are things I'm not going to be okay with...he needs to respect that as well. We talk about those things. It's an ongoing conversation because sometimes you don't really know what you're not okay with until you try it.

There are practical reasons why I could not be at my SO's beck and call 24/7. I suppose like any relationship, you set aside 'couple time'. And if that couple time, the small portion of which will not be devoted to sweaty horizontal salsa dancing is devoted to me obeying whatever order he feels like giving me, then colour me happy. If he wants to call me up at work and give me an order, I'm going to do it, if it's possible in that situation. I'm also going to trust that he knows what I can do, and what I can't, and isn't going to get pissy at me when practical reality prevents me from obeying.

He'd probably get bored pretty quick with trying to come up with things for me to do, so it's not as though everyone in a D/s relationship that extends past the bedroom is going to be frantically slaving away to please the Dom. I really don't know what it is you're picturing. But if I'm doing something, and he wants a foot rub, a blowjob, some freaking skittles...I want to give him what he wants. Because that turns me on.

My question is why would they show this private area of there relationship? I should think that they would not show it to other people. How do you know if it is a dom/sub thing of abusive relationship? I do not get it. some explain plz.

You never know for certain if anybody's relationship is abusive or not. It's amazing what public civility can hide.

Most people don't flaunt any kind of relationship they're in all that much, unless someone is interested. I don't see there being an issue of 'showing it to other people' here. Except in the sense that people are asking questions, and those of us who've had some experience are answering. In regular life, some of my friends know what I'm into, others don't want to know, and still others don't even have a hint.

I have no problem with D/s going beyond the bedroom. Then again, 'in the bedroom' is not something you can always define very clearly. As well, there are NEVER no limits, I don't care what you've been led to believe by nan's post.

There are things I might want my SO to do that he's not comfortable with. I have to respect that, and it's not just because I'm the 'sub'. There are things I'm not going to be okay with...he needs to respect that as well. We talk about those things. It's an ongoing conversation because sometimes you don't really know what you're not okay with until you try it.

There are practical reasons why I could not be at my SO's beck and call 24/7. I suppose like any relationship, you set aside 'couple time'. And if that couple time, the small portion of which will not be devoted to sweaty horizontal salsa dancing is devoted to me obeying whatever order he feels like giving me, then colour me happy. If he wants to call me up at work and give me an order, I'm going to do it, if it's possible in that situation. I'm also going to trust that he knows what I can do, and what I can't, and isn't going to get pissy at me when practical reality prevents me from obeying.

He'd probably get bored pretty quick with trying to come up with things for me to do, so it's not as though everyone in a D/s relationship that extends past the bedroom is going to be frantically slaving away to please the Dom. I really don't know what it is you're picturing. But if I'm doing something, and he wants a foot rub, a blowjob, some freaking skittles...I want to give him what he wants. Because that turns me on.

I would still count that as a 'bedroom' thing, so to speak, because it seems (to me, correct me if I'm wrong), you're doing this for sexual arousal.

I would still count that as a 'bedroom' thing, so to speak, because it seems (to me, correct me if I'm wrong), you're doing this for sexual arousal.

It's more complex than this though. I mean really, how pleasurable or arousing is it to get someone a beer?

People engage in acts of service all the time for their loved ones. It's one of the ways that we, as humans, show our love. We also touch one another, speak in certain ways to one another, and so on.

The whole relationship is based on the way we feel about each other, so there is always going to be some sort of sexual or romantic element. Yet sometimes even the most mundane, uncomfortable or boring task becomes something more when you've been ordered to do it. You're showing your love through the fact that this isn't something you'd necessarily want to do, and yet you do it regardless.

My point is...it very well might ALL be a bedroom thing. I honestly think that 99% of what we humans do is motivated by sex in some way.

It's more complex than this though. I mean really, how pleasurable or arousing is it to get someone a beer?

People engage in acts of service all the time for their loved ones. It's one of the ways that we, as humans, show our love. We also touch one another, speak in certain ways to one another, and so on.

The whole relationship is based on the way we feel about each other, so there is always going to be some sort of sexual or romantic element. Yet sometimes even the most mundane, uncomfortable or boring task becomes something more when you've been ordered to do it. You're showing your love through the fact that this isn't something you'd necessarily want to do, and yet you do it regardless.

My point is...it very well might ALL be a bedroom thing. I honestly think that 99% of what we humans do is motivated by sex in some way.
Bah. Speak for yourself.:p

What I'm trying to talk about is the low self-esteem point, where there's someone exerting complete and total control over another, to the point where it's not just showing your love, as Nanatsu has admitted elsewhere, it's not even about love (I believe she said something similar about sex in the relationship). I've got nothing against doing things to show that you love someone, getting someone a beer, doing something boring, but I'm not talking about that. (Let's get on the same page now, shall we?:D)

Nan doesn't necessarily present it in the most pragmatic way. I'm fairly certain she understands the difference between D/s and abuse, but that might not come across in her posts, what with all the flowery language.

Perhaps, indeed, I didn't present it the best way possible. But after reading through the entire thread, I have come to understand that very few people can be talked to about this subject. My approach to this relationship may irk and confuse some posters. They're entitled to feel that way. When I speak about my Keeper and what we do, I am not looking for understanding from anyone.

If I had a really low level of self-esteem and a lack of love for myself, I couldn't engage in the activities that most turn me on...because to be frank, I like to be degraded. It really, really gets me off. But at the end of the day, if I actually felt low, or inferior or had even the slightest sense that my SO thought of me in this fashion, it would be extremely damaging. I have enough sense not to do things that can actually bring me harm like that. I am confident enough in my own psychological and emotional health to be certain that being called horrible names, mocked, used, hurt, and humiliated, is not going to send me plummeting into a funk of self-loathing.

Now this explains a lot of the way I feel. Yes, I am subservient to him. Yes, he makes the decisions, yes I do everything he asks in bed. Yes, I feel like an extension of his will. But at the end of the day, after we are both satisfied, after I have fulfilled his needs and mine by this, he completely understands that I am my own person and that I have a will of my own. He recognizes this, he encourages this. I respect him and he respects me.

For a while I used to worry about why I like what I do, but it doesn't really bother me anymore. I've worked through it, I'm certain of my beliefs and my values, and I'm not sacrificing anything by engaging in this kind of relationship. The personal is not always political.

I didn't go through these doubts. Of course, the very thought of engaging full force into a relationship of this kind took shape when I met him. I did ponder wether it was ok to approach him with the idea, and I abstained from it for almost a year. When I did ask him, I was greatly pleased that he accepted it with open arms.

It is truly awesome to be so comfortable with someone that I can tell him about all these sick things that turn me on, and not only NOT have to be embarrassed or afraid I'll scare him, but have him be willing to explore them with me. The fact that I can tell him these very intimate and compromising things without fear pretty much guarantees that there is nothing I'm going to think of or experience that I can't be completely honest with him about.

Which is exactly how I feel about my Keeper.

So all you base this on is... anecdotal evidence?
I'll take the word of a criminal over the word of a PR writer any time.


And you think it applies to the thousands of prostitutes in the US (or indeed the millions across the world)?
Very probably. In the world, maybe no, since consent in general is a much less common concept outside the West, but in US, very probably.


The DOJ rather bluntly state in this pdf-brochure (http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/e05021552.pdf).
I feel a strong desire to hit its writer in the face. Sadly it's assault.
Just look at this.


"The reasons to be concerned about prostitution are:
* Prostitution offends some citizens' moral standards.
* Prostitution is a nuisance to passerby and to nearby residents and business.
* Prostitutes and clients offend uninvolved people in the area when they solicit them.
* Juveniles, who are less capable of making informed choices, may become prostitutes."

He has puts "offending moral standards" first, and child prostitution last in the list. What's more, the first three "reasons" are basically the same, offending some fucktard's moral sensitivities. That's what's important, right. That's what he's worried about. What a jerk.


You're also doing some selective reading. The same report mentions that:
"it's difficult for the police to make cases against pimps" - confirming that they tend to stay on the safer side of the law.
"Pimps recruit and socialize prostitutes by appealing to their desire for money or a glamorous and exciting lifestyle." - confirming what I've said about the methods.

And as admitted, the police pretends to have "little knowledge about pimps". I won't go far with guesses about how many pimps pay the police (or work there), but if they lie that they don't know about pimps, they will clearly lie about their methods.


How dangerous is it really? (Except to the prostitute, of course) Especially where prostitution is also illegal?
I can't speak for everyone, but I would certainly not report on a willing prostitute I've been with. On the other hand, I would most certainly tip anonymously on a prostitute being held against her will, if I suspected it or she gave me a hint (which she can easily do). And I'm very sure most people would do the same. It's one thing to ignore the oppressive laws banning a combination of sex and free enterprise, and completely another to ignore slavery happening before your eyes.

Let's pretend that she is being clear. How would you feel about such a relationship as that?

Also, what is this "sleeping at night" business?

Smunkee was pretty clear. It irks her.

I can't be anymore clearer in the way I feel about him, so she sleeps at night. Ultimately, this (and I'm sorry Smunk) is of no concern to me.

I'm afraid I must evacuate this thread, or at least, evacuate myself, others might want to carry this on. The chills are back after reading Nanatsu's post. I bid you adieu.

I'm afraid I must evacuate this thread, or at least, evacuate myself, others might want to carry this on. The chills are back after reading Nanatsu's post. I bid you adieu.

Once again, pity, but it's of no concern of my if you get chills from this.

Bah. Speak for yourself.:p

What I'm trying to talk about is the low self-esteem point, where there's someone exerting complete and total control over another, to the point where it's not just showing your love, as Nanatsu has admitted elsewhere, it's not even about love (I believe she said something similar about sex in the relationship). I've got nothing against doing things to show that you love someone, getting someone a beer, doing something boring, but I'm not talking about that. (Let's get on the same page now, shall we?:D)

The page you're on appears to be 'abuse'. No thanks, I don't want to be on that page.

What if he told me to scrub his bathroom? Why should I, it's not my fucking bathroom. I hate cleaning bathrooms! I can promise you, there is no way I'm going to get hot and bothered over that, and I am not going to enjoy it in the least.

What I want is for him to know how much I'm hating it. I want him to make me do it anyway, and I want him to enjoy the fact that I'm hating it. Better yet, if he were to get turned on by forcing me to do something I don't enjoy...well that's ideal.

My 'enjoyment' is going to be pretty much purely mental, and in a weird way it'll be there in the back of my mind while I'm hating the actual doing of it...I'm going to think about it later though, maybe on my own, or maybe when we're together, and the thought of how he had me do that is going to turn me on.

I can't explain why. I can't explain how.

So maybe you're talking more about pain? He's already dislocated my jaw (that was an accident, but fuck it was hot). I had a lump in my breast for over a month because he bit me so hard. I want him to enjoy hurting me. If he didn't, it would ruin it for me.

Dunno what else you're thinking of here.

I'm afraid I must evacuate this thread, or at least, evacuate myself, others might want to carry this on. The chills are back after reading Nanatsu's post. I bid you adieu.

*sigh*

That's because you don't actually understand what she's saying, and/or you're reading things into it that you don't seem able to explain.

*sigh*

That's because you don't actually understand what she's saying, and/or you're reading things into it that you don't seem able to explain.

NSG truly never fails to deliver inane amateurish psychobabble all boiling down to "I don't like it so there's something wrong with it".

And, as reliable as the tides, the inane psychobabble about "proper" adult relationships invariably comes from those who have never had one.

You never know for certain if anybody's relationship is abusive or not. It's amazing what public civility can hide.

Neesika, I know you will have no idea why I'm saying this, but thank you for putting this out there.

Neesika, I know you will have no idea why I'm saying this, but thank you for putting this out there.

Hey, I've been there. I consider myself extremely adept at having convinced people around me that things were just wonderful in my relationship with my ex. Except I won't ever allow myself to be in a siatuation where that is necessary again.

It never ceases to surprise me though the kind of shit you witness 'accidentally' between some partners. It's quite a thing when that mask drops. It's why I never envy other people's relationships. You, as an outsider, never truly know what the dynamic is when they're not in public.

Hey, I've been there. I consider myself extremely adept at having convinced people around me that things were just wonderful in my relationship with my ex. Except I won't ever allow myself to be in a siatuation where that is necessary again.

It never ceases to surprise me though the kind of shit you witness 'accidentally' between some partners. It's quite a thing when that mask drops. It's why I never envy other people's relationships. You, as an outsider, never truly know what the dynamic is when they're not in public.

shut up, you're just saying that because you have low self esteem.

shut up, you're just saying that because you have low self esteem.

Yeah totally. I was probably abused as a child too, and I seek out these kinds of relationships because I don't think I deserve anything better. This couch is comfortable, but where's your pscyhology degree, Dr? :D

Smunkee was pretty clear. It irks her.

I can't be anymore clearer in the way I feel about him, so she sleeps at night. Ultimately, this (and I'm sorry Smunk) is of no concern to me.
I think there's been a misunderstanding. You are in no way required or requested to have a relationship that doesn't "irk" me. My relationship irks many people (including Bottle and Ashmoria) but I do what I like. I think maybe I misunderstood some of your words....I don't do well unless things are really worded bluntly. I'm also not familiar or in a place where I would let anyone cut my foot off with a rusty hacksaw for any reason. If you are, fine, the idea of being in that place.....it messes up my brain. It's no reflection on you, so much as a reflection on my own inability to understand.

I think there's been a misunderstanding. You are in no way required or requested to have a relationship that doesn't "irk" me. My relationship irks many people (including Bottle and Ashmoria) but I do what I like. I think maybe I misunderstood some of your words....I don't do well unless things are really worded bluntly. I'm also not familiar or in a place where I would let anyone cut my foot off with a rusty hacksaw for any reason. If you are, fine, the idea of being in that place.....it messes up my brain. It's no reflection on you, so much as a reflection on my own inability to understand.

Poor wording from each side. To clarify. My Keeper would never hurt me like that. Because of that and more, I trust him completely. My post was typed in the heat of the moment and if it came across wrong, well, you know...

I didn't come into this thread to justify the way I feel. We both, him and me, know and feel the righteousness in the relationship and that's enough for us. I do understand that this is not a conventional thing at all, the dynamics do not fit into an "accepted standard", and they don't need to. I also understand how this pulls uncomfortably on some people's thoughts of how a relationship should be. All well and good. But it grates me (and I know this is not what you implied, Smunkee) to be labeled.

I caused chills? Is that how it was put? There's a button, quite handy, called Ignore, so that those who are "chilled" and disturbed at what I post, or feel like "evacuating" on themselves don't have to put up with it. I will do so too, accordingly.

All that matters, in the end, and I'm sure you would agree, is that the consenting parties are happy and understand the scope of the things happening in the relation. I am. I wouldn't have this any other way. Just like I'm sure you wouldn't have your relationship any other way.

Did I make myself clearer there?

Poor wording from each side. To clarify. My Keeper would never hurt me like that. Because of that and more, I trust him completely. My post was typed in the heat of the moment and if it came across wrong, well, you know...

I didn't come into this thread to justify the way I feel. We both, him and me, know and feel the righteousness in the relationship and that's enough for us. I do understand that this is not a conventional thing at all, the dynamics do not fit into an "accepted standard", and they don't need to. I also understand how this pulls uncomfortably on some people's thoughts of how a relationship should be. All well and good. But it grates me (and I know this is not what you implied, Smunkee) to be labeled.

I caused chills? Is that how it was put? There's a button, quite handy, called Ignore, so that those who are "chilled" and disturbed at what I post, or feel like "evacuating" on themselves don't have to put up with it. I will do so too, accordingly.

All that matters, in the end, and I'm sure you would agree, is that the consenting parties are happy and understand the scope of the things happening in the relation. I am. I wouldn't have this any other way. Just like I'm sure you wouldn't have your relationship any other way.

Did I make myself clearer there?

Very much so. I also found myself remembering the first time I talked about this on here and people asking similar questions like "what if he wants to sell the kids" and I was like "um....he wouldn't" and apparently that wasn't a good enough answer for them. I've been on the "defending" side to some very intolerant folks. I don't really understand why people can't just get over it, my relationship doesn't really affect them, no matter how much it bothers them. It was the one comment that irked me by the way, not the entire dynamic, I mean I'm in a similar situation myself I understand you don't put yourself in that type of relationship unless you 100% trust each other... really.

Very much so. I also found myself remembering the first time I talked about this on here and people asking similar questions like "what if he wants to sell the kids" and I was like "um....he wouldn't" and apparently that wasn't a good enough answer for them. I've been on the "defending" side to some very intolerant folks. I don't really understand why people can't just get over it, my relationship doesn't really affect them, no matter how much it bothers them. It was the one comment that irked me by the way, not the entire dynamic, I mean I'm in a similar situation myself I understand you don't put yourself in that type of relationship unless you 100% trust each other... really.

I'm glad that was cleared.

Oddly enough, this thread has had a lot of people seemingly understanding the dynamics of the dom/sub relationship. Dare I say, people like Poliwancraca, Neesika and Neo Art defended the choices. But there's always the few who, not knowing crap about the relations, judge. You're in a similar situations as me, then I now know you do understand.

There's a button, quite handy, called Ignore, so that those who are "chilled" and disturbed at what I post, or feel like "evacuating" on themselves don't have to put up with it. I'm sorry, I can't help it...this made me laugh so freaking hard that I think I burst a vein in my eye:D

I'm sorry, I can't help it...this made me laugh so freaking hard that I think I burst a vein in my eye:D

Ah, pues me algero que haya a hecho reir a Miss Sinuhue.:wink:

A question; obviously there's a necessity to watch out for abusive relationships whatever their flavour (up, down, charm, top, bottom, strange). But is it necessary to be more watchful for potential abuse in D/S relationships? I imagine the nature of such relationships might well lend itself to becoming abusive more easily than "vanilla" relationships. But of course I could be wrong.

A question; obviously there's a necessity to watch out for abusive relationships whatever their flavour (up, down, charm, top, bottom, strange). But is it necessary to be more watchful for potential abuse in D/S relationships? I imagine the nature of such relationships might well lend itself to becoming abusive more easily than "vanilla" relationships. But of course I could be wrong.

I don't think you should be more watchful for abuse in a D/s relationship, but only because I don't think people in general are watchful enough for abuse in any relationship. One of the benefits to the sort of oddity of the D/s dynamic is that although you may go in with certain assumptions, you lose them quickly when you start the process of figuring out how it's going to work. In 'vanilla' relationships, quite often very fundamental assumptions never get challenged at all. Things like monogamy or fidelity, boundaries, what constitutes violating those boundaries and so on. People don't talk openly enough about these things, sometimes out of fear, sometimes just out of the belief that things are inherently clear.

You don't get the luxury of inherent clarity with D/s. You have to actually openly talk about things with your partner that can sometimes be a little uncomfortable. Shockingly enough even I have a hard time sometimes telling my partner what turns me on and what doesn't, or what I'd like them to do and what I'm not into (sometimes I don't know until we try it out, and I mean in the non-sexual aspects too). I've worked very hard to overcome that, yet, and I shit you not, there are times when I'm just too embarrassed or shy to make my needs clear in the moment. Imagine how it is for people who just don't realise that these kinds of conversations should happen in any relationship.

Sorry, this is going to continue to be long winded, but I want to give you the best answer I can.

As a woman and a feminist, I had a lot of difficulty at first with the sorts of things that turn me on. For one, how could I get off on a man treating me that way? I'm not a shrinking violet, some pathetic romance novel wench waiting to be ravished! Not to mention that I had problems with the idea of a man who himself would get off on treating me in such a stereotypical and misogynist way.

Ok fine, I figured out, I still believe in my own strength, and my partner at the time certainly wasn't some mouth-breathing jerk who believes women should be barefoot and pregnant. But what about unconscious gender stereotypes and social conditioning? I didn't want to give into that either.

I can't really say WHY I'm like this. But I have resolved that I'm not into it because I'm expected to be, or was raised to be, and I'm not into it because I just want to please a man who prefers me this way...I really honestly just like it. As long as I'm clear on that, and as long as I can trust my partner, then I'm not worried about it being abusive...because if it becomes abusive, I'm not going to stick with it. I've learned that much at least from 'vanilla' relationships.

Can damaged people get into this kind of lifestyle, and use it to prey on others, or be more susceptible to victimisation? I honestly don't believe that's any more true for D/s than your average vanilla relationship, which can get really bad, really easily. If anything, the soul searching you do, and the constant dialogues you have with your SO help to avoid falling into some of the patterns that allow abuse to flourish.

Thank you, that makes sense ... particularly as I've known that sort of predatory scumbag, and to my knowledge none of them were in D/S relationships ... indeed it really didn't have anything to do with sex whatsoever. Just exploitation of other people by people with no morals and/or a lack of even the most rudimentary introspection to allow them to hold their actions up to ethical standards. I can see how needing to be clear and upfront about things would work against that.

So, I've recently become aware of such a thing as a Dom/sub relationship that not only encompasses the bedroom, but the entire relationship. My friend has informed me that his girlfriend is completely subservient to him, not just in the bedroom, but in their entire lives.

Anything he asks her to do, even if it hurts her, she will comply. Even if she doesn't want to, it appears that she has no will of her own, she does everything for him that he asks.

How does NSG feel about this kind of relationship? I'm kind of conflicted about it.

The whole concept sickens me, pretty much anywhere; bedroom, personal, places where they keep slaves... it leaves me with a sick and empty feeling. I hate it.

All relationships should begin with this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeLJ9Jh5gbw) sort of conversation.

The whole concept sickens me, pretty much anywhere; bedroom, personal, places where they keep slaves... it leaves me with a sick and empty feeling. I hate it.

I totally understand that not being a thing you'd want for yourself, but I don't understand why it's something you feel comfortable passing judgment on for someone else.

There are plenty of things I'm really not comfortable with, and some things I don't want to know about....but those things don't make me feel sick or empty or anything, because I'm not doing them.

So, I've recently become aware of such a thing as a Dom/sub relationship that not only encompasses the bedroom, but the entire relationship. My friend has informed me that his girlfriend is completely subservient to him, not just in the bedroom, but in their entire lives.

Anything he asks her to do, even if it hurts her, she will comply. Even if she doesn't want to, it appears that she has no will of her own, she does everything for him that he asks.

How does NSG feel about this kind of relationship? I'm kind of conflicted about it.


Sounds twisted, abusive, and will generally end in epic amounts of fail.

So, I've recently become aware of such a thing as a Dom/sub relationship that not only encompasses the bedroom, but the entire relationship. My friend has informed me that his girlfriend is completely subservient to him, not just in the bedroom, but in their entire lives.

Anything he asks her to do, even if it hurts her, she will comply. Even if she doesn't want to, it appears that she has no will of her own, she does everything for him that he asks.

How does NSG feel about this kind of relationship? I'm kind of conflicted about it.

What ever floats their boat, although doing something to her that hurts her is abusive in my opinion.

A question; obviously there's a necessity to watch out for abusive relationships whatever their flavour (up, down, charm, top, bottom, strange). But is it necessary to be more watchful for potential abuse in D/S relationships? I imagine the nature of such relationships might well lend itself to becoming abusive more easily than "vanilla" relationships. But of course I could be wrong.

I am torn, because while I really want to defend my kink, my ex very much did take advantage of his position as my dom to do some very not-okay things to me. I have no doubt he could and would have done the same things if we were entirely vanilla, but I don't think it would have been quite so easy for him to justify it to himself or to convince me that being treated like shit was something I was somehow supposed to put up with.

On the other hand, as Sin pointed out, D/s intrinsically tends to require more in the way of explicit communication about what is and isn't okay in your relationship, which may very well counterbalance the above, anyway.

What ever floats their boat, although doing something to her that hurts her is abusive in my opinion.

That makes three people in a row who've said something like this, and I don't think any of you have really thought about it.

If you're having sweet, loving, missionary-position sex with your girlfriend, and you shift your weight and accidentally squish her uncomfortably, is that abusive?

If, as your girlfriend is walking by, you playfully and lightly swat her bottom, is that abusive?

If you give your girlfriend a hickey - which is, after all, a type of bruise - is that abusive?

I'm going to guess you probably don't really think so, which means that you know that hurting your partner is not intrinsically abusive. So what defines abuse? It seems to me that there's one very simple and obvious definition - it's abuse if your partner isn't okay with it. Do you really, truly think that when I beg my boyfriend to smack my ass and he does so, when he stops the moment I ask him to and hugs me and tells me how much he cares about me, he's abusing me?

That makes three people in a row who've said something like this, and I don't think any of you have really thought about it.

If you're having sweet, loving, missionary-position sex with your girlfriend, and you shift your weight and accidentally squish her uncomfortably, is that abusive?

If, as your girlfriend is walking by, you playfully and lightly swat her bottom, is that abusive?

If you give your girlfriend a hickey - which is, after all, a type of bruise - is that abusive?

I'm going to guess you probably don't really think so, which means that you know that hurting your partner is not intrinsically abusive. So what defines abuse? It seems to me that there's one very simple and obvious definition - it's abuse if your partner isn't okay with it. Do you really, truly think that when I beg my boyfriend to smack my ass and he does so, when he stops the moment I ask him to and hugs me and tells me how much he cares about me, he's abusing me?

So by your logic, if my partner is OK with it, I can take a gun and shoot her in the arm, and it would not be abuse. I think the local authorities might think a little differently.

So by your logic, if my partner is OK with it, I can take a gun and shoot her in the arm, and it would not be abuse. I think the local authorities might think a little differently.

It is her choice.

So by your logic, if my partner is OK with it, I can take a gun and shoot her in the arm, and it would not be abuse. I think the local authorities might think a little differently.

Tell me more about this magical fantasy land you live in, where a gunshot is equivalent harm to a spanking.

Or maybe we can draw a sensible line at "don't cause lasting harm" and actually be intelligent, instead of drawing ludicrous comparisons and asinine analogies.

Oh wait, wouldn't be NSG if we did that.

The whole concept sickens me, pretty much anywhere; bedroom, personal, places where they keep slaves... it leaves me with a sick and empty feeling. I hate it.

you hate people pursuing the kind of relationship they want? How disgustingly repressive.

The whole concept sickens me, pretty much anywhere; bedroom, personal, places where they keep slaves... it leaves me with a sick and empty feeling. I hate it.

is one a slave if one is deciding at every minute that one wants to be a slave?

So by your logic, if my partner is OK with it, I can take a gun and shoot her in the arm, and it would not be abuse. I think the local authorities might think a little differently.

To my mind, actually, if she really wanted you to shoot her in the arm and was mentally competent to make such a decision, no, I wouldn't consider that "abusive," in the same way that I don't consider voluntary euthanasia "murder."

Of course, that's pretty damned irrelevant anyway, since I've never yet met a submissive who freely consents to being shot, nor a dominant who has any interest in shooting his/her partner.

To my mind, actually, if she really wanted you to shoot her in the arm and was mentally competent to make such a decision, no, I wouldn't consider that "abusive," in the same way that I don't consider voluntary euthanasia "murder."

Of course, that's pretty damned irrelevant anyway, since I've never yet met a submissive who freely consents to being shot, nor a dominant who has any interest in shooting his/her partner.

Is masochism still considered a psychological disorder? :confused:

In the end I go back what I said in the first place, What ever floats their boat, cause I really don't care what other people do to each other.

Is masochism still considered a psychological disorder? :confused:

Not in itself, no. The tricky thing with masochism and sadism, as NA is probably already typing up, is that both words kinda have two usages, which we can categorize as the "kinky" and the "totally fucked-up." The latter is people who get off on receiving/giving pain no matter what - which is a bit worrisome, especially for the sadists; the former is people who get off on receiving/giving pain within a consensual sexual context, which is pretty much fine 'n' dandy. Pretty much everyone who self-identifies as a masochist or sadist means the latter. My boyfriend very much enjoys hurting me in ways that I enjoy, but would not derive any pleasure from hurting me if I were saying, "No, seriously, this hurts in a bad way, I want you to stop now" - and I very much enjoy having him hurt me, but I definitely hop around saying "oh fuckshitdammitdammitOW" when I stub my toe just like anyone else. :p

Not in itself, no. The tricky thing with masochism and sadism, as NA is probably already typing up, is that both words kinda have two usages, which we can categorize as the "kinky" and the "totally fucked-up." The latter is people who get off on receiving/giving pain no matter what - which is a bit worrisome, especially for the sadists; the former is people who get off on receiving/giving pain within a consensual sexual context, which is pretty much fine 'n' dandy. Pretty much everyone who self-identifies as a masochist or sadist means the latter. My boyfriend very much enjoys hurting me in ways that I enjoy, but would not derive any pleasure from hurting me if I were saying, "No, seriously, this hurts in a bad way, I want you to stop now" - and I very much enjoy having him hurt me, but I definitely hop around saying "oh fuckshitdammitdammitOW" when I stub my toe just like anyone else. :p

So the psychological thing is about someone who enjoys pain all the time--I see.

Still, I do not think I could ever enjoy pain myself, no matter who is inflicting it. It just hurts...ow.

You know, I think one thing that those of us "in the lifestyle" take for granted is, I think we're able to more easily discern reality from fantasy. Those people who aren't in that lifestyle, haven't experienced it...not so much. To them, perhaps the iconic, but often incorrect imagery...is believed to be real.

I think people who are not familiar with d/s relationships think of "master and slave" relationships as something akin to a woman, kept chained in the basement, 24 hours a day, blindfolded, gagged, alone and in the dark, her solitude broken only when the cruel beast of a husband descends into the darkness to savagely beat her, tearing skin, cracking bones, and the like, through the process. Yet through it all she's happy, because she's HIS SLAVE, and he has the right to do it!

Yes, all very dramatic. Also very much bullshit. The fact is, we're people. For the most part, normal people. Our sex might involve a bit more pain and implements than yours, our relationship dynamics might be more complicated and seemingly one sided than yours, but we're still basically people. Even if we have that kind of true dynamic, permanently, in our relationship doesn't mean it's always acted upon. Life sticks its head in. Dinner needs to get cooked, dishes need to get cleaned. Car needs to be dropped off at the mechanic. Children need to be put to bed. I think people hwo view these relationships as bad...dont really see them as they ACTUALLY are. Maybe some Hollywood/bad porn version of what they are...and trust me, I'm no fan of those either.

But in the end, while it makes for entertaining stories...they're pretty much bullshit. Our relationships really aren't ALL that different than yours. We don't keep our girlfriends tied up in the basement 23 hours a day. We don't forbid her to speak directly to us or make eye contact. We don't prevent her from calling her mother.

When those things happen, it IS abusive and it's a problem. It's also really not the bulk of those relationships.

Not in itself, no. The tricky thing with masochism and sadism, as NA is probably already typing up, is that both words kinda have two usages, which we can categorize as the "kinky" and the "totally fucked-up." The latter is people who get off on receiving/giving pain no matter what - which is a bit worrisome, especially for the sadists; the former is people who get off on receiving/giving pain within a consensual sexual context, which is pretty much fine 'n' dandy. Pretty much everyone who self-identifies as a masochist or sadist means the latter. My boyfriend very much enjoys hurting me in ways that I enjoy, but would not derive any pleasure from hurting me if I were saying, "No, seriously, this hurts in a bad way, I want you to stop now" - and I very much enjoy having him hurt me, but I definitely hop around saying "oh fuckshitdammitdammitOW" when I stub my toe just like anyone else. :p

well, again, the "psychological" term that one things of, which they usually think is "sadist" is, really, sadistic personality disorder. And yes, there's a strong difference between a sadist, and someone with sadistic personality disorder

You know, I think one thing that those of us "in the lifestyle" take for granted is, I think we're able to more easily discern reality from fantasy. Those people who aren't in that lifestyle, haven't experienced it...not so much. To them, perhaps the iconic, but often incorrect imagery...is believed to be real.

I think people who are not familiar with d/s relationships think of "master and slave" relationships as something akin to a woman, kept chained in the basement, 24 hours a day, blindfolded, gagged, alone and in the dark, her solitude broken only when the cruel beast of a husband descends into the darkness to savagely beat her, tearing skin, cracking bones, and the like, through the process. Yet through it all she's happy, because she's HIS SLAVE, and he has the right to do it!

Yes, all very dramatic. Also very much bullshit. The fact is, we're people. For the most part, normal people. Our sex might involve a bit more pain and implements than yours, our relationship dynamics might be more complicated and seemingly one sided than yours, but we're still basically people. Even if we have that kind of true dynamic, permanently, in our relationship doesn't mean it's always acted upon. Life sticks its head in. Dinner needs to get cooked, dishes need to get cleaned. Car needs to be dropped off at the mechanic. Children need to be put to bed. I think people hwo view these relationships as bad...dont really see them as they ACTUALLY are. Maybe some Hollywood/bad porn version of what they are...and trust me, I'm no fan of those either.

But in the end, while it makes for entertaining stories...they're pretty much bullshit. Our relationships really aren't ALL that different than yours. We don't keep our girlfriends tied up in the basement 23 hours a day. We don't forbid her to speak directly to us or make eye contact. We don't prevent her from calling her mother.

When those things happen, it IS abusive and it's a problem. It's also really not the bulk of those relationships.

Pfft, you're just pretending to be a normal person. We all know you really run around in a leather gimp suit 24/7, demand that your legal clients address you as "Lord Neo Art," and keep your girlfriend - who is, of course, totally helpless and never ever does anything like making fun of you, on pain of horrible violent death - chained to the wall in your subterranean dungeon at all times. Duh. ;)

Pfft, you're just pretending to be a normal person. We all know you really run around in a leather gimp suit 24/7, demand that your legal clients address you as "Lord Neo Art," and keep your girlfriend - who is, of course, totally helpless and never ever does anything like making fun of you, on pain of horrible violent death - chained to the wall in your subterranean dungeon at all times. Duh. ;)

this is the problem with city living. No place to put a dungeon.

this is the problem with city living. No place to put a dungeon.

I'm sure the office below you would happily loan out their space for the torture of innocent women if you asked nicely! :p

The example given in the OP seems a bit extreme to my way of thinking, and if I were in that girl's family I might be a touch concerned, but you know what? When it comes to sex, people get up to all sorts of odd things with each other, and unless it concerns me personally, I really can't be persuaded to give a damn.

With the caveat, of course, about the participants being consenting adults.

If your husband gives your orders, then you are not equals.Your definition of equality is, lets say, narrow. It's not the equality of actually being the same in everything, but equality in that the submitting partner submits out of his/ her own choice and desire, which, as you may or may not have guessed, is quite a bit different from experiencing social pressure to submit, mid-19th century style.

If anything, in this case, it's the other way around - social pressure wants them to not submit in anything, no matter what they want.*ugh*

PUKE.

Yes. Nothing like forming an entire relationship on a sub-par fantasy series predicated on the notion that all women are meant to be sexual slaves, and any woman who disagrees simply hasn't found the 'right man' yet.Not to forget, the series has a mild tendency towards snuff... Way, way, way too many cut throats and impalements.

Never found corpses particularly erotic, I'm afraid.

I totally understand that not being a thing you'd want for yourself, but I don't understand why it's something you feel comfortable passing judgment on for someone else.

There are plenty of things I'm really not comfortable with, and some things I don't want to know about....but those things don't make me feel sick or empty or anything, because I'm not doing them.
is one a slave if one is deciding at every minute that one wants to be a slave?

I didn't say anything about it being rational, but its the truth. It makes me sick to see it.

you hate people pursuing the kind of relationship they want? How disgustingly repressive.

Your damn right I hate it, hate it the same way I hate the flu or the chickenpox, the same way you hate people interfering in other people's business. You can take your repressive and do you know what with it!

*Snip*

Not a single piece of evidence to support your position presented. Why am I not surprised...

this is the problem with city living. No place to put a dungeon.

Surely an attic could work just as well?

So many things, just so many things I could say.


Okay to heck with it.

Sex is not suppose to be a contact sport. You shouldn't need to stretch or get warmed up beforehand. It should not require padding. You should not need a helmet to participate.

This seem to me to be more about pain than about love. But I guess what do I know.
Many of the sex acts I enjoy require stretching and warming up, but they aren't D/s or S/M acts. My legs don't bend certain ways right out of the gate and anal sex is very painful without a proper warm up.

Warming up and stretching can be part of keeping things from not hurting.

I'm also a big fan of vigorous sex and injuries sometimes happen.


Yes, of course it is abusive, pimping is abuse. But it never quite crosses the line to criminal behavior (except when prostitution itself is illegal). Rather, it's building up a relationship where you're the dominant one, and gradually increasing that dominance until the would-be ho is completely psychologically dependent on you.
That's not neccesarily true for a D/s relationship. Most subs can very well function on their own out in the real world without their dom.

Likewise, psychological dependance isn't an inherent or unique problem to those in a D/s relationship. Any abusive a-hole is going to do their best to make their partner psychologically dependant on them.

Now, let's go to the more sinister kind - the turning of a woman (normally already in a poor position) into your, so to speak, employee, through a domination/submission relationship (only not roleplay D/S, but actual domination). Basically, following the guidelines from the pimping textbook (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14662558&postcount=55).
What you are describing is an abusive relationship. It could be any relationship dynamic D/s, plain old vanilla or pimp/ho.

I escaped an abusive relationship by the skin of my teeth, and there wasn't an ounce of D/s in it. He was domineering, not dominant. He was trying to make subserviant, I wasn't seeking to be submissive.

In a D/s relationship the dominant isn't going out looking for a partner to "make" submissive. There are folks out there that like being submissive and dominants seek those people out.

I'm glad that was cleared.

Oddly enough, this thread has had a lot of people seemingly understanding the dynamics of the dom/sub relationship. Dare I say, people like Poliwancraca, Neesika and Neo Art defended the choices. But there's always the few who, not knowing crap about the relations, judge. You're in a similar situations as me, then I now know you do understand.
I'd like to point out I'm not in "the lifestyle," but I vehemetly defend it.:fluffle:

Hooray for sex-postiveness!

Master/slave

The only master-slave relationship I use is on old-fashioned EIDE channels.

Anyway, looks sick, but if they're happy like that...

She absolutely has a will of her own, she chooses not to use it.

In Switzerland it would be illegal.

In Switzerland it would be illegal.

Really?

The only master-slave relationship I use is on old-fashioned EIDE channels.

Pervert! :p

BTW, when did EIDE become "old-fashioned"? Am I really that old?

In Switzerland it would be illegal.

How would such a law possibly work? "STOP DOING WHAT YOUR BOYFRIEND SAYS OR ELSE!"

I didn't say anything about it being rational, but its the truth. It makes me sick to see it.



Your damn right I hate it, hate it the same way I hate the flu or the chickenpox, the same way you hate people interfering in other people's business. You can take your repressive and do you know what with it!

I suppose we're a little confused as to what the point of your hatred is. I find scatplay pretty darn gross and am not at all interested in participating in it, but I don't feel the need to tell people who are into scat that their sexual preferences are sick and disturbing. I figure as long as they're not asking me to play with their poop, I can wish them well and hope they enjoy their own poop-playing. It is, therefore, a bit puzzling to me when someone gets worked up about how terrible D/s is, or how terrible gay sex is, or how terrible buttsex is, because, in the end, no one is making you do it, so why the heck do you care if other people are enjoying it?

Your damn right I hate it, hate it the same way I hate the flu or the chickenpox

It's very telling that you equate consensual sexual relationships with diseases. That's a rather disturbing outlook you have there. Perhaps you should seek help for it.

You can take your repressive and do you know what with it!

Continue to point it out? I will, thanks. But the thing is, at the end of the day, I will continue to have the relationships I want to have, and you will continue to wallow in ignorance. If the relationships I have offend your sensibilities...well...that's really not my problem.

because, in the end, no one is making you do it, so why the heck do you care if other people are enjoying it?

I call it internet white knight syndrome. Visceral reaction to the idea, due to an outdated, outmoded, and utterly unrealistic concept of chivalry brought about by way too much time reading bad fantasy novels, and not nearly enough time interacting with actual human beings.

It's the whole idea of:

"I am so VERY sensitive man, that the thought of a woman doing that to herself, while it makes me sick, just SICK to my stomach. It's evil, and it's wrong, and it's immoral for a woman to do that, and I just wish I could ride up on my white horse and save each and every one of them from living such a terrible lifestyle. I'm just so very sensitive that I can't stand the thought of it! It's sexist, and it's bigotted, and it's WRONG, and I wish I could take them away from it all, into a BETTER life.

Better, of course, being the life that I, a totally NOT sexist person at all, mind you, thinks is better for them. And because I'm so VERY sensitive, and so VERY not sexist, I'm obviously right. And that lifestyle is wrong, because I, so very sensitive and not sexist in the LEAST, mind you, think it's WRONG for women to live that way.

Because it's important to remember, I'm not sexist! And it's because I'm not sexist, that it's perfectly alright for me to tell women the kind of life they should live."

Internet White Knight syndrome. The desire to "save" people from situations they never wanted your help in, in the first place. And a failure to understand, that in your efforts to 'save" people from the horrible lifestyle that...they chose, and makes them happy, all you do is place your value judgment on it. Making the only bad person in the group...you.

Mind you, she also said this:




Seems to me that there's some (unspoken?) limits even in that relationship.

No, she just totally trusts him. But she would do anything he asked.

Even if I am driven to my limits, my Keeper's word, my Keeper's needs and wants come first. There's no limit, not physically or mentally, to the things he can do to me.

He wants my pain, he gets pain. He wants me to scream, how loud is all I can ask.

We don't keep our girlfriends tied up in the basement 23 hours a day.

Just 20, right?:p

No, she just totally trusts him. But she would do anything he asked.

The "no limits" submissive. It's a total lie. Overly dramatic bullshit. It's predicated on an assumption as stated "I'd do anything he asks of me, but I trust him to not ask me CERTAIN things."

It's like playing Russian roulette without any bullets. You can fire all you want, but the really bad result never happens, and you know it. It's easy to say you'd do anything someone asks, if you know that the person will never ask you something you're unwilling to do.

The no limits submissive is a lie.

Just 20, right?:p

bitch needs time to cook dinner, after all.

In Switzerland it would be illegal.

How do they enforce it?

How would such a law possibly work? "STOP DOING WHAT YOUR BOYFRIEND SAYS OR ELSE!"Other way around. The swiss are very conservative (Took their sweet time giving women the vote, for example. Sixties, I think). Submitting to your husband isn't frowned upon there, it's a social requirement, or you're a pervert and social disturbance :-p

The no limits submissive is a lie.

I see.

It's easy to say you'd do anything someone asks, if you know that the person will never ask you something you're unwilling to do.

You never know that.

You never know that.

exactly. You never know that. Which makes the statement a lie.

exactly. You never know that. Which makes the statement a lie.

All is clear. But I would think that kind of romance-lie is something popular with adolescents, rather than adults. I suppose if one wanted to role-play 17th century love, it might be fun--I have seen couples who dressed in clothing styled from a few centuries back, but they generally talk romantic language in a tongue-in-cheek manner--I have never met somebody who was serious about that.

The "no limits" submissive. It's a total lie. Overly dramatic bullshit. It's predicated on an assumption as stated "I'd do anything he asks of me, but I trust him to not ask me CERTAIN things."

It's like playing Russian roulette without any bullets. You can fire all you want, but the really bad result never happens, and you know it. It's easy to say you'd do anything someone asks, if you know that the person will never ask you something you're unwilling to do.

The no limits submissive is a lie.

Exactly. I'll do whatever my boyfriend orders me to do, because I know he's a sane, decent, caring human being who wouldn't order me to do anything I was totally not okay with. If he ever turned into the sort of person who did order me to do things I was totally not okay with, and wouldn't take "no" for an answer, then he wouldn't be my boyfriend anymore.

Other way around. The swiss are very conservative (Took their sweet time giving women the vote, for example. Sixties, I think).That actually happened at different dates in different Cantons, because the terms of the Swiss constitution meant that the decision was one to be made at the cantonal level rather than nationally.

because I know he's a sane, decent, caring human being .

Youve been lied too:p

No, she just totally trusts him. But she would do anything he asked.

I doubt that. The way I see it (Sorry for analysing you Nanatsu!) she would do anything he asked within a set, unspoken boundry. As she says, he'll never want to maim her. If the day ever should come that he does want that, it'll be a whole new ballgame, and she'll have to re-evaluate what her position was. She might come to accept it then, I don't know.

But I still say that now, today, there is a limit. A limit that might be pushed or expanded (or even narrowed) down the road, but a limit that they both understand nonetheless.

'course, that's just how I see it :p

Exactly. I'll do whatever my boyfriend orders me to do, because I know he's a sane, decent, caring human being who wouldn't order me to do anything I was totally not okay with. If he ever turned into the sort of person who did order me to do things I was totally not okay with, and wouldn't take "no" for an answer, then he wouldn't be my boyfriend anymore.

That's my point exactly. The idea that "I will do ANYTHING he asks"...is a lie. If your boyfriend told you to take a gun and murder 8 people, you wouldn't do it.

So the line of "I'll do whatever my boyfriend orders me to do", really means "I am willing to do anything I can reasonably foresee him telling me to do". Which doesn't mean ANYTHING. You wouldn't murder 8 people if he told you to do so.

But you also can't reasonably foresee him asking you to do that.

I doubt that. The way I see it (Sorry for analysing you Nanatsu!) she would do anything he asked within a set, unspoken boundry. As she says, he'll never want to maim her. If the day ever should come that he does want that, it'll be a whole new ballgame, and she'll have to re-evaluate what her position was. She might come to accept it then, I don't know.

But I still say that now, today, there is a limit. A limit that might be pushed or expanded (or even narrowed) down the road, but a limit that they both understand nonetheless.

'course, that's just how I see it :p

She explicitly said "there are NO limits", and

"There's no limit, not physically or mentally, to the things he can do to me.

He wants my pain, he gets pain."

Perhaps you concur with Neo Art in that she is just using romantic hyperbole?

Perhaps you concur with Neo Art in that she is just using romantic hyperbole?

Pretty much this. Without trying to sound rude, the truth is...well...I don't really believe her. I don't think she'd murder someone if he told her to. I don't think she'd set someone's house on fire, if he told her to.

I think in any relationship there are limits. They might be unspoken limits, they might be implicitly understood limits, they might be limits integrated into the relationship to the extent that "I will do anything he says" becomes factually, if not literally, true, because it's understood he WON'T ask beyond those limits.

But I don't think it's ever literally true. If it is, if someone is willing to literally do ANYTHING that the dominant says, including killing or harming herself or others...then that's a big problem. And it's not healthy. And I don't in any way support those kind of relationships.

I disagree. It's when you use the horse that the line is crossed.

Sorry I should have said using the horse for transportation.

Pretty much this. Without trying to sound rude, the truth is...well...I don't really believe her. I don't think she'd murder someone if he told her to. I don't think she'd set someone's house on fire, if he told her to.

However, a teenager is certainly capable of this.

However, a teenager is certainly capable of this.

I'm....not really sure why this is relevant.

I'm....not really sure why this is relevant.

It is not...I was wondering why teens are so idealistic. Lack of experience coupled with hormones, I suppose. Probably the question does not even belong in this thread.

She explicitly said "there are NO limits", and

"There's no limit, not physically or mentally, to the things he can do to me.

He wants my pain, he gets pain."
I've adressed that before.

Perhaps you concur with Neo Art in that she is just using romantic hyperbole?

I think I'm pretty aligned with his views on subject, although with less experience in these matters and a little less direct ;)

Here, lemme end this ridiculous argument: she will do anything he says. If he ordered her to "murder eight people", he'd be a different person and the relationship would have to be reconsidered.

Does that work for everyone?

Here, lemme end this ridiculous argument: she will do anything he says. If he ordered her to "murder eight people", he'd be a different person and the relationship would have to be reconsidered.

Does that work for everyone?

Actually, he would not.

Really? Semantic twattery is certainly not unsual on NSG, but I really don't think it works here guys. Just listen to what she's really saying, instead of dissecting her words...and please remember she's not a native English speaker.

Really? Semantic twattery is certainly not unsual on NSG, but I really don't think it works here guys. Just listen to what she's really saying, instead of dissecting her words...and please remember she's not a native English speaker.

As you wish.

I have become what, a fucking case study? Parkus, stop it. Your neo-psychology bullshit makes me nauseous. Gravlen, although I know you're sorry for analyzing my words, stop it, please. The rest of you, if you have nothing of value to post, stay the hell away

As I told Smunkee, those outside of this, those who do not understand or those who claim to understand what was behind my words, are of no consequence to me or how I feel about my Keeper.