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

[Mastertank1]

Posted this in other threads, but I think it's germane here.

This is a summary of scholarly treatise I wrote years ago. Several years after I wrote it, everything in it was endorsed by paleoanthropologist Desmond Morris, author of 'The Naked Ape' and many other books on anthropology, in the context of a book explaining the close relationship between humans and dogs.

My take on the origins of DS goes to an ongoing problem in Paleoanthropolgy; why is it so consistently difficult for professionals in that field to find analogues to human behavior patterns in other primates? The answer is that they are ignoring a major fact of evolutionary biology; the genetically selected behaviors any animal species keeps and passes on to future generations are determined primarily by the ecological niche that species occupies in its environment.

The pretribal, indeed precultural human animal occupied an ecological niche called 'cursorial hunter'. No other primate has ever occupied a niche even remotely similar, hence the lack of analogous behavior patterns. The only other species to occupy that niche in the history of this planet have been Wolves and Feral Dogs.

If one looks at the behavior patterns found in Wolf and Dog packs, EVERYTHING you see has close analogies in human behavior patterns!
Wolf packs have dominant Alpha males, secondary Beta males and submissive Gamma males. The female Wolves have their own, separate dominance order. In general, there is one chief dominant Pack Alpha and one or more Deta lieutenants, totaling one third of the male adults in the pack. All the females and all theGamma males are submissive to the Alphas and Betas. The Gammas are submissive to the females.

Anyone familiar with the scene has noticed, and perhaps wondered why, submissives seem to outnumber dominants in all categories. Straight, Gay, Bi, Male, Female, there are always more subs than doms. It's a holdover from a time when the survival of the species was furthered by such patterns of subordination. In any survival-critical emergency, there had to be someone in charge, whose orders would be obeyed without question.

Another pattern which ensured the strongest possible offspring was that the females simply would not mate with the Gamma males, who often engaged in homosexual relationships to relieve their needs. This is seen in Wolf and Dog packs today. This was biologically engineered into our genetic makeup by evolution, and explains why even the most liberated woman feels attracted to a dominant man, while even the most liberated man feels the need for some degree of submissiveness from his woman.

The fact is, of course, that modern technological society has made these patterns of D & S totally unnecessary, which is why I prefer D & S ONLY in the bedroom. The fact we no longer need these patterns does not cause them to automatically go away, for two reasons.

First, it takes about 100,000 years for evolution to effect any major change in a species, and conditions which made male dominance/female submission no longer a survival advantage are less than 100 years old IN THIS COUNTRY. In many parts of the world, Male D/female S is still a powerful survival advantage.

Second, an evolved trait does not evolve away just because it is not an advantage anymore. Look at our tail bones and appendixes. To evolve away, a trait must become a significant disadvantage, so that those who do NOT have it are much more likely to survive and have children than those who do.
That has not happened with D & S, in fact quite the contrary.

This all relates to tickling too. Among Wolves and Dogs, in order to resolve dominance disputes without actual injury to a valuable pack member, they have evolved a submission behavior which turns off further aggression by the dominant victor like throwing a switch; flipping onto the back and exposing the vitals to the dominant animal. The dominant responds by very lightly touching the tips of it's fangs to the throat or belly of the submissive, symbolizing that the dominant could have fatally injured the submissive but chose not to.

In humans, the analogous behavior is tickling. If you look at all the places on the human body that are usually ticklish, they are all areas where an injury would be fatal to an animal whose survival depended on running with a hunting pack, or take away it's ability to successfully have/rear offspring.
Toes/soles of feet-ability to run
backs of knees/kneecaps-ability to run
inner thighs-femoral artery (if it is cut, the individual bleeds to death in 30 seconds)
backs of thighs-hamstring tendon
hips-pelvic joints
lower belly-reproductive organs
ribs/sides-all the major organs in the body trunk
underarms-major nerves and arteries
neck/throat/under chin-major nerves and arteries/windpipe
breasts(women)-ability to feed newborns.

This is why for a human to allow another to tickle/tease them is a profoundly submissive act, and to choose to take advantage of that permission is a profoundly dominant act. One thing makes this expression of deep submission and dominance different for humans than dogs or wolves.

While wolves are sexually active only once a year when the females come into heat and their females activate the sex drives of the males, and for dogs it's about every month and a half, humans alone are sexually active 24/7/365 while physically capable. For this reason, any act of dominance/submission among humans usually takes on sexual elements.

During the years that I was a bouncer and bodyguard, I became friends with a number of professional Dominatrixes and Submissives. I found it curious that professional subs who had no problem with spanking, paddling, even whipping or flogging if the price was right, would not do a session where tickling was involved no matter how much money was offered. On the other hand, a number of professional dommes of my acquaintance would do a session as sub ONLY if the session was for tickling, with no pain to be involved. There have been three who did me the honor of submitting to me, at no charge, solely for their own enjoyment.

So it seems to be a matter of personal preference, not a rigid difference. Some who regard pain as enjoyable recoil in horror at the suggestion of tickling, while others who become infuriated at the suggestion that they be subjected to pain eagerly consent to getting tickled, and neither seems able to understand the others' viewpoint. Then of course there are those who abhor or adore both.

The moral of the story, children, seems to be that every person is a different, unique individual, and no one rule, however flexible, can possibly apply to everyone. No, not even the 'golden rule'. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Their desires and wishes, likes and dislikes may be so different from yours that they will scream for the police as a result of treatment that you would beg to have continued or repeated!

Drew70, I finally figured it out; you're an extreme radical feminist! The last group I heard who sounded like you were a group of my fellow students in college back in the 1960s. They were a self proclaimed feminist conciousness raising group who actually publicy called themselves S.C.U.M., an acronym for 'Society to Cut Up Men'. Yes, they really did exist. One of the things I remember from their manifesto, which I don't think even you would agree with, is the assertion that in order to be a true feminist a woman must be a Lesbian, and that it was not a sexual orientation but a political statement.

Ah, the 60s. Nostalgia. A form of pathologically rooted pain, as in Nueritis, Nueralgia, Nostalgia.

Mastertank1

We who play and dance are thought mad by they who her no music.

 

[drew70]

Of course you disagree. It would demolish your whole argument. They tolerate the pain as a side effect of their goal...etc. So when to boxers are in the ring and one boxer swings to hit his opponent and the opponent does the same. They pumple eachother consistantly. And your telling me that its strictly a workout. Funny, I thought the purpose was to knock the opponent out for ten seconds. I must of missed something..you must see something I dont. Maybe they should take up running instead.

No, I'm not telling you it's strictly a workout. They are engaging in a sport of competition, involving strength, skill, and endurance. In a boxing match both participants face each other on equal terms, radically unlike BDSM. To equate the two in an attempt to justify the one would be...let's see...how did she put it?..."insulting and hypocritical and shameful." That's it!

I thought you called it servitude.

My idea of servitude is two way. The man and the woman are each committed to serving the other. The master/Slave relationship is one-way servitude. Slave either serves master, or receives punishment. Oh wait, excuse me. Not punishment. I'm told they refer to it as "teaching."

How do you love , respect, and cherish too much by denying what she wants from you?

By understanding that love, respect, and cherishing have dick to do with granting unhealthy requests. For example, if my wife were a recovering alcoholic, and asked me for a bottle of Vodka, I wouldn't give it to her. She's an ex-smoker, so if she asked me to get her a pack of cigarettes, I'd also say no.

Wow, you seem to see woman as small , little, frail , weaklings huh? That she , unless being somehow manipulated, couldnt make up her own mind about what she likes and turns her on. I do, however I dont go around smacking other women on the street just because as you put it, love smaking them around. As a matter of fact , Ive never laid a hand on a woman unless it was in "play." But then again , I know the difference between reality and fantasy..which you seem to view as the same. I am more wary of you..someone who cant desipher the difference is in danger of becoming their own enemy. Want book facts..that is textbook as well.

You'll have to show me where I've said, inferred, or implied that women are "small, little, frail weakings." I don't remember ever saying so, and I'm quite sure I don't feel that way at all. Women are far too diverse, wonderful and complex to box them into such a belittling category. Regardless of what I think about women (which barring a few exceptions, is almost always something good), the important thing to remember is, I'm not the one who gets off pounding on them. I do know the difference between reality and fantasy. Reality is that masters get off on dominating women through pain and humiliation. The fantasies expressed in this thread are almost too numerous to count, starting with that ridiculous creed, right on to the comparison of BDSM with sports.

The only disapproval I have is not every man should be put into that kind of situation. They can not handle it. They are too hungry for power over a female. I am not and since you really dont know me and never bothered too, Im sure you opinion of me would be the typical stereo-type of your own imagination. You are always welcome to PM me.

Perhaps I will. I've made no judgements of you personally, and don't plan to. I'm not here to "put a stop" to anything. All I'm interested in is exploding these myths about pain being no different than tickling, or that it's okay for men to beat women if they like it, or that a master/Slave relationship is anything other than dysfunctional.

I don't want an apology. I dont need one. Why no comment on females on guys..is it that women are the weaker sex thing again. I guess it is. or maybe because it hits tooo close to home. As a lee, you are dominated by women. Quit being biaz..dont just accuse the guys.

I'll let somebody else comment on the Mistress/slave relationships, since I'm still undecided.

 

[drew70]

Drew, when you sent that PM apologising for how you treated me back on AMT, I thought you had changed, obviously not. You still come off the same way you did then - as a troll. An intellegent troll, yes, but a troll all the same, just looking to start a fight. You do it in such an underhanded manner that it's probably why you haven't been banned. But it's growing obvious you get off on making fun of people. So I won't be surprised if someday you will be. Heck, I'm starting to wonder if you're even really into tickling and are only really here because you enjoy starting fights and belittling people. Somehow, I think that gives you more of a hard on then anything.

I assure you, I am into tickling, which is why I and others are growing concerned that the TMF is morphing into a BDSM forum as opposed to a Tickling forum. Whatever I PM'd you was supposed to remain private. That's what the P in PM stands for, in case you didn't know. If I'm such a prick, why would I reach out to you like that? We've nothing to offer each other as far as tickling goes, so it's not like I was looking to "get any." I did so because you had recently resurfaced after years of hiding, and I thought you could use a friend. But I see now that you evidently have enough friends to cast aside those who don't align with your views. Congratulations.

I'm hardly surprised that you chose to ignore an example of true abuse I've been through since it completely goes against all the crap you're spewing.

I didn't ignore it. I said it sucked you had to go through that, and I meant it. Just because it doesn't change my opinion doesn't mean I ignored it. If anything, it confirms that abuse is bad, whether or not it's consensual. Susannah355 spoke at length in the Tickling vs Pain thread, about how her mother was daily abused by her father. Her mother actually told her that this was how Daddy shows his love to us. The mother was on board with it. It was CONSENSUAL. But it was abuse nonetheless.

No one held a gun to your head and forced you to read this thread. If you don't agree with it - don't read it. I happen to disagree with a lot of stuff said against Bush, so I don't even bother to enter the political forum. Why don't you just grow up and ignore this thread?

Because this is a discussion forum. If everybody always agrees with everything, there isn't much point in discussion or debate, now is there? I find this an interesting subject so until I'm banned, I intend to continue to participate, and I don't need your approval to do so, Jami.

 

[Redmage]

Secondly, even if this theory is true there's a big difference between a warning of an insect crawling in your navel, then a warning that your about to lose a limb or an organ.

Not really. The purpose of both is to alert you of impending and possibly dire harm.

What Drew can't seem to get through his head is that even though tickling and pain are part of the same warning system, it doesn't matter - because neither tickle-philes nor SM players use those systems for their evolved purposes. There's no actual threat to anyone in either SM or tickling. Both simply take advantage of evolved systems in the body to produce sensations that some people enjoy.

BDSM decouples pain from injury inasmuch as the degree of pain that can be acheived is far out of proportion to the degree of injury involved. In fact most of the time the "injury" is less than one might get from bumping into one's coffee table - and very often there is no injury involved at all.

Drew knows this. In fact he has been at great pains to point it out in the past. Back on the thread that first started this silliness Drew made a point of noting that the electrical wand I was using in a video clip did not injure the girl I was using it on. His point was to claim that I had selected that tool precisely for that reason - to avoid leaving any evidence that the girl had been "tortured."

Of course he managed to forget that he was watching a video recording when he came up with that harebrained idea, and now he's managed to forget that even he knows that BDSM is not about injury.

This is why it's so silly for Drew to keep going on about "warning that you're about to lose a limb or an organ." He's exaggerating (pain signals warn about much less serious risks than that) AND he's irrelevant all at the same time, as there is no danger to limbs or organs in BDSM.

But the biggest difference still remains unchallenged. Tickling someone even to the extreme causes no injury or damage, beyond a little difficulty breathing, and that is a result of our reactions to tickling rather than the administering of it. While milder inflictions of pain can be achieved without injury, you and Bella have both admitted that BDSM often involves cigar burns, brandings with hot iron, and back punches. Your attempt to liken such injuries to sunburn and tennis elbow is hardly supportable, bordering on laughable.

I know that I did indeed challenge this this once before, but for the record:

While we're clearing the record, it should be noted that Drew is exaggerating again (still? It's hard to keep track). We have not said that these things are "often" part of BDSM, though they occasionally are. Most people actually don't play that way.

And the analogy to sunbathing is exact. A suntan is the skin's protective response to radiation damage. Sunbathers MUST injure themselves in order to get the results they want. That is not true of BDSM. And they're risking much greater injuries, including death. All this simply for something that gives them pleasure. Yet that doesn't upset Drew for some reason.

Furthermore, burns that a willing person sustains from a branding iron or even a cigar aren't injuries. They're body modifications. There's a mighty big difference, whether those who dislike them want to see that or not.

Very true. Just like tattoos. Just like decorative scarification. Just like piercings. These are all things that "damage" the body in very carefully controlled ways in order to achieve a desired artistic effect.

Drew doesn't object to tattoos or piercings, of course. If consenting adults want to get someone to injure them in the pursuit of something that pleases them, that's their business - just as long as they have his approval.

Now this is the part where someone will say that the difference is this: back punches and brandings and such, in the BDSM context, are done for the sake of the pain, and that's what makes them wrong. Although I know this has been said before, here it is again: it's not about the pain . If it were purely about pain BDSMmer's would just stay home and stub our toes over and over and we darn sure wouldn't buy outfits just for the occasion.

Again, I can't do anything but agree. Painplay is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

I know a woman who likes having her inner thighs caned, and who waxes rhapsodic about the experience of having her labia tattooed. Yet she'll tell you straight out that she's "not into pain." Things that Drew considers painful simply aren't for her. But if she burns her lips on hot coffee it hurts her just as much as it does anyone else, and she doesn't like that a bit.

It's all a matter of context.

Again and again, we're seeing that Drew saves his bile for certain specific activities (and one specific gender) that he doesn't like very much. He's not prepared to say that women are wrong for doing the same things he condemns men for, and he's either unwilling or simply unable to see that things to which he grants his blessings have all the same qualities and justifications as things he despises. And yet he gets terribly huffy when someone calls this kind of selective self-righteousness by its proper name: hypocrisy.

 

[Ticklerguy4u]

No, I'm not telling you it's strictly a workout. They are engaging in a sport of competition, involving strength, skill, and endurance. In a boxing match both participants face each other on equal terms, radically unlike BDSM. To equate the two in an attempt to justify the one would be...let's see...how did she put it?..."insulting and hypocritical and shameful." That's it!

But it is a equal partnership..you keep looking at it as a "surface" partnership. It goes much "deeper." in retrospect. I don't expect you to understand because you never really had to. Everything is black and white to you. In a D/s relationship it has to do with understanding your submissives' desires. Not looking to exploit them. Again, I am not justifying my actions I am explaining them. I don't see the submissive as stupid..as you do..but as a woman with her own desires that she likes fufilled. Every woman fantasizes about being dominated..and those that don't like to dominate. The rest are lying about it because of shame. Let me put in another way.. Either he wears the pants in the family..or she wears the pants in the family.

My idea of servitude is two way. The man and the woman are each committed to serving the other. The master/Slave relationship is one-way servitude. Slave either serves master, or receives punishment. Oh wait, excuse me. Not punishment. I'm told they refer to it as "teaching."

Again..here we go with the one sided idealism. The slave so to speak knows the consequences..she has accepted them. And the reason why you don't have a opinion on the opposite female punishing a male is because of your pride. Then you would have to admit your own submissiveness to a woman when being tickled. I personally can not grasp why a man would subject himself to being controlled by a woman either in tickling or submission. As I said before you are welcome to explain your side in PM and I'll do the same.

By understanding that love, respect, and cherishing have dick to do with granting unhealthy requests. For example, if my wife were a recovering alcoholic, and asked me for a bottle of Vodka, I wouldn't give it to her. She's an ex-smoker, so if she asked me to get her a pack of cigarettes, I'd also say no.

Without realizing it..you are controlling her. You may say you are doing it because you love her..which is commendable..but its control. True in its form.As you look down on a dom/sub relationship...you are displaying it. You have just desribed what a BDSM relationship..the only thing you can not grasp is the "pain" given that is involved. But what it comes down is "I don't feel you are capable enough to make your own decision." Now you can argue that alcohol and smoking is destructive..granted. If the substance is controlling her then by all means step in..but if it isnt, then you are her dominant and have made the decision for her. A master/dom will do anything to their slave/sub that he knows she can not withstand. On the outside, it may look like torture..but he knows her well enough to not take it to where she is no longer enjoying it. ONLY HE KNOWS HER LIMIT..PROVIDING SHE SHARED IT, BUT SAFEWORDS ARE USED JUST IN CASE.

You'll have to show me where I've said, inferred, or implied that women are "small, little, frail weakings." I don't remember ever saying so, and I'm quite sure I don't feel that way at all. Women are far too diverse, wonderful and complex to box them into such a belittling category. Regardless of what I think about women (which barring a few exceptions, is almost always something good), the important thing to remember is, I'm not the one who gets off pounding on them. I do know the difference between reality and fantasy. Reality is that masters get off on dominating women through pain and humiliation. The fantasies expressed in this thread are almost too numerous to count, starting with that ridiculous creed, right on to the comparison of BDSM with sports.

There you go again..one-sided. You didnt have imply that you think it. I can read between the lines. You may see woman as wonderful being..but underneath you see them as fragile. or perhaps..maybe.now that i think of it..have a certain form of worship for them. And feel that anyone who defiles them in any way is personally defiling you. Perhaps you dont know yourself as well as you think. The creed isnt ridiculous, its just that..a creed. A set of rules that makes a better dom/sub. Its actually for those who dont have any clue about being passionate yet stern. Newbies so to speak.

Perhaps I will. I've made no judgements of you personally, and don't plan to. I'm not here to "put a stop" to anything. All I'm interested in is exploding these myths about pain being no different than tickling, or that it's okay for men to beat women if they like it, or that a master/Slave relationship is anything other than dysfunctional.

Again as i say..you arent thinking of pain as a "pleasure principle." I don't understand it either..which is why I am not a sub/slave. But I do understand that is a part of some people and accept it. Just like a male lee, I can't understand it but accept it. I mean, I really can't understand it. But to those that do it..more power to you.

I'll let somebody else comment on the Mistress/slave relationships, since I'm still undecided.

And why is that? Is it because a man can take more pain then a woman..if you say yes..then like I said.."women are frail and weak" thats why I think you implied it..maybe not directly and outwardly but with your indecisiveness.

 

[BellaRisa]

By understanding that love, respect, and cherishing have dick to do with granting unhealthy requests. For example, if my wife were a recovering alcoholic, and asked me for a bottle of Vodka, I wouldn't give it to her. She's an ex-smoker, so if she asked me to get her a pack of cigarettes, I'd also say no.

I think the term 'laughable' was once used in this thread...you must be kidding.

Alcoholism and smoking have been proven to cause devestating harm to people's lives. They kill people and ruin families. Properly performed BDSM activity only enhances the lives of the participants. This has also been proven, by myself and countless others. The Surgeon General has yet to speak out against velvet floggers or lexan paddles. You have yet to offer any negative aspect of BDSM that aren't hypothetical and/or opinion.

The master/Slave relationship is one-way servitude. Slave either serves master, or receives punishment. Oh wait, excuse me. Not punishment. I'm told they refer to it as "teaching.

There is nothing one sided about such relationships. A good Master works very, very hard to give his lady what she wants, and treats her like a princess out of love and devotion and pride in the gift of her submission. I know this from 7 yrs of my own experience and from that of my friends and the many, many couples in this Lifestyle that I actually *know*. Your assumptions and dispersions simply have no basis in reality.

All I'm interested in is exploding these myths about pain being no different than tickling, or that it's okay for men to beat women if they like it, or that a master/Slave relationship is anything other than dysfunctional.

I suppose it's always good to have goals, but frankly you're failing and you'll continue to fail. There will be no explosions, not even a dull pop. The similarities between tickling and pain and their common root have been explained and discussed time and again, by people who share a love of both and therefore *get* the connection, AND by several studies on the origins of laughter, defense mechanisms, tickling and pain. You have yet to offer anything other than your own opinions and your admitted lack of experience with BDSM and its nuances. And yes, we know-you don't want to know. But it's rather difficult to explode myths with no real knowledge of the subject.

I could mention the insanity of married men who've been willingly and eagerly held down and tickled by several women, with their wives nowhere to be found, having the nerve to refer to anyone else's happy relationship as dysfunctional. But I'll leave that alone 🙄 .

Bella

 

[TicklishLurker]

And why is that? Is it because a man can take more pain then a woman..if you say yes..then like I said.."women are frail and weak" thats why I think you implied it..maybe not directly and outwardly but with your indecisiveness.

Actually it's a proven fact that women have a higher pain tollerance then men. Otherwise the human race would've died out. (Childbirth, anyone? I also hear that nursing a baby can be a painful experience. And let's not forget the pain of menstral cramps. And I almost always suffer migraine headaches during PMS.) I realize Tickler you're not thinking that, but I just thought I'd point that out.

I've finally put Drew on ignore. He pulled this crap back on AMT all the time. Whenever he could he'd try to start an arguement. I had really hoped he changed. Now he seems even more into it then before. I'd just drop it, folks. You're feeding into his desires.

 

[Ticklerguy4u]

Actually it's a proven fact that women have a higher pain tollerance then men. Otherwise the human race would've died out. (Childbirth, anyone? I also hear that nursing a baby can be a painful experience. And let's not forget the pain of menstral cramps. And I almost always suffer migraine headaches during PMS.) I realize Tickler you're not thinking that, but I just thought I'd point that out.

I've finally put Drew on ignore. He pulled this crap back on AMT all the time. Whenever he could he'd try to start an arguement. I had really hoped he changed. Now he seems even more into it then before. I'd just drop it, folks. You're feeding into his desires.

Good points though.

 

[drew70]

Redmage: So, I see you're back to the pretense of ignoring me, are you? What a dilemma this must be for you. Your pride and ego say "we must ignore Drew." Yet, your insistance on discrediting everything I say about BDSM compells you to respond. So you compromise by responding to other people quoting me. This reminds me of WKRP's Les Nessman, who used to make people knock at his imaginary office door.

What Drew can't seem to get through his head is that even though tickling and pain are part of the same warning system, it doesn't matter - because neither tickle-philes nor SM players use those systems for their evolved purposes.

What Redmage can't seem to get through his head is that Drew never bought into the "tickling and pain are part of the same warning system" party line, so it never mattered to Drew in the first place. There is no evolved purpose to tickling, other than teasing and playfulness. I've been tickled all my life, and funny, it never felt like an insect to me. How many insects dig into your armpits, or massage your ribs vigorously? Pain on the other hand, still serves as the body's warning that you're being damaged in some way, and that you'd better do something about it. It's a warning that I still maintain is well heeded.

There's no actual threat to anyone in either SM or tickling. Both simply take advantage of evolved systems in the body to produce sensations that some people enjoy.

I agree that there is no actual threat to anyone in a tickling scenario. BDSM pain play is another story altogether. If somebody slips up and over-tickles you for a moment, what's the worst that can happen except an increase of the sensation. You laugh a little harder and squirm a little more enthusiastically. However if the pain giver slips up and overdoes it, some real damage can be done. Broken bones, burns, asphyxiation, damaged kidneys...need I go on? To say there is no threat in BDSM pain play is ridiculous, for obvious reasons, and I would encourage anybody to think twice about listening to anybody making such a claim.

BDSM decouples pain from injury inasmuch as the degree of pain that can be acheived is far out of proportion to the degree of injury involved. In fact most of the time the "injury" is less than one might get from bumping into one's coffee table - and very often there is no injury involved at all.

Bump into a coffee table hard enough and you can end up with a fracture. I agree not all BDSM pain play causes injury. But much of it clearly does. It's a lot of risk just to get your jollies.

Drew knows this. In fact he has been at great pains to point it out in the past. Back on the thread that first started this silliness Drew made a point of noting that the electrical wand I was using in a video clip did not injure the girl I was using it on. His point was to claim that I had selected that tool precisely for that reason - to avoid leaving any evidence that the girl had been "tortured."

Yeah, that still burns you up, I can tell. But as I said, I don't claim that all BDSM leaves visible injury.

Of course he managed to forget that he was watching a video recording when he came up with that harebrained idea, and now he's managed to forget that even he knows that BDSM is not about injury.

You've got to be kidding. That video has done more to support my arguments and justify my objections than anything else could. The other day, somebody emailed me asking, "Drew, why are you so hard on Redmage?" I responded by sending the URL link to that pain clip along with the comments, "Can you seriously say that any guy who would to THAT to a woman, then boast about it on a non-related forum...can you honestly say he deserves a break of any kind?" Her response was, "That was disgusting!" So take heart, Redmage. All kinds of people are seeing that clip. I've saved it to a DVD Rom disk and so far have sent it to five or six people I know in real life, asking their opinion. Surprisingly, not one of them said anything close to "Hey wow, that's cool!" Some of them were vividly repulsed by it. Others insisted it couldn't be real, that nobody could be that cruel, it had to be staged. So no, I haven't forgotten that clip.

This is why it's so silly for Drew to keep going on about "warning that you're about to lose a limb or an organ." He's exaggerating (pain signals warn about much less serious risks than that) AND he's irrelevant all at the same time, as there is no danger to limbs or organs in BDSM.

And now we have Chubby Checker singing "We're Gonna Twist Drew's Words Tonight!" I mentioned losing a limb or organ as EXAMPLES of the messages that pain tells us, to accurately gauge pain as a much more severe and dire sensation than tickling. It's still the number one way our body warns us we're being damaged. It's not the kind of thing that is wise to fuck with. "Hey let's set off this fire alarm cause the noise is cool and the fire engines and ambulances have pretty lights!" 🙄

While we're clearing the record, it should be noted that Drew is exaggerating again (still? It's hard to keep track). We have not said that these things are "often" part of BDSM, though they occasionally are. Most people actually don't play that way.

But YOU play that way on occasion, do you not? You said that clip of yours was pretty mild. Based on that, it sounds like you're now minimalizing how often such behavior occurs, assuming of course you have any real way of knowing how often that happens.

And the analogy to sunbathing is exact. A suntan is the skin's protective response to radiation damage. Sunbathers MUST injure themselves in order to get the results they want. That is not true of BDSM. And they're risking much greater injuries, including death. All this simply for something that gives them pleasure. Yet that doesn't upset Drew for some reason.

It doesn't upset me because a sun tan is most certainly not the response to radiation damage. SunBURN might be. But one can tan without burning. Folks, just so you know, we're talking to a guy here that says that suntan is an injury, but a cigar burn or a branding isn't. This is truly one for the books!

Furthermore, burns that a willing person sustains from a branding iron or even a cigar aren't injuries. They're body modifications. There's a mighty big difference, whether those who dislike them want to see that or not.

Very true. Just like tattoos. Just like decorative scarification. Just like piercings. These are all things that "damage" the body in very carefully controlled ways in order to achieve a desired artistic effect.

So a cigar burn is nothing but a "body modification," is it? And what do you call a punch in the back? Chiropractic Therapy? What can you say when such blatant ludicrocity is presented with a straight faced expectation of acceptance? I guess if you accidently put an eye out with that wand of yours, that's what? Lasic Surgury?

Drew doesn't object to tattoos or piercings, of course. If consenting adults want to get someone to injure them in the pursuit of something that pleases them, that's their business - just as long as they have his approval.

Nobody needs my approval for anything....(sorry, I'm still laughing uproariously at the "body modification" comment. That just might be signature material.)

Again and again, we're seeing that Drew saves his bile for certain specific activities (and one specific gender) that he doesn't like very much.

So what do you care? I'm just "spewing bile" after all. Surely nobody could take such "silliness" and "bile" seriously, could they? So why do you even bother to respond? There's a radical disparity between the low value at which you gauge my opinions versus the amount of time you invest responding to them, not to mention this ridiculous pretense of ignoring them.

He's not prepared to say that women are wrong for doing the same things he condemns men for, and he's either unwilling or simply unable to see that things to which he grants his blessings have all the same qualities and justifications as things he despises.

There's nothing to which I grant blessings that in any way shape or form compares with a man taking pleasure inflicting pain on women.

And yet he gets terribly huffy when someone calls this kind of selective self-righteousness by its proper name: hypocrisy.

I might have gotten a littly huffy the first 4 or 5 times you said it. After that, it just kind of goes in one ear and out the other.

 

[Redmage]

I'd just drop it, folks. You're feeding into his desires.

You have a point. Eventually this starts looking like feeding a troll.

 

[drew70]

The only troll-feeding going on around here is when women allow themselves to be hurt by guys who get off doing it.

 

[LindyHopper]

The only troll-feeding going on around here is when women allow themselves to be hurt by guys who get off doing it.

Because we'd rather be spanked by a man who finds the act deplorable? Whatever. 🙄

Anyway drew, I just wanted thank you for your participation in this thread - you're really brought out the best in everyone else. 😉

And speaking to everyone else - I think you've done an extraordinary job relating your attitudes and experiences, to help others understand what BDSM is really about. But at this point, I think you're sort of beating a dead horse, and since we all know that dead horses (especially female ones) can't give consent, you might want to consider leaving this discussion alone, or moving back to the original topic of this thread - what it means to be a good dom or a sub. I have trouble relating to that dynamic myself, which is one of the reasons that I enjoy reading the perspectives on this topic of people I like and respect. 🙂

Thanks everyone!

 

[siamese dream]

*giggles* Hey, I bet Hagrid could be a good tickler. It's just Snape's so much more - evil - I can imagine him being totally sadistic in tickling me. Plus he already hangs around a dungeon.

haha, girl after my own heart! 😀 I totally feel the same way 😀 read my tickling stories about him on the story board if you get a chance sometime Lurker, I really like your stories and I'd love to hear your comments on those especially after reading that! What you said about Snape is pretty much the reason why I wrote tickling stories about him 😉

 

[TicklishLurker]

what it means to be a good dom or a sub.

The latter is the part I really need work/practice with. I know I top from the bottom because I'm such a spoiled brat. I'm used to having my own way. Yet I desire to submit to another. Partly, I think, because of the fact I'm normally the one in charge. Somehow I always end up being stuck as the leader. And frankly, I hate it!

haha, girl after my own heart! 😀 I totally feel the same way 😀 read my tickling stories about him on the story board if you get a chance sometime Lurker, I really like your stories and I'd love to hear your comments on those especially after reading that! What you said about Snape is pretty much the reason why I wrote tickling stories about him 😉

LOL Well, if it's Snape with a female ticklee you can be sure I'll read it. 😉 I wish I could draw. I'd so draw a toon of Snape tickle-torturing me.

 

[isabeau]

LOL Well, if it's Snape with a female ticklee you can be sure I'll read it. 😉 I wish I could draw. I'd so draw a toon of Snape tickle-torturing me.

oo it is... i recommend siamese's stories highly. i am in love with snapes myself lolol

and getting back on topic here. i find the whole lifestyle very fascinating. and i already said everything about it before

isabeau

 

[siamese dream]

LOL Well, if it's Snape with a female ticklee you can be sure I'll read it. 😉 I wish I could draw. I'd so draw a toon of Snape tickle-torturing me.

Yes, the first two parts of the story are M/F with Snape as the ler and a female character I made up as the lee...part three is FF/F and part four will be M/F with Snape and the female lee again as soon as I finish writing it 🙂 And aww thanks Isabeau, I really appreciate your reccomendation!!

And on topic again, I agree isabeau, the bdsm lifestyle while it's not something I'm personally involved with, I always found it fascinating and being both a lee and ler, I can see the appeal in both dominant and submissive tendencies, I find it all interesting both psychologically and sexually 🙂

 

[Redmage]

I know I top from the bottom because I'm such a spoiled brat. I'm used to having my own way. Yet I desire to submit to another.

What would being a better submissive look like for you, Jami?

 

[TicklishLurker]

What would being a better submissive look like for you, Jami?

Hmm - mainly break my habit of trying to top from the bottom. Not be so whiny and needy for certain things. Not so stubborn. That's just in the bedroom. Outside of it I'd like to be more self confident, not so childish, and a little less shy.

 

[isabeau]

Hmm - mainly break my habit of trying to top from the bottom. Not be so whiny and needy for certain things. Not so stubborn. That's just in the bedroom. Outside of it I'd like to be more self confident, not so childish, and a little less shy.

so thats what is topping from the bottom? interesting.... i'm rather stubborn and not as self confident as i would wish. i dont think i am whiney however. but being needy is probably something we all possess, at least to a degree. back when i used to visit the bondage chatroom, there were online Doms who would tell me i seemed to be a natural born submissive. but i can be childish also at times. and in person? i'm a bit shy, although working on that and seem to be getting past that to a degree...

isabeau

 

[isabeau]

i'm not sure i have the qualities to top from the bottom.. i am confused still about what it means. forgive my ignorance. the lifestyle was just recently discovered by me late last spring. and to let you know how ignorant i was of the lifestyle, in my profile on bondage.com i put switch, thinking it meant sexual positions.... ok laugh if you wish, its funny now. however when i first ventured into their chatroom i soon learned my mistake.

isabeau

 

[Redmage]

so thats what is topping from the bottom? interesting.... i'm rather stubborn and not as self confident as i would wish.

Topping from the bottom is a little hard to define. A lot of people say "I know it when I see it." But basically it's anything that involves trying to "take control" when, in theory, you aren't supposed to have it. For example it might be complaining until you get your way, or pushing a top's buttons to manipulate him or her into doing something (for example, acting like a brat in order to get a spanking). Or it might be as simple as just refusing to surrender that part of yourself that feels like "submitting" to you and your top.

One reason it's so hard to pin down is because many of the same behaviors are fine in different contexts. For example one of my favorite 'lees has no hesitation about letting her 'lers know when something isn't working for her. It's fine when she does it, because the people who play with her know going in that she's not a submissive bottom - she's not "breaking the deal" with the top, you might say.

Essentially topping from the bottom comes down to agreeing to a certain sort of dynamic, then doing something else.

Hmm - mainly break my habit of trying to top from the bottom. Not be so whiny and needy for certain things. Not so stubborn.

I think the key there is trusting your top. It's fine to ask for something you want - most tops love that in fact. Where you might be stepping outside the dynamic is not trusting your top to give you what you've asked for...eventually.

Or there may be times when a top just decides not to do what you've asked. It might not fit with the scene that he or she has in mind, or it might be something held in reserve as a special reward, or there might be any of several other reasons. Trust is a factor there as well: trusting that the top is not simply being capricious or mean, but is making a decision that he or she believes will ultimately enhance the scene for both of you.

Of course, tops CAN be wrong. If your top's decisions really aren't working for you, then it's not topping from the bottom to say so. Usually it's best to do that during aftercare or before your next scene (unless it's an urgent matter, of course). A good top is willing to take feedback like that.

Ultimately it all comes down to judgment: you need to decide what's REALLY important to you and make sure that your top knows about that. Then try to let go and trust your top to take care of you, while still keeping your wits about you enough to let him or her know when there's something that needs to be changed, either right at that moment, or the next time you play.

That's just in the bedroom. Outside of it I'd like to be more self confident, not so childish, and a little less shy.

There, I think, you need to trust yourself a little more, and trust that the people around you are being honest with you. Easier said than done, I know, but perhaps a bit easier to do once it is said.

 

[TicklishLurker]

Well, in my opinion I top from the bottom. Trying to get my way cause that's what I'm used to. As the only girl out of 4 kids and the youngest I'm rather spoiled. Now weather Red sees it that way, I don't know.

I know there's certain things besides tickling I like and would rather do. I'd rather give/recieve oral sex rather then intercourse, for instance. Of course until Red figured out I was allergic to latex actual intercourse was very painful for me. (Another area where Red is smarter then the adverage man. He put two and two together and realized I had a latex allergy. Whereas the gynocologist was blaming me - saying I had given myself vaginitis from too many bubble baths and it was all my fault I couldn't have normal intercourse. He also didn't believe me during my first exam when I told him I was a virgin.... you ladies can imagine what happened.) So I think I try to get/give oral rather then be penatrated.

Of course, some of it is just that I want to try something SO bad I'll whine and plead till I get my way. Like trying a rack - and someday I hope to be put in stocks. (Please oh please! I want to try stocks! In a room full of ticklers!)

I think the key there is trusting your top. It's fine to ask for something you want - most tops love that in fact. Where you might be stepping outside the dynamic is not trusting your top to give you what you've asked for...eventually.

Ah - but Red, techincally, you're still the only Top I ever had. There were a couple other guys who tied me up, but strictly for tickling and no sex was involved. I haven't been spanked or anything of that nature since the last time we were together. And it wasn't that I never trusted you, it was that I really wanted to experiment - still do - with things and I was impaitent to try them. Still am. Especially the stocks. More then anything I want to be locked in stocks, my arms tied up above my head, blindfolded, with a sign nearby inviting people to tickle me. I always trusted you, I was just longing to try new things that before I only read about!

 

[Redmage]

Well, in my opinion I top from the bottom....Now weather Red sees it that way, I don't know.

Hmm. I'd say you have moments when you're a bit finicky. Other times though you're very subby.

However if there's a change that you want to make, I'm not going to say you shouldn't. I'd just want you to move toward what you want to be, and not toward what you think you should be.

I know there's certain things besides tickling I like and would rather do. I'd rather give/recieve oral sex rather then intercourse, for instance.

Well, you won't find many men who will complain about that preference. 🙂 And that is the sort of thing that I think of as a preference - something that you should let a top know about during negotiation. I don't think that intercourse is a limit for you (at least not with urethane condoms rather than latex). But even if it is, it's never topping from the bottom to inform a top about limits and to expect him or her to respect them.

Of course, some of it is just that I want to try something SO bad I'll whine and plead till I get my way. Like trying a rack - and someday I hope to be put in stocks. (Please oh please! I want to try stocks! In a room full of ticklers!)

With something like that I think it's usually enough to let a top know that you really, really want a particular thing, and then let it go. It might take a while (racks and stocks aren't everyday household items), but most tops enjoy working out ways to give a bottom a special treat.

 

[TicklishLurker]

With something like that I think it's usually enough to let a top know that you really, really want a particular thing, and then let it go. It might take a while (racks and stocks aren't everyday household items), but most tops enjoy working out ways to give a bottom a special treat.

Well, I'm letting anyone who wants to be my Top someday -

I WANT TO BE LOCKED IN STOCKS! With all my ticklish spots exposed all helpless....

I'd also like to have a violet wand used on me in play situations. I've had it used as part of a demonstration in a class when I was in college, now I'd like to try it in play. Too bad the thing is so blasted expensive.

 

[Ticklerguy4u]

The easiest way I can put toping from bottom is when a submissive tells the dominant as opposed to asking it. Everything else pretty much falls underneath that. Just think of it as being polite on a daily basis.