quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sammy7626

CreativeDominant: [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.]--

I understand.  But all I was attempting to point out, is that, much like the most common line of thought is that BDSM is sexual in nature, there are still possibilities, albeit less common in occurance, that are none the less, non-sexual.  I'm not personally saying that *all* bdsm activities can be made non-sexual, I might be naive, but I'm not stupid.  All I was saying was that some of them can be, and was responding to the initial post which implied that *none* of them were or could be made, non-sexual in nature.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
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.

Thank you for so eloquently explaining just a few of the many reasons I have such a hard time viewing bdsm as a non-sexual activity. You said it so much better than I could. (walks away wondering if the consumption of Rocky Mountain Oysters improves literary skill)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainsandFreedom

early tonight my Madame and I were browsing this thread and she pointed out that in the past she'd never met a service submissive who didn't get off in some way serving her. Going to have to differ to Creative Dominant's logic here but apply it to DS not SM....if you don't get off on it sexually, why do it? wouldn't you find it more fulfilling volenteering with an afterschool program, or trail maintenance, or whatever? why would you clean the toilet of some able-bodied but sexy person instead of a senior citizen who can't do it themself? if it isn't about sexual gratification at least in some way, wouldn't people maximize their gratification by maximizing their service in less personal, and more benifical manner than doing someone elses chores? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressSassy66
To say anytime away from a family is cheating means that a wife going by herself to get nails/hair done could be cheating,shes away from the family.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

I don't see the high morality, utility, or desirability of the serial monogamy you purport here. Better to give people latitude and understanding, two important elements in any loving, LT relationship.

Latitude and understanding create an atmosphere where honesty can succeed, whereas hardline positions and declarations foster deceit as a non conformists's more likely first option.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant



But you do not participate in BDSM activities alone. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: LordVelvet

As long as you're not hiding anything then no it isn't cheating. It you are hiding it or lying about it then it is. Just My thoughts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainsandFreedom

twice I've randomly asked in a discussion for a definition of a term

twice LuckyAlbatross has been first to give me a reply

its like she's the collarme version of google or something

thanx