RE: May I Ask You A Question? (Wait, I Just Did!)

RE: May I Ask You A Question? (Wait, I Just Did!) (Full Version)

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

Message

Greta75 -> RE: May I Ask You A Question? (Wait, I Just Did!) (10/15/2015 12:11:50 PM)
I had alot of rules. Addressing him as Master is a given But no clothes beyond the front door of the house, so there is a mat after I enter the door, no clothes beyond that line, have to strip before entering. Then I will go kneel by my master's side for him to put my collar on and await for instructions. Instructions usually is body inspection first then go put on the lingerie he has laid out for me in the bedroom. Then up to him what happens, either we can have dinner or I sit quietly by his side while he watches TV or bdsm things happen, whatever he wants. Oh and he mandates my bedtime to be at 10pm sharp regardless what! I work from 12pm to 8pm, his place is 10minutes away from my work, so I am usually home by 8.30pm but it's very ridiculous to me to follow his hours, but I did ha! I was submissive towards him, so that's why he was my dom. Seriously, I don't even know why he made me feel happy doing it. This was a serious routine for me for 2 years of my life. I never broke it, as our schedule are very predictable and constant too, so he'll always finish work before me, and I will always come home later than him. He also leaves for work earlier than me. Morning routine, he gets up at inhumane 4 am everyday. I start work only at 12pm, and usually I am a late riser, so technically I can wake up late, but I must wake up when he wakes up, I don't know how I manage as I have gone back to my late rising habits. So I religiously did that too, as I needed to give him his morning blowjob every day and prepare his breakfast and see him off to work every morning. Okay, not really complaining, I really enjoyed serving him, so this was cool. Cum must be swallowed. No fucking other men without him present. He also decides 100% what I wear everyday outside and inside the house, which was great for me. I actually like uniforms, and him choosing my clothes is as good as having uniforms, I don't have to stress about what to wear. And he has good taste, so usually I'm happier with his choices than mine. He made me wear things I'd never wear, and make me surprise I could look good in them. Not every day I am allowed to walk standing up. Depends on his mood, I may only be allowed movement around the house on all fours. Anyway, I enjoyed every minute of it. With him, I really experience being commanded to do everything I am more than happy to do, so everything was enjoyable!

OsideGirl -> RE: May I Ask You A Question? (Wait, I Just Did!) (10/15/2015 12:22:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 Addressing him as Master is a given No, it's not. Lots of relationships don't use that honorific. So, it might have been for you, but it's not for us.

SapphireServant -> RE: May I Ask You A Question? (Wait, I Just Did!) (10/15/2015 12:56:45 PM)
Very well. Sorry if I offended/annoyed anyone and thanks for answering. :-)

Greta75 -> RE: May I Ask You A Question? (Wait, I Just Did!) (10/15/2015 12:57:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl No, it's not. Lots of relationships don't use that honorific. So, it might have been for you, but it's not for us. I don't mean it's a given for everybody, as obviously a dom or sub can choose whatever title they want to work with but it's a given for me. I would not address someone I have accepted as my dom by anything else.

LadyPact -> RE: May I Ask You A Question? (Wait, I Just Did!) (10/15/2015 2:55:19 PM)
I'm another traditionalist. B - Bondage D - Discipline S - Sadism M - Masochism (or sadomasochism, if you prefer) The BDDsSM version is the one that tries to squeeze the Dominance and submission in there. Most acronyms don't have multiple meanings for each letter, so I roll with the original. I tend to put all of the BDSM stuff in the category of the acts, so I look at it more in the sense of topping and bottoming, rather than the relationship stuff. If I tie somebody up, it doesn't mean that I love them, trust them, or any of the other criteria that would be necessary for me to have a relationship with them. quote: Why do you do what you do? Why do you enjoy it? I'm a sadist. That means I enjoy inflicting pain on people. Why I'm a sadist, rather than not being a sadist, I do not know. To the best of my knowledge, they haven't figured out why kinky people are wired differently than non kinky people. I just know I have a good time doing it.

OsideGirl -> RE: May I Ask You A Question? (Wait, I Just Did!) (10/15/2015 3:04:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I'm another traditionalist. To the best of my knowledge, they haven't figured out why kinky people are wired differently than non kinky people. I actually think that everyone has some degree of sadism. It's part of us that laughs when someone else gets a ticket, it's the part that laughs when someone trips, it's the reason why we'll watch someone having an argument in a restaurant and the reason why we stare at accidents. Some people just have a little more than others.

SapphireServant -> RE: May I Ask You A Question? (Wait, I Just Did!) (10/15/2015 3:24:56 PM)
I'm not so certain. I always felt bad for anybody suffering, even in minor ways. I always seem to feel their pain in a sympathetic sort of way.

LadyPact -> RE: May I Ask You A Question? (Wait, I Just Did!) (10/15/2015 4:00:03 PM)
I'm actually not big on it, either. It's weird because something like a person slipping on a banana peel brings out the 'oh my God, are you ok' response. Somebody getting a ticket, if I saw their bad driving prior, gets the 'you deserved it' thing. I know other sadists are completely the opposite about this than I am. I always feel the the strange one. On the other hand, I love submissives and bottoms who throw each other under the bus. They don't engage in them being the top but they come up with some of the best ideas!

Kaliko -> RE: May I Ask You A Question? (Wait, I Just Did!) (10/15/2015 4:08:18 PM)
Would we consider mental bondage as part of the "bondage" of BDSM? Because if we're not talking D/s (and I know some of us are), then that's the only way I can really think to link what moves me to BDSM. Though, he tells me I'm a masochist....I never really thought I was, and it doesn't enter into things in a big way. Or, maybe I just don't realize it does. I've said this one time before, I think, so apologies if it's redundant, but I honestly didn't know until fairly recently that not everyone has rough sex. I thought it was just the natural progression of a sexual encounter. Much like kissing on the lips eventually, inevitably, leads to deeper kissing, and much like first base leads to second base, I just thought that as time goes on, whatever two people are doing eventually, inevitably, becomes rough, more intense, someone gets held down, tied down, etc....before orgasm. That's just always been the way it goes, so I didn't even know that this bit of masochism that I do have even existed. But past that, I don't think I fall under the category of BDSM much. Again, unless we can include mental bondage. But, I don't think that's part of it - traditionally, anyway.

sweetieDA -> RE: May I Ask You A Question? (Wait, I Just Did!) (10/15/2015 11:34:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl The actual definition of BDSM is Bondage, Discipline, Sado-Masochism. So, BDSM represents kinky sex. While it is frequently linked to D/s or M/s, it does not represent a power dynamic. D/s or M/s represents the power dynamic. You can engage in BDSM and never engage in D/s. You can engage in D/s and never engage in BDSM. It is something of a modern myth than sadism and masochism don't include a power exchange. They do and they always have done, right from the first definitions. Masochism comes from a writer called Leopold von Sacher-Masoch who wrote a book called Venus in Furs, which describes a man who signs a slave contract to a woman who he calls Mistress. She bosses him about, tells him what to do and other acts that could only be considered a power exchange. Krafft-Ebbing defined masochism as a perversion in which: "the individual affected, in sexual feeling and thought, is controlled by the idea of being completely and unconditionally subject to the will of a person of the opposite sex, of being treated by this person as a master..." If you look at a modern definition of masochism it states: 1.Psychiatry. the condition in which sexual gratification depends on suffering physical pain or humiliation. 2.gratification gained from pain, deprivation, degradation, etc., inflicted or imposed on oneself, either as a result of one's own actions or the actions of others, especially the tendency to seek this form of gratification. 3.the act of turning one's destructive tendencies inward or upon oneself. 4.the tendency to find pleasure in self-denial, submissiveness, etc. As regards sadism, that also has always included a power exchange. De Sade's books were full of people who owned and controlled others, otherwise it would not have been possible for his characters to have inflicted the tortures that they did. This idea that D/s is somehow different to BDSM is complete nonsense. What is nowadays called D/s was simply called s&m for about a hundred years. Today, most theorists and writers on the subject still refer to it as s&m. In my experience, it is only a small, sex-negative part of the American community who insist on claiming that D/s is different to BDSM. But there is no evidence for this whatsoever.

Dvr22999874 -> RE: May I Ask You A Question? (Wait, I Just Did!) (10/15/2015 11:55:25 PM)
I agree with OsideGirl........................think of a joke you find really funny. Somebody in that joke is getting hurt, physically, mentally or emotionally, or it just isn't funny......................Puns are a prime example of that. Few people laugh at puns, they just groan..............Everybody thought movies of the Mack Sennet type were hilarious though..................sadism is in everybody to a greater or lesser degree

DaddySatyr -> RE: May I Ask You A Question? (Wait, I Just Did!) (10/16/2015 12:44:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sweetieDA This idea that D/s is somehow different to BDSM is complete nonsense. What is nowadays called D/s was simply called s&m for about a hundred years. Today, most theorists and writers on the subject still refer to it as s&m. In my experience, it is only a small, sex-negative part of the American community who insist on claiming that D/s is different to BDSM. But there is no evidence for this whatsoever. Thank you for setting me straight. I will await your complete tome of "TRUE D/s" before I make any further life decisions. Michael

NookieNotes -> RE: May I Ask You A Question? (Wait, I Just Did!) (10/16/2015 3:31:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 I agree with OsideGirl........................think of a joke you find really funny. Somebody in that joke is getting hurt, physically, mentally or emotionally, or it just isn't funny......................Puns are a prime example of that. Few people laugh at puns, they just groan..............Everybody thought movies of the Mack Sennet type were hilarious though..................sadism is in everybody to a greater or lesser degree Actually, that is not true. People laugh at things that make them uncomfortable or surprise them as well as things they find humorous. It is a stress response (usually) to "surprise with non-dangerous (i.e. life-threatening) outcomes." So, to suggest that everyone may laugh at something for the same reason, and that that reason must be sadism is unsupportable.

angelikaJ -> RE: May I Ask You A Question? (Wait, I Just Did!) (10/16/2015 3:51:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 I agree with OsideGirl........................think of a joke you find really funny. Somebody in that joke is getting hurt, physically, mentally or emotionally, or it just isn't funny......................Puns are a prime example of that. Few people laugh at puns, they just groan..............Everybody thought movies of the Mack Sennet type were hilarious though..................sadism is in everybody to a greater or lesser degree Actually, that is not true. People laugh at things that make them uncomfortable or surprise them as well as things they find humorous. It is a stress response (usually) to "surprise with non-dangerous (i.e. life-threatening) outcomes." So, to suggest that everyone may laugh at something for the same reason, and that that reason must be sadism is unsupportable. I laugh like crazy when [my] Master uses an evil stick on me.

dreamlady -> RE: May I Ask You A Question? (Wait, I Just Did!) (10/17/2015 2:02:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl quote: ORIGINAL: SapphireServant Might I ask, what does BDSM mean to you? The actual definition of BDSM is Bondage, Discipline, Sado-Masochism. So, BDSM represents kinky sex. While it is frequently linked to D/s or M/s, it does not represent a power dynamic. D/s or M/s represents the power dynamic. You can engage in BDSM and never engage in D/s. You can engage in D/s and never engage in BDSM. Qft! BDSM represent activities, most commonly those acts which BDSM Tops (active giver) do to BDSM bottoms (receptive receiver). These are functional roles during a play scene, so it involves play partners. There are kinksters who want little to nothing to do with real-life D/s, those who can't understand what the big deal is with these Dominants and submissives (or switches) who want or expect some kind of ownership commitment (represented by the use of the term "collaring"). Further, a Top is not always the Dominant party, or even a Dom/me-leaning switch. A service Top could be a submissive or a sub-leaning switch. A professional Top as BDSM provider doesn't have to be a Dominant personality, because the business aspect of BDSM trumps the pleasure aspect in terms of client relations being separate for the most part from their private lives. What you will find, if S&M is applicable, is a sadistic Top. Many submissives will mistake a sadistic Top for a Dominant, or for Master-Mistress material. There are also, however, masochistic Dominants who bottom as such. Rather than go into a list of examples, I will just mention one. I've known more than one DaddyDom/lg switch couple, where the lg Tops either her Master or else a submissive, whether female or male. A bottom is not always the submissive party. Where S&M applies, a masochist bottoms. Many a Dominant has mistaken a bottom for being a submissive, when the one who prefers to bottom does not have a submissive disposition. I say this because much of your opening post and subsequent posts describe a D/s power exchange relationship dynamic involving an Owner and an owned pet or slave. BDSM is not requisite for Dominance/submission. Nothing in BDSM requires one iota of actual ownership where the s-type gets collared. Sure, there's a bunch of "pretend" (per-scene temporary) collaring going on to make the B&D play scenes more believable and take on less of a make-believe quality. It is due to this confusion or blurring of the lines between fantasy role play and day-to-day reality that one frequently hears the "You're not a real Dom" or "You're not a real sub" allegations getting bandied about. quote: ORIGINAL: SapphireServant Speaking of which, what does collaring mean to you, have you done it? I love the feel of it. XD Based on what I've briefly described, the decision to collar a sub who is under consideration, is a very serious matter to me. I personally will not engage in BDSM casually, in the same manner that I don't treat having sexual relations as a casual affair. [Some make a distinction between BDSM acts and sexual acts, saying that they can be non-sexual in nature. Perhaps others can partition these activities, but I can't. That would be (to me) like saying that if the other person got off but I didn't, then I didn't really have sex with him or that it didn't count. Impo, if I took part in having somebody getting any sort of sexual gratification via physical contact (whether there was skin to skin contact or inanimate object to skin contact), as fetishists do, then a sexual act took place.] While we did use a collar & leash as more of a "prop" in private, the last sub I collared I gave an ordinary-looking - but mutually significant - chain necklace for him to wear. We both wanted something he wouldn't have to take off for any reason and could proudly wear in public as a tangible symbol much like a wedding band that he belonged to me as his Mistress. He also gave me a special piece of jewelry. quote: ORIGINAL: SapphireServant I can only commit to someone I truly love and respect though. Do you feel the same, or see it as just a fun game, a lifestyle, a hobby? I see it as a serious relationship. As do I. Those who merely seek play to get their kicks need to be honest with themselves and with others. In that sense, it's no different than a vanilla relationship where there are players who lead others on into believing they are looking for more than casual hook-ups or fuckbuddies just to get their freak on. DreamLady

LadyPact -> RE: May I Ask You A Question? (Wait, I Just Did!) (10/17/2015 2:40:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sweetieDA It is something of a modern myth than sadism and masochism don't include a power exchange. They do and they always have done, right from the first definitions. Why is it a myth? I could go service top somebody tomorrow and allow them to be the 'in charge' person. (Not that I do. I'm just saying it's possible.) Would I really be 'Dominating' anyone who was telling me how they want the sensations delivered? quote: Masochism comes from a writer called Leopold von Sacher-Masoch who wrote a book called Venus in Furs, which describes a man who signs a slave contract to a woman who he calls Mistress. She bosses him about, tells him what to do and other acts that could only be considered a power exchange. Just because that's what was first published, doesn't mean that's the only way it goes. quote: Krafft-Ebbing defined masochism as a perversion in which: "the individual affected, in sexual feeling and thought, is controlled by the idea of being completely and unconditionally subject to the will of a person of the opposite sex, of being treated by this person as a master..." It's a limited view. It completely skips those masochists who enjoy getting off on the pain, itself, no matter which gender applies them. What about things like basic brain chemistry and endorphin flow? Things Krafft-Ebbing could have never understood because of the science? quote: If you look at a modern definition of masochism it states: 1.Psychiatry. the condition in which sexual gratification depends on suffering physical pain or humiliation. 2.gratification gained from pain, deprivation, degradation, etc., inflicted or imposed on oneself, either as a result of one's own actions or the actions of others, especially the tendency to seek this form of gratification. 3.the act of turning one's destructive tendencies inward or upon oneself. 4.the tendency to find pleasure in self-denial, submissiveness, etc. Your own definition says that it can be, but is not necessarily a must. quote: As regards sadism, that also has always included a power exchange. De Sade's books were full of people who owned and controlled others, otherwise it would not have been possible for his characters to have inflicted the tortures that they did. I don't find this necessarily correct, either. I think it is beneficial to look at the era. It wasn't possible then due to certain restraints that were not acceptable. Today? I don't have to own anyone to employ S/m. quote: This idea that D/s is somehow different to BDSM is complete nonsense. What is nowadays called D/s was simply called s&m for about a hundred years. Today, most theorists and writers on the subject still refer to it as s&m. In my experience, it is only a small, sex-negative part of the American community who insist on claiming that D/s is different to BDSM. But there is no evidence for this whatsoever. LOL. It's always so-called "sex negative" with some people.

dreamlady -> RE: May I Ask You A Question? (Wait, I Just Did!) (10/17/2015 3:09:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: sweetieDA It is something of a modern myth than sadism and masochism don't include a power exchange. They do and they always have done, right from the first definitions. Why is it a myth? I could go service top somebody tomorrow and allow them to be the 'in charge' person. (Not that I do. I'm just saying it's possible.) Would I really be 'Dominating' anyone who was telling me how they want the sensations delivered? It's always more credible to hear first-person accounts. Btw, I don't have anything against casual Topping or bottoming as long as play partners are up front with one another and nobody is leading another person on. It's almost cliché how (more often than not) men will say whatever they think a woman wants to hear in order to get what they want from her. (This is why I don't trust any male sub who claims he has no personal preferences of his own, that it's all about what the Domme wants. Pff-ft. I don't have a whole lot of respect for any man who tries to be all things to all women, specifically to just about any Dominant woman who fits the bill on his attraction meter.) In fact, LadyP, if there weren't skilled Tops out there to spread their talents, some of these guys would get no (BDSM) action whatsoever. [8D] Even a spanko needs a trustworthy spanking Top who knows what he's doing. DreamLady

LadyPact -> RE: May I Ask You A Question? (Wait, I Just Did!) (10/17/2015 3:37:52 AM)
DL, if a person isn't that type, it's not that big of a deal. Just about any jackass can go to a club and get someone to play. How does it go a month from now or a year from now? I could walk into a club tomorrow and pretend to be an s-type. Doesn't mean it's anybody someone would want to spend non-play type with.

OsideGirl -> RE: May I Ask You A Question? (Wait, I Just Did!) (10/17/2015 9:11:50 AM)
LP and DL nailed it. I have a friend that is a masochistic bottom. She has absolutely no interest in being a submissive or slave. She wants a guy that will show up, whip her, fuck her, then leave. If he wants breakfast there's a McDonald's down the road. On the other hand, I know a D/s couple that does not engage in any BDSM. For them, it's all about the power dynamic. Venus in Furs and the books of De Sade are works of fiction. Kraft Ebbing was published in 1886 and he label a lot of things as perversions including masturbation and homosexuality. He got a lot wrong. As an outsider in Victorian morality era, he was an outsider trying to look in and we don't know what he relied on for his sources.

TieMeInKnottss -> RE: May I Ask You A Question? (Wait, I Just Did!) (10/17/2015 11:51:33 AM)
I do D/s because of how I was raised. My parents were as M/s as I have ever seen but never put a label on it. I am submissive by personality and honestly can say my first "dominant" was my older sister. I don't like BDSM per se...but I am sexually aroused by physically rough play. I could never hurt someone else but...manhandle me and I go wild. I do LOVE bondage and being restrained. I kind of fell into BDSM because so many of the dominant men are into it and I will do whatever I can to make happy someone I respect.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875