Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Being Non-PC in BDSM - No Safe-words

"safe words" are an abomination of Sadism and contradict the very essence of it.

The "SM" part of BDSM is highly at doubt whenever the so-called master stops the thing upon request from the so-called slave. Rock on, you fucking frauds ! What kind of Sadism is that ? It's precisely denying the masochist his request, and torturing him beyond his capacities that brings back the SM to BDSM.

Being non PC in BDSM is a non issue, because otherwise it wouldn't be BDSM. And those unable to fathom the crux of BDSM should not engage in it, rather than bastardize the notion and water it down.
 
1202645197729np8.jpg
 
Friday said:
Women who are doormats because they lack self-esteem are usually submissive.

Hardwired submission is still submission...bending to someone else's will. That still seems like giving someone else's identity validity over yours, thereby making yourself second rate.

Considering yourself second rate to anyone constitutes low self esteem.

Therefore, even hard-wired submissives can consider themselves doormats, and have low self esteem.

True Christian women are submissive to God. I guess you have a point there.
Click to expand...

Do you think that a dog who wants to be a cat can be?
I think it's pretty hardwired that they are to remain dogs no matter their wishes.

And mot than I can be a bird.
It's just not going to happen.

But even God allows for *free will*.
Click to expand...
Ah, reminds me of a quote I like.
"Man must believe he has free will.
He has no other choice."
 
The Saint said:
I can answer this entire line of reasoning thus: All Ford Mustangs are automobiles; not all automobiles are Ford Mustangs. And that analogy applies even if we continue to dismiss, as you have been doing, the concept of consensual submission.

Let me clarify that concept, you don't seem to entirely acknowledge it and it goes to SB's original point as well. Genuine, meaningful submission isn't something that can or should happen in a scene. It takes time and evaluation of the parties involved, both of themselves and of each other. I've known my owner long enough, and seen Her responses to a large enough variety of circumstances, to trust Her completely.

That, to me, is what submission is -- it isn't a lack of self-esteem, and if you think it is in my case, then you don't know me one tenth as well as you ought to by now. It's a statement of faith and trust.
Click to expand...
I think I get the gist of what you're saying, TS.

Faith and trust in a relationship are important. But why choose to pin these attributes onto a dynamic like submission? Why do some feel the need to be dominated? Why not attain faith and trust in a truly equal setting?

I know the reason you choose to be submissive is not because you have low self esteem, and quite frankly, your submissive nature is quite evident in your sexual fetishes (not judging, and you've made your fetishes public). Is it that the amount of faith and trust needed in this situation goes beyond normal parameters, thus making it more profound than usual?

I must admit to cringing a bit when you referred to your partner as your owner, and capitalized her pronoun. ;)
 
Ah, SB. Good to see you again, pal.

The topic is an interesting one. I, personally, have very little knowledge or experience in the minutia of BDSM since it is not my scene. I guess I do take a dominant stance during sex, though that can switch back and forth and become dominant/dominant. I guess it's a bit like the writers strike. No script. But I've never divulged in BDSM.

The idea of a safe word does seem to negate the entire point though. It seems like a poor device to bring safety in to play. I'd be more worried if someone NEEDED a safe word to know when to stop themselves if shit got out of hand.
 
Friday said:
I think I get the gist of what you're saying, TS.

Faith and trust in a relationship are important. But why choose to pin these attributes onto a dynamic like submission? Why do some feel the need to be dominated? Why not attain faith and trust in a truly equal setting?
Click to expand...

Some people like things more clear-cut, more evident, than others. Aside from faith and trust in your partner, being an object of possessiveness -- although that's a gross oversimplification -- is nice. To oversimplify again, it's nice to feel wanted; even nicer, along that same train of thought but much further down the track, to feel owned.

I know the reason you choose to be submissive is not because you have low self esteem, and quite frankly, your submissive nature is quite evident in your sexual fetishes (not judging, and you've made your fetishes public). Is it that the amount of faith and trust needed in this situation goes beyond normal parameters, thus making it more profound than usual?
Click to expand...

There's that, but again you're missing a point I made earlier -- I'm not submissive, except to my Mistress. With any other woman, I'd far more likely fill the position of a Dominant, and in fact have. Maybe that's why it's so exciting to me to be owned, because in my experience so far it's been one woman in all those I've met who's capable of doing so.

I must admit to cringing a bit when you referred to your partner as your owner, and capitalized her pronoun. ;)
Click to expand...

That's not surprising, as such things are clearly outside your comfort zone. But then again, never venturing outside our comfort zones leads to stasis, and stasis is equal to death.
 
On safewords -- between a Dominant and submissive who have a genuine bond of submission between them, such things are generally unnecessary, because both partners know and love each other deeply enough to explore and expand limits firmly but gently.

Let's put it in the coldest of terms: If a Master or Mistress takes property, takes the time to carefully select and cultivate His or Her property, explore every single facet of that property's landscape both outer and inner, and make that property genuinely His or Her own, that is a tremendous investment in time and effort. It requires huge amounts of time, energy and patience, almost certainly surpassing those required for establishing any conventional form of relationship. It's akin to wooing a steady girlfriend and training a horse at the same time. (I did warn that these would be the coldest of terms.) And these things are no less demanded of the one being claimed. Learning all about your Owner's likes and dislikes from most obvious to most subtle (no different from running a business), altering yourself to be as appealing to that person as possible (happens in the early stages of every romantic relationship from junior high school onward, nothing unhealthy there), setting aside one's own immediate gratification for the gratification of another in the beginning (a tenet of most aescetic religious sects, no one calls them deviants) and later transmuting the gratification of the Other into gratification of the self (not unlike the precepts of certain Buddhist sects, again, no one calls them deviants), all of these things require extraordinary effort and patience.

So after all of that hard work, why would either a sincere Dominant or a sincere submissive, when engaging in play with their partner, have any need for something as crude as a safe word?
 
^ Nicely said.

Miss Friday, your questions regarding my marriage (and yes, I'm happily married, and my wife is also my collared slave) and it's status as open or shut isn't a simple answer. Start a thread on polyamorous relationships and I'll address such things there. I'll give you a short answer that she's had 11 years of knowing me to figure out if she feels neglected, and I've yet to have a serious complaint.

Good Old John Norman: 4th grade plot-lines and an 11th grade vocabulary. (sigh). I use Gorian protocol where it suits me, but I am not a "Gorian style" Master. I like more feedback from my submissives than Gorian philosophy allows. Of course, a "Gorian Feast" is a lot of fun to attend, and having a professional dancer for a spouse makes for some wonderful chain dances...

What I started this thread for was to discuss how "safe words" entirely destroy a real power exchange by taking away the "freedom of the chain" for the submissive. If she's monitoring what is going on, then she's not "free" to be herself in the moment, having given over her personal power to someone she trusts. As the Saint mentions above (and I really like that post), what I am objecting to is the use of the safe-word as a short-cut.

Let us assume for a moment that the goal of D/s is to formalize things to make intimacy physically and emotionally SAFER! You know who is doing what, and why. That takes time, like any other form of intimacy, the rules are just more easy to follow. There is none of this "Does she/he like me?". If they are a submissive, they are placing themselves in a vulnerable position, taking a risk for the sake of being in the relationship. If they are Dominant, they are expending thought and energy, and it's also an emotional risk, also to be there. Most people don't do these things if they aren't really committed to the relationship.

THAT is why I said that masochists and submissives are polar opposites. Some people like the sensual aspects of a good spanking or flogging. But they are not submitting any more that I am submitting if I'm getting a massage. With a "safe word", you are basically controlling things, saying "harder, softer, just right...". Where is the submission there?

Of course, for some anything in leather is "BDSM". Fools....

Menty, nice to be back, thanks!
-SB
 
Hilarious, all this because i mentioed a safe word of "popcorn" in another thread. It was a joke, thats the word we would use when we were sneaking drinks as a kid and someone was coming.

If a had a Sub i would expect her to only do as i ask without question. I have had women like this in the past and although worried throughout the process they were ultimately satisfied whether it was because they enjoyed it or they enjoyed serving me and being used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top