RE: Bdsm w/out sex, cheating?

RE: Bdsm w/out sex, cheating? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

mistoferin -> RE: Bdsm w/out sex, cheating? (8/30/2007 12:04:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissIsis Is it really considered cheating if someone is married & they seek out a dominant for bdsm activities only, & exclude sexual contact? I really can't get beyond this question. By it's very definitions, bdsm IS sexual.

LightHeartedMaam -> RE: Bdsm w/out sex, cheating? (8/30/2007 12:21:19 PM)
Actually, you can make ANY activity sexual~ "Honey, I'm going out to the Lanes with the boys. I hear they have some new balls and George has one. I want to heft it a bit to see it perform". (sorry, I just felt the need for some comic relief) (edited because after using the spell check and proofing this myself for 5 minutrs, there STILL was a typo)

CreativeDominant -> RE: Bdsm w/out sex, cheating? (8/30/2007 12:22:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissIsis Thanks everyone. I really just wanted to get a discussion going. There is a great deal in the way of food for thought here from everyone's reply. If it is so hard to get a concrete answer, of which everyone agrees on, and the definition of cheating, is as I said, subjective to the parties involved, do any of us, except those directly involved, really have a right to judge what is going on with others, who have nothing to do with us, nor who will ever be a part of our lives? Open & honest communication, before entering into a relationship, regarding these types of matters might go a very long way in avoiding some of the misunderstandings that can often become part of relationships falling apart. It would be great if we could all step back now & then, especially when we are feeling that new "love" & all the feelings that go along with it, & discuss those things, including this topic, which really matter to us. Equally, it would be nice, if those we become involved with, would respect these issues that matter to us, & step aside if they know their situations can't meet our needs & desires. My hats off to all who can maintain this kind of integrity in each of their lives. Agreed...communication before the fact and agreement about what can and cannot occur between your significant other and other people goes a long way towards avoiding misunderstanding. As to the first part of your answer, I still return to my original thoughts...I look at a relationship like KOM's with his girls...alendra, kyra, denika...and do not consider it cheating as everything is open and aboveboard. I can look at my own involvement with the married woman who was my submissive and know that her husband knew that she was submissive to me and, as Lady Pact noted, no BDSM/sexual activities went on in that relationship...the D/s one between her and I... in terms of what was done and not done that each one of the 3 of us did not know about. Now...certain aspects such as discussions about matters relating to them or matters relating to her and I as dominant and submissive, no...I did not care to involve myself in the day to day of their marriage and he did not care to involve himself in the day to day of hers and my D/s relationship. On mutual agreement between the three of us. We have seen dominants on here who encourage their submissives to play with others and the dominants also play...with full knowledge of all involved. So, as Lady Pact said in her post, as I and others stated in differing ways in our posts...it is more the deception of the significant other that constitutes cheating, not the act itself. This is why the hubby's time spent on sports is not cheating...the time away from the family and/or her, if it is creating a rift in the relationship, is the problem...not deception (she knows where he is) and not the act (he is not involving himself in an emotional and/or sexually intimate way with another).

mistoferin -> RE: Bdsm w/out sex, cheating? (8/30/2007 12:24:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LightHeartedMaam Actually, you can make ANY activity sexual~ This is true....but you can't make bdsm non-sexual.

MissIsis -> RE: Bdsm w/out sex, cheating? (8/30/2007 12:46:48 PM)
Actually, I have used bdsm as a form of pain control. I have also had submissives whom I have never touched in a sexual manner. It really can be done. The statement that bdsm can't be done in a non-sexual manner reminds me of a time I was looking for a roommate. One man called in response to my ad. Although, I told him in the most clear manner possible, he couldn't comprehend that when I said there would never be any sex between us, or between me & any male roommate I might have. He kept saying, "What if?" There really are those of us who can say it will never happen. I am almost a half century old. I determined years ago, that sexual relationship, or anything hinting of a sexual relationship would never happen between me or a roommate. It has not happened ever, nor will it. The same can be said by me, that bdsm does not always have to be sexual. Maybe that isn't true for all of us, but for me, it surely can be.

CuriousLord -> RE: Bdsm w/out sex, cheating? (8/30/2007 12:47:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissIsis I will refrain from giving my own opinions, and I know this is subjective. I really just want to get a discussion going. Is it really considered cheating if someone is married & they seek out a dominant for bdsm activities only, & exclude sexual contact? After all, it isn't considered cheating if someone gets their nails done by someone other than their SO, or a pedicure, which can be quite intimate, or finding a tennis partner other than their SO? Wouldn't receiving bdsm activities be along the lines of receiving a service sometimes? The monogamous relationship contract (which I'm assuming, or else you wouldn't even be concerned about cheating in the first place) typically implies sexual and/or deep emotional urges to be shared exclusively with the partner. Violating this clause is the typical definition of "cheating". (i.e., "(sexual) cheating", "emotional cheating", etc.). So, yes, this is typically considered cheating. But, more to the point, if it's something you feel you can't openly tell your partner, you're being deceitful, which is also against the contract of a relationship.

willowspirit -> RE: Bdsm w/out sex, cheating? (8/30/2007 1:00:18 PM)
Of course bdsm activities can be completely non-sexual! Saying otherwise is just plain silly! Think of true punishments. Think of obedience to an order like cleaning the toilet. Think of participation in a kink that isn't your own but IS your partner's. 24/7 daily activities in a M/s relationship. Doing Master's taxes.... The response in the box below is closer to being right if you frame it into the Bondage and Sado-masochism realms. But even then.... Goodness... I've been flogged into a blissful headspace, without any emotional connection to the Top, which was absolutely NON-sexual. The space was restful and dreamy. I felt cared for and peaceful and safe. My connection was to the Dominant who allowed it -- a Man almost 2000 miles away. One of the great things about the human mind is that we can use it to make any activity sexual, OR make any activity non-sexual. Context and choices influence everything. Going for a massage. Or to the doctor for a pap smear. Medical traction. Having a dental dam put in your mouth. In one setting all these things could become erotic. In other settings NOT. All that matters is where the person's head is at. (granted "heads" can be turned...) Ye gads... Even hookers can make SEX non-sexual! quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin quote: ORIGINAL: LightHeartedMaam Actually, you can make ANY activity sexual~ This is true....but you can't make bdsm non-sexual.

sammy7626 -> RE: Bdsm w/out sex, cheating? (8/30/2007 1:01:40 PM)
Why couldn't BDSM be non-sexual? What about service oriented submissives? One's who serve master's that have nothing to do with sex in the commission of their services (like cleaning maid, gopher, typist, organizer, secretary, butler)? If they choose to identify as a Master and servant/slave, yet there is no sexual contact, nor any desire for sexual contact, does that mean that they are not "true" practitioners of BDSM? What about spiritual BDSM? Acts done, not for sexual purposes, but for spiritual ones?

cloudboy -> RE: Bdsm w/out sex, cheating? (8/30/2007 1:47:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross One intimate relationship at a time. Literal monogamy is one relationship, forever, period. Most people these days tend to practice serial monogamy. Yes. The serial monogamist generally has a series of short term relationships. Back in the day, Knight of Mists and I wondered if this could really qualify as monogamy or as some kind of altered form of poly (the inability to find everything in one person.) We both agreed that the serial monogamist was less than fully qualified to talk about the virtues and delights of lifelong monogamy. A polyamorous person like LA, might more likely have a LTR (7+ years) than a serial monogamist would. The "failed" lifelong monogamist can be quite the bitter, judgmental item.

cloudboy -> RE: Bdsm w/out sex, cheating? (8/30/2007 1:57:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistressSassy66 I hear quite a few wives complain that their husband is out playing sports and not at home Why do you think certain wives feel this way. Is it overdependence? Resentment? In my experience, the wives who feel this way tend not to have their own interests, friends, and hobbies to pursue --- in the end they end up expecting too much out of their husbands. About 20% of my guy friends are in man-hell. I don't envy them at all.

Carrianna -> RE: Bdsm w/out sex, cheating? (8/30/2007 2:13:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissIsis I will refrain from giving my own opinions, and I know this is subjective. I really just want to get a discussion going. Is it really considered cheating if someone is married & they seek out a dominant for bdsm activities only, & exclude sexual contact? After all, it isn't considered cheating if someone gets their nails done by someone other than their SO, or a pedicure, which can be quite intimate, or finding a tennis partner other than their SO? Wouldn't receiving bdsm activities be along the lines of receiving a service sometimes? I pay to get my nails done, so no, I dont think it cheating if I find someone else to pay. I am into bondage by choice and do it for fun, it is my hobby, so I choose who I tie up, I personaly dont tie up married men, well I try my best to be honest as I expect them to be. But if people are honest and the partner knows then I personaly dont see a problem, but then again I dont see a marriage. Just my own personal views...

LotusSong -> RE: Bdsm w/out sex, cheating? (8/30/2007 2:24:10 PM)
This is an interesting question; one filled with double standards :) Please bear with me as I attempt to explain: Here's how I break it down: Married Male Dom with any female (be she Married or not) Not the best combination and almost aways ends up a threat to the Dom's marriage as well as heart beak for the submissive as it's a dead-end deal and a time waster. Married Domme with an Unmarried submissive: see above. Guy Doms eventually want to fuck the submissive.. no? The Femdommes enjoy the power (not to say there aren't some horn dogs in our gender as well) :) What's really troublesome for married submissives is that they are giving a part of them that they promised to their husband to another man to play with. It eventually works on the husband's ego and pride and causes trouble. Married Domme with Married submissive: Can be platonic but you are still playing with the guys naughty bits. Unmarried Domme with Unmarried Submissive: face it- this will eventually be a courtship domination with marriage or some kind of permanency in mind. Just be prepared. Many times the intensity of the dominance slowly ebbs away as the ring is placed on their fingers. This is just my observation. No matter which way it goes it's tricky to keep everybody happy.

mistoferin -> RE: Bdsm w/out sex, cheating? (8/30/2007 2:37:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sammy7626 Why couldn't BDSM be non-sexual? Bondage Discipline Sadism Masochism Sadism- The term sadism in its classic and clinical sense refers to the sexual pleasure and gratification derived from inflicting pain and suffering on another person. Masochism- The ability to derive sexual satisfaction from physical or emotional pain. Submission and dominance are seperate things from BDSM. So is service. I know of many D/s and even M/s couples who do not incorporate bdsm in their relationships. BDSM is not a relationship style or a lifestyle....it is actions. I don't view it from the perspective of what the acronym BDSM has morphed into over the years, as I know many people now do. I view it from what the original meaning of it was. Bondage, Discipline, Sadism, Masochism....with no inclusion of dominance or submission. Actions. So in that definition, if they can not derive sexual gratification from those actions....then no, they are not sadistic and masochistic. And also in that definition...one can not remove the sexual aspect of BDSM.

sammy7626 -> RE: Bdsm w/out sex, cheating? (8/30/2007 2:55:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin quote: ORIGINAL: sammy7626 Why couldn't BDSM be non-sexual? Bondage Discipline Sadism Masochism Sadism- The term sadism in its classic and clinical sense refers to the sexual pleasure and gratification derived from inflicting pain and suffering on another person. Masochism- The ability to derive sexual satisfaction from physical or emotional pain. Submission and dominance are seperate things from BDSM. So is service. I know of many D/s and even M/s couples who do not incorporate bdsm in their relationships. BDSM is not a relationship style or a lifestyle....it is actions. I don't view it from the perspective of what the acronym BDSM has morphed into over the years, as I know many people now do. I view it from what the original meaning of it was. Bondage, Discipline, Sadism, Masochism....with no inclusion of dominance or submission. Actions. So in that definition, if they can not derive sexual gratification from those actions....then no, they are not sadistic and masochistic. And also in that definition...one can not remove the sexual aspect of BDSM. Ok...but according to Mirriam Webster... Main Entry: sa·dism [image]http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif[/image] Pronunciation: 'sA-"di-z&m, 'sa- Function: noun Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary, from Marquis de Sade 1 : a sexual perversion in which gratification is obtained by the infliction of physical or mental pain on others (as on a love object) -- compare MASOCHISM 2 a : delight in cruelty b : excessive cruelty and Main Entry: mas·och·ism [image]http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif[/image] [image]http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif[/image] Pronunciation: 'ma-s&-"ki-z&m, 'ma-z&- also 'mA- Function: noun Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary, from Leopold von Sacher-Masoch died 1895 German novelist 1 : a sexual perversion characterized by pleasure in being subjected to pain or humiliation especially by a love object -- compare SADISM 2 : pleasure in being abused or dominated : a taste for suffering If you look at definition 2a in each of those, it is entirely possible...take the following example from my own personal experience... I had a ritual to attend, because of some stress going on at home with the UMs, I was unable to focus and concentrate on the upcoming ritual. I'm a masochist. I use pain as both a means of spiritual flight, as well as something that can ground me and provide release of stress. A friend of mine, and fellow participant in said ritual, is a sadist. Between the two of us, we went out, she tied me to a tree and flogged me until I could release the stress and tension. Bondage, Sadism, Masochism...possibly a hint of spiritual Dominance, but that's a bit blurry. Even so, it wasn't remotely sexual, and yet included at least 3 of the 4 aspects of BDSM. Yes, Sadism and Masochism both were traditionally thought of as sexual in nature, but they don't always have to be. Edited to add-- Also, I always thought of the abbreviations as Bondage Domination/Discipline Sadism/Submission and Masochism. So depending on which combination you used...its still not really all that sexual on its face.

mistoferin -> RE: Bdsm w/out sex, cheating? (8/30/2007 3:05:31 PM)
As I said, in your definition or the one you choose to use....not in mine. Also, in the original definitions of bdsm, domination and submission were not included....neither were bondage and discipline for that matter....it was simply S&M. So going by those original definitions, as I (and a great many other people) do, it is impossible for bdsm to be non-sexual.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Bdsm w/out sex, cheating? (8/30/2007 3:37:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissIsis Actually, I have used bdsm as a form of pain control. I have also had submissives whom I have never touched in a sexual manner. It really can be done. The statement that bdsm can't be done in a non-sexual manner reminds me of a time I was looking for a roommate. One man called in response to my ad. Although, I told him in the most clear manner possible, he couldn't comprehend that when I said there would never be any sex between us, or between me & any male roommate I might have. He kept saying, "What if?" There really are those of us who can say it will never happen. I am almost a half century old. I determined years ago, that sexual relationship, or anything hinting of a sexual relationship would never happen between me or a roommate. It has not happened ever, nor will it. The same can be said by me, that bdsm does not always have to be sexual. Maybe that isn't true for all of us, but for me, it surely can be. That may well be true for you. I am not sure that I buy it but I do know that some studies state that some people...a relative few...are able to disconnect from the same feelings that the same play engenders in others. But you do not participate in BDSM activities alone. If you are on the receiving end, someone will be tying you up or flogging you or whipping you or suspending you or setting fire to you or whatever is going to happen...the chances of that person being a top who can also do so with no sexual enjoyment or arousal on his part are rather slim, don't you think? Then, there is the whole idea of the amount of clothing you will be wearing while this is going on...are you going to be bare-assed for spanking? Are you going to be nude from the waist up only for breast torture? Are you going to be fully clothed while all these activities are done to you? I know it is possible for a submissive to be fully clothed and engage in some forms of BDSM play but certainly not all. Then...there comes some questions I have always wondered about. Like mist, I believe that BDSM activities involve some degree of sexual arousal, whether it be slight or huge. I have engaged in play that only left me mildly aroused sexually but that fulfilled many other aspects of my character as a dominant and as a human. I have yet to engage in BDSM play that did not cause sexual arousal. As noted by mist and discussed numerous times on these boards that arousal, by definition, is what sadism (the infliction of sensation) and masochism (the reception of sensation) are most commonly defined as: 2 areas pf human interaction that involve either the giving or receiving of sensation, usually pain, to heighten sexual arousal or to bring about sexual satisfaction. I know there are those who state that BDSM activities give them no sexual satisfaction...the pleasure comes from serving the dominant in a manner that pleases the dominant. I can understand that up to a point but, if the only pleasure that the dominant gets is in having the submissive readily acquiesce to his play and no pleasure from the play itself, then why the BDSM activities? If the submissive gets pleasure only from the aspect of serving her dominant and there is no sexual satisfaction being derived by either partner...the only pleasure is in serving/being served...then why the need for BDSM activities? Surely there are other areas in which the submissive can acquiesce that do not involve play? That invoke the pleasure of serving/being served? And...if there are no activities that garnish the same pleasure from serving/being served as these two and yet, the pleasure being derived has no sexual component, then what makes this different? Heightened spiritual arousal? Heightened mental arousal? Heightened connection between submissive and dominant from the heightened spiritual and mental and emotional but non-sexual arousal? But...if there is that heightened spiritual/mental/emotional arousal shared with another person not your partner...an intimate connection in other words...and your partner is not aware and you know that your partner would not be pleased and this is why they are not aware, then is not deception occurring? And is that not cheating, even without the sexual arousal? As previously discussed, when it comes down to it...it is the need to hide the activity and the deception that occurs that most consider to be the principal factor in cheating, not necessarily the act itself.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Bdsm w/out sex, cheating? (8/30/2007 3:42:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sammy7626 quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin quote: ORIGINAL: sammy7626 Why couldn't BDSM be non-sexual? Bondage Discipline Sadism Masochism Sadism- The term sadism in its classic and clinical sense refers to the sexual pleasure and gratification derived from inflicting pain and suffering on another person. Masochism- The ability to derive sexual satisfaction from physical or emotional pain. Submission and dominance are seperate things from BDSM. So is service. I know of many D/s and even M/s couples who do not incorporate bdsm in their relationships. BDSM is not a relationship style or a lifestyle....it is actions. I don't view it from the perspective of what the acronym BDSM has morphed into over the years, as I know many people now do. I view it from what the original meaning of it was. Bondage, Discipline, Sadism, Masochism....with no inclusion of dominance or submission. Actions. So in that definition, if they can not derive sexual gratification from those actions....then no, they are not sadistic and masochistic. And also in that definition...one can not remove the sexual aspect of BDSM. Ok...but according to Mirriam Webster... Main Entry: sa·dism [image]http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif[/image] Pronunciation: 'sA-"di-z&m, 'sa- Function: noun Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary, from Marquis de Sade 1 : a sexual perversion in which gratification is obtained by the infliction of physical or mental pain on others (as on a love object) -- compare MASOCHISM 2 a : delight in cruelty b : excessive cruelty and Main Entry: mas·och·ism [image]http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif[/image] [image]http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif[/image] Pronunciation: 'ma-s&-"ki-z&m, 'ma-z&- also 'mA- Function: noun Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary, from Leopold von Sacher-Masoch died 1895 German novelist 1 : a sexual perversion characterized by pleasure in being subjected to pain or humiliation especially by a love object -- compare SADISM 2 : pleasure in being abused or dominated : a taste for suffering If you look at definition 2a in each of those, it is entirely possible...take the following example from my own personal experience... I had a ritual to attend, because of some stress going on at home with the UMs, I was unable to focus and concentrate on the upcoming ritual. I'm a masochist. I use pain as both a means of spiritual flight, as well as something that can ground me and provide release of stress. A friend of mine, and fellow participant in said ritual, is a sadist. Between the two of us, we went out, she tied me to a tree and flogged me until I could release the stress and tension. Bondage, Sadism, Masochism...possibly a hint of spiritual Dominance, but that's a bit blurry. Even so, it wasn't remotely sexual, and yet included at least 3 of the 4 aspects of BDSM. Yes, Sadism and Masochism both were traditionally thought of as sexual in nature, but they don't always have to be. Edited to add-- Also, I always thought of the abbreviations as Bondage Domination/Discipline Sadism/Submission and Masochism. So depending on which combination you used...its still not really all that sexual on its face. As mist noted, the definition you pick to use is the 2a...not the most common definition. The most common definition and the one first thought of when the word is used...as according to most dictionary's rules of grammar is definition 1. This holds true for all words in the dictionary.

ExSteelAgain -> RE: Bdsm w/out sex, cheating? (8/30/2007 4:02:37 PM)
If you can go over to a woman's house and flog her with her husband around, it is not cheating. If you are flogging a naked woman without her husband's knowledge and he walks in, if no one else, he is damn sure going to call it cheating.

LotusSong -> RE: Bdsm w/out sex, cheating? (8/30/2007 4:10:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ExSteelAgain If you can go over to a woman's house and flog her with her husband around, it is not cheating. If you are flogging a naked woman without her husband's knowledge and he walks in, if no one else, he is damn sure going to call it cheating. Your senario reminds me of a Larry the Cable Guy quote: "Gun's don't kill people, husbands coming home early kill people".

ExSteelAgain -> RE: Bdsm w/out sex, cheating? (8/30/2007 4:16:39 PM)
Rule number one, clear the closet out ahead of time so you can hide in it if necessary. Rule number two, have her pick you up at the grocery store parking lot down the road. I should publish a manual.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625