RE: a follow up on non-sexual bdsm

RE: a follow up on non-sexual bdsm (Full Version)

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

Message

Coupleofwhats -> RE: a follow up on non-sexual bdsm (10/8/2008 3:14:38 PM)
I think all BDSM is sexual in that... it's sexy. But just because I tie someone up doesn't mean I'll have sex (oral/anal/vaginal/manual/whatever) with them. If someone performs service for me and isn't turned on by the idea of pleasing me through their actions... well, I can't say that I understand what that's about. I mean, even when I do things to my submissive that he doesn't like, he likes that he's making me happy, which turns him on.

littlewonder -> RE: a follow up on non-sexual bdsm (10/8/2008 3:59:13 PM)
When I talk about nonsexual bdsm, for me it means no sexual contact, no thoughts of sex, I'm not doing it to get wet or for some kind of sexual response. It's about the service and control because that's what I feel comfortable with in a relationship. It's about feeling secure, safe, intimate, protected, being of use, etc...not about how wet it makes my panties..many times it doesn't but yet it's still enjoyable for me on a deeper level mentally and emotionally.

CdnExplorer -> RE: a follow up on non-sexual bdsm (10/8/2008 4:01:13 PM)
When I'm at a party being beaten, tied up in painful ways or whatever...no I don't get aroused. When I'm submitting to someone who I have a relationship with then I can and do get aroused from play, though not all the time. Control is my kink, which in and of itself is not sexual. If my top gets turned on by what she's doing to me and takes things in a sexual direction then I'm rather likely to become aroused. It's not automatic though.

lemmebeYourMine -> RE: a follow up on non-sexual bdsm (10/8/2008 9:19:10 PM)
CdnExplorer, if I am being beaten, I will be aroused. I guess that's just a difference in how we are wired. I love spankings it makes me very wet. (though I have to admit here,I haven't experienced being truly beaten.) I guess when I think of being at a party beaten, tied up, and what not though, I think of being with an S.O. I don't NOT play with strangers, but Not without a Trusted Dom, guiding and watching. So that helps with the arousal issues, huh? I couldn't enjoy the kink, if it didn't arouse me (I think). I do on the other hand totally get the service aspects. I am not sure that I would offer to clean someone's house for them, blegh. But when it comes to pleasing people, there's a completely unsexual level of satisfaction in that. I just don't consider that part of bdsm, or hadn't before. I think of it as part of my submissive nature, eager to please people, but the services and affectionate things I do for them, like wash their laundry so they don't have too; I have always placed on the affectionate and vanilla side of things. I do it because it needs done and saves them some work. Especially if the case is either they are employed and I not, or they work longer hours, or it's my day off, while they went in to work.

stella41b -> RE: a follow up on non-sexual bdsm (10/8/2008 9:38:43 PM)
Non-sexual BDSM = BDSM without pricks and pussies

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: a follow up on non-sexual bdsm (10/8/2008 9:50:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dangerousangel What do you mean when you say non-sexual BDSM? Do you mean without the sex act? Without any sexual response? Without sexual desire? For me it means no sexual intent or what I define as sexual contact (and I include kissing) quote: If the top or bottom responds sexually to a non-sexual act (beating, housework, whatever) is that sexual or non-sexual BDSM? Sexual, for them. Responses can be random however, not necessarily planned for. If there is an unexpected sexual response to something, you either ignore it and move on, or you go for it anyway.

ExSteelAgain -> RE: a follow up on non-sexual bdsm (10/9/2008 2:01:16 AM)
I’m going to turn this around somewhat. Yesterday, I read the other thread and was thinking about it when I happened upon a chatroom. A submissive in there made the point that she had sex with very few that she played with. The line actually came out that she was no slut. There were a few comments saying good for her, etc. Now here is where I have a question. If we believe bdsm play is a very intimate activity, why are we so ready to distance someone who plays with many from someone who has sex with many? Many will argue that play is more powerful and important that sex. Maybe they are right. Many, but not all, admit to being sexually aroused by play. Most describe it as bonding of people around an energy flow. I’m not criticizing anyone for having sex with many or for playing with many, but I’m trying to make a philosophical point. Matter of fact for me, I would be far more likely to have casual sex with someone without the play even if she was openly into bdsm. I find playing much more personal than sex and wouldn’t do it unless I had a great connection with the woman. So I think I go against the grain in many ways. Instead of no sex bdsm play, I’m much more likely to say no bdsm with the sex until I feel a relationship bond.

dangerousangel -> RE: a follow up on non-sexual bdsm (10/9/2008 9:13:27 AM)
Thank you all for answering this. I admit, I'm still having a hard time undersatning, but that's -only- because I'm learning that for me, sex and BDSM appear to be inextricably linked. Even in situations where I'm bottoming without submitting, there is always some kind of sexual response for me. I think I maybe need to look at elements I don't consider all the time. That is, making dinner every night doesn't get me hot. It's just part of my job. Keeping the house neat often annoys me, again, part of my job. So I suppose that could be defined as non-sexual BDSM. I think the disconnect is in that I can't imagine a relationship where that was -all- there was too it, where I did just those things, without ever having the feeling that I was in service of some type or another. And the feelig of being in service will inevitably produce a sexual response. This is really really really interesting! Though it's hard to watch this kind of disucssion without somehow feeling less highly evolved.

dangerousangel -> RE: a follow up on non-sexual bdsm (10/9/2008 9:18:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ExSteelAgain Now here is where I have a question. If we believe bdsm play is a very intimate activity, why are we so ready to distance someone who plays with many from someone who has sex with many? Many will argue that play is more powerful and important that sex. Maybe they are right. Matter of fact for me, I would be far more likely to have casual sex with someone without the play even if she was openly into bdsm. I find playing much more personal than sex and wouldn’t do it unless I had a great connection with the woman. So I think I go against the grain in many ways. Instead of no sex bdsm play, I’m much more likely to say no bdsm with the sex until I feel a relationship bond. I am much more likely to have sex with someone I've played with then someone I haven't. If I play with someone, the bonds already been formed, and I'm pretty darn likely to want to sleep with them (if the Partner's into that). Again, though, sex is fairly tied to my play. If I am playing with someone, there's a good chance theyv'e been approved for any and all types of sexual contact with me. I actually don't undersand having sex with someone you -haven't- played with. How do you know if you're compatable? (I've not had that many totally vanilla relationships, ever, and I don't seek them out) I've wondered about the sex/play thing too. Many people assert play is "deeper than sex" yet they're seldom, if ever, criticized for playing with many. The fact that I've slept with all my play partners save one has brought me in for more flak, because I guess it makes me slutty. The fact that I don't play casually doesn't come up. I wonder what makes many put "pure s&m" on such a pedistal, while not applying the same standards to individuals who play with a great number that we do to those who sleep with a great number. (Disclaimer: I don't think play is deeper than sex. I don't think sex is deeper than play. I think it comes down to personal connection. I also have no problem with people who play with/sleep with great numbers of people as long as everyone invovled consents and they have safer sex.)

subtee -> RE: a follow up on non-sexual bdsm (10/9/2008 9:23:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dangerousangel [snip] I think the disconnect is in that I can't imagine a relationship where that was -all- there was too it, where I did just those things, without ever having the feeling that I was in service of some type or another. Do you need to imagine it for some reason? I can't imagine having a penis - not really, but it doesn't interfere with my day. quote: Though it's hard to watch this kind of disucssion without somehow feeling less highly evolved. This I don't understand at all, less even than having a penis. Why do you judge or rank them, one more evolved than another?

dangerousangel -> RE: a follow up on non-sexual bdsm (10/9/2008 9:49:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subtee Do you need to imagine it for some reason? I can't imagine having a penis - not really, but it doesn't interfere with my day. Because I'm curious. I like to expand what I know. I like to better understand the way those around me expereince the world. Because I have the librarian gene. quote: This I don't understand at all, less even than having a penis. Why do you judge or rank them, one more evolved than another? That statement was mostly me being silly. Though, why do I? I do my best not to. That said, many I ineract with do. Really, this entire thread is about curiosity, and looking for open discussion, which is what I find awesome on these boards. I posted again to offer where I was coming from, in asking, and where my outlook is. Wasn't trying to step on toes, just offering something interesting to talk about.

subtee -> RE: a follow up on non-sexual bdsm (10/9/2008 9:51:58 AM)
You didn't step on any else's toes, that I'm aware of; I was thinking you might have been stepping on your own. [;)]

BOUNTYHUNTER -> RE: a follow up on non-sexual bdrm (10/9/2008 9:57:52 AM)
An interesting thread,Not many can have a bdsm relationship without sex involved,I have had a few that were successful both with female and male subs/slaves...If I find a pain slave that really fills my needs, then sex is the furtherest thing from my mind,its her/him filling that particular need and at the time that need isn't for sex.....Diane has owned and still does male slaves where they haven't even seen her nude less long having sex...It can been done it all depends on your priories and both of your needs..bounty

WhiplashSmile2 -> RE: a follow up on non-sexual bdsm (10/9/2008 10:13:43 AM)
There is BDSM and D/s, many people when you say BDSM they are drawn in an instant to the S&M aspects of BDSM. When one speaks of D/s it's about a relationship structure, however many people think about topping/bottoming during S&M or sexual play. A none sexual BDSM relationship, can be a bit like a deep friendship you have with somebody. Where you might not be into fucking your friend or hell even wanting to engage in S&M activities even. Service submission, is a good case in point. Where somebody functions literally like a Maid, Butler or personal assistent. No Sex involved and no S&M play either. It's a D/s relationship that exists however, and both people get a sense of fillfullment out of it. Both people get the warm and fuzzy from it. I have actually had some friendships that very much functioned with Service D/s going on. Amazing how some people love and enjoy doing things, tasks such as shoveling snow and other things. Case in point was with one friend I had,who was doing stuff all the time, why? Because I simply let him, and he went out of his way to ask. I had to ask him one question though when all this started to happen. Why do you want to do XYZ for me? He expressed because he simply enjoyed doing those things, and enjoyed doing things for people. Simple Answer. I had to say, OK to myself and be comfortable in letting him do these things. The routine of it all, happened very easy. Case in point, this guy was my friend. I have zero interest in having sex with men, let alone a friend. However, there was many aspects of service submission and submission in general on his part. However, I can't say this was formally a lifestyle based relationship. Where he said, hey man, I want to be your submissive bitch boy and do things around your house for you. The labels of sub and Dom where never applied to our relationship, however the Dynamics of a D/s service submission relationship are Spot on in regards to what was going on. Whew.... in terms of other types of D/s relationships without the sex, just open your mind and explore things some more. You'll perhaps begin to see the pattern. I know myself, when I'm in the mood for a pain fix... I wish I had somebody that would do that for me... no sex involved. Don't get me wrong, I have to have Sex with an intimate relationship, I want, need and crave for sex. Just that is for a different kind of type of D/s relationship. In many regards, people have D/s relationships going on and there are totally blind or unware of D/s from a "BDSM lifestyle" perspective. In terms of non sexual, non S&M D/s service submissive... I could use one of those right now of either sex. hahahaha...

usemekinky -> RE: a follow up on non-sexual bdsm (10/9/2008 11:57:19 AM)
It depends on my headspace when serving. For instance, a Dom I have been talking to ordered me to have no tv for a week, since I have roommates an they watch tv, if I'm in the room with the tv on I have to suck my thumb. No actual sex of any kind happening there. When I suck my thumb I think of him, which makes me happy.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.3125