quote:

Same thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist


Sexual sadomasochism, bondage and the other elements of BDSM were removed from the DSM as illness. Stating that their non sexual counterparts were diagnosed by other symptoms of mental illness... so the DSM doesn't list them as a disorder anymore. Just like when they removed homosexuality. It is just consider part of the human sexual condition now. As I clarified, there has to be a sexual context to BDSM to some degree for it to be kink.

If someone is practicing the components of BDSM outside of a sexual/sensual desire or pleasure, they have a personality disorder or mental illness, not a sexual kink. Domination, becomes oppressive and tyrannical.... tying people up, caging them, torturing them for the sake of torture is sadism (not sexual sadism). People who do that pulled the wings off of a flies or tortured animals when they were growing up.

So before anyone proclaims their is no sexual context, sensual stimulation or desire from practicing the BDSM arts, think about the alternative in that your are proclaiming you are a sociopath or even a psychopath. BDSM is all about sex, not always about having sex, but about being sensual, feeling sexy, fulfilling passionate desires or as a substitution for them.

I am the boss at work. It doesn't turn me on, it's my job. I am the head honcho at home and boss of my slave, that does turn me on. If being in charge of my slave didn't light my passions, it would just be like having another job.

Yes totally, because back in the day, when BDSM was still defined as a mental disorder, the DSM got it wrong. And back in the day, when homosexuality was still defined as a mental disorder, the DSM got it wrong.

But NOW, now that they've decided that BDSM isn't a mental disorder when it turns you on, and that it is only a mental disorder to engage in non-sexual rope, pain, needle, etc play as a path to finding your own center and limits in a non-sexual context, NOW they're OBVIOUSLY correct, and my non-sexual BDSM play is clearly evidence of a mental disorder...

Cause obviously they never get it wrong on anything... and if they say that engaging in non-sexual BDSM play means that somebody is a sociopath or psychopath, then they obviously couldn't be wrong about it...

quote:

ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist
As I clarified, there has to be a sexual context to BDSM to some degree for it to be kink.

If someone is practicing the components of BDSM outside of a sexual/sensual desire or pleasure, they have a personality disorder or mental illness, not a sexual kink. Domination, becomes oppressive and tyrannical.... tying people up, caging them, torturing them for the sake of torture is sadism (not sexual sadism).

So before anyone proclaims their is no sexual context, sensual stimulation or desire from practicing the BDSM arts, think about the alternative in that your are proclaiming you are a sociopath or even a psychopath. BDSM is all about sex, not always about having sex, but about being sensual, feeling sexy, fulfilling passionate desires or as a substitution for them.

But NOW, now that they've decided that BDSM isn't a mental disorder when it turns you on, and that it is only a mental disorder to engage in non-sexual rope, pain, needle, etc play as a path to finding your own center and limits in a non-sexual context, NOW they're OBVIOUSLY correct, and my non-sexual BDSM play is clearly evidence of a mental disorder...

Cause obviously they never get it wrong on anything... and if they say that engaging in non-sexual BDSM play means that somebody is a sociopath or psychopath, then they obviously couldn't be wrong about it...

I get your point about self exploration. And I don't think we entirely disagree. My personal compass also interprets it more loosely than the DSM. I have watched the DSM evolve and like you, I feel it still has a long way to go. But I took the stiffer view to make my point that sex, sexy and sensual are what the OP was asking about because so many are taking sex as the literal sex act or denying that sex is the at roots of BDSM.

Speaking in general terms, not the exceptions, BDSM is sexy and the BDSM arts have a sexual context. Most leathermen didn't practice BDSM for personally exploring their limits. They did it because it was sexy. Not all Shibari scenes involve orgasms . . . but Shibari is very pretty to look at. Tying someone up like that is sexy.

Some people have a cathartic experience with BDSM. But BDSM isn't about psychotherapy. The roots, origins and intent of the BDSM arts was all about sex. So although there are many exceptions, I feel it is a gross misunderstanding to say BDSM isn't about sex. BDSM is about sex and exploring limits. BDSM is about sex and catharsis. BDSM is about sex and etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andalusite

quote:

ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist
As I clarified, there has to be a sexual context to BDSM to some degree for it to be kink.

If someone is practicing the components of BDSM outside of a sexual/sensual desire or pleasure, they have a personality disorder or mental illness, not a sexual kink. Domination, becomes oppressive and tyrannical.... tying people up, caging them, torturing them for the sake of torture is sadism (not sexual sadism).

So before anyone proclaims their is no sexual context, sensual stimulation or desire from practicing the BDSM arts, think about the alternative in that your are proclaiming you are a sociopath or even a psychopath. BDSM is all about sex, not always about having sex, but about being sensual, feeling sexy, fulfilling passionate desires or as a substitution for them.

But NOW, now that they've decided that BDSM isn't a mental disorder when it turns you on, and that it is only a mental disorder to engage in non-sexual rope, pain, needle, etc play as a path to finding your own center and limits in a non-sexual context, NOW they're OBVIOUSLY correct, and my non-sexual BDSM play is clearly evidence of a mental disorder...

Cause obviously they never get it wrong on anything... and if they say that engaging in non-sexual BDSM play means that somebody is a sociopath or psychopath, then they obviously couldn't be wrong about it...

I get your point about self exploration. And I don't think we entirely disagree. My personal compass also interprets it more loosely than the DSM. I have watched the DSM evolve and like you, I feel it still has a long way to go. But I took the stiffer view to make my point that sex, sexy and sensual are what the OP was asking about because so many are taking sex as the literal sex act or denying that sex is the at roots of BDSM.

Speaking in general terms, not the exceptions, BDSM is sexy and the BDSM arts have a sexual context. Most leathermen didn't practice BDSM for personally exploring their limits. They did it because it was sexy. Not all Shibari scenes involve orgasms . . . but Shibari is very pretty to look at. Tying someone up like that is sexy.

Some people have a cathartic experience with BDSM. But BDSM isn't about psychotherapy. The roots, origins and intent of the BDSM arts was all about sex. So although there are many exceptions, I feel it is a gross misunderstanding to say BDSM isn't about sex. BDSM is about sex and exploring limits. BDSM is about sex and catharsis. BDSM is about sex and etc.

BDSM can be sexy, and certainly can be sensual /feel good even if I am not turned on at all. Dancing is also fun, frequently sensual, and can be sexy, but I don't consider it to be having sex. In an intimate relationship, sometimes the lines between dancing and sex, and/or between BDSM and sex can be pretty darn fuzzy.

If I am dancing or doing BDSM play casually, with someone I don't have a romantic connection with, it isn't sex to me. I don't want them to touch my pussy, and I won't caress their privates. I don't want an audience for my orgasms, and don't want the play or dancing to go in a strongly sexual direction with someone I am not involved with romantically.

Yes, I have fun, it feels good, and I want my partner(s) to feel good too. I don't want to get them off or for them to get me off.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist


Sexual sadomasochism, bondage and the other elements of BDSM were removed from the DSM as illness. Stating that their non sexual counterparts were diagnosed by other symptoms of mental illness... so the DSM doesn't list them as a disorder anymore. Just like when they removed homosexuality. It is just consider part of the human sexual condition now. As I clarified, there has to be a sexual context to BDSM to some degree for it to be kink.

If someone is practicing the components of BDSM outside of a sexual/sensual desire or pleasure, they have a personality disorder or mental illness, not a sexual kink. Domination, becomes oppressive and tyrannical.... tying people up, caging them, torturing them for the sake of torture is sadism (not sexual sadism). People who do that pulled the wings off of a flies or tortured animals when they were growing up.

So before anyone proclaims their is no sexual context, sensual stimulation or desire from practicing the BDSM arts, think about the alternative in that your are proclaiming you are a sociopath or even a psychopath. BDSM is all about sex, not always about having sex, but about being sensual, feeling sexy, fulfilling passionate desires or as a substitution for them.

I am the boss at work. It doesn't turn me on, it's my job. I am the head honcho at home and boss of my slave, that does turn me on. If being in charge of my slave didn't light my passions, it would just be like having another job.

Yes totally, because back in the day, when BDSM was still defined as a mental disorder, the DSM got it wrong. And back in the day, when homosexuality was still defined as a mental disorder, the DSM got it wrong.

But NOW, now that they've decided that BDSM isn't a mental disorder when it turns you on, and that it is only a mental disorder to engage in non-sexual rope, pain, needle, etc play as a path to finding your own center and limits in a non-sexual context, NOW they're OBVIOUSLY correct, and my non-sexual BDSM play is clearly evidence of a mental disorder...

Cause obviously they never get it wrong on anything... and if they say that engaging in non-sexual BDSM play means that somebody is a sociopath or psychopath, then they obviously couldn't be wrong about it...

I get your point about self exploration. And I don't think we entirely disagree. My personal compass also interprets it more loosely than the DSM. I have watched the DSM evolve and like you, I feel it still has a long way to go. But I took the stiffer view to make my point that sex, sexy and sensual are what the OP was asking about because so many are taking sex as the literal sex act or denying that sex is the at roots of BDSM.

Speaking in general terms, not the exceptions, BDSM is sexy and the BDSM arts have a sexual context. Most leathermen didn't practice BDSM for personally exploring their limits. They did it because it was sexy. Not all Shibari scenes involve orgasms . . . but Shibari is very pretty to look at. Tying someone up like that is sexy.

Some people have a cathartic experience with BDSM. But BDSM isn't about psychotherapy. The roots, origins and intent of the BDSM arts was all about sex. So although there are many exceptions, I feel it is a gross misunderstanding to say BDSM isn't about sex. BDSM is about sex and exploring limits. BDSM is about sex and catharsis. BDSM is about sex and etc.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LilJuly76

If clothes are removed and parts of the body are visible then it has something to do with their sexuaity.

Nada for me, during a caning, flogging, cropping, spanking, any sort of impact play I'm usually nude, no sex involved just clean masochistic fun

quote:

ORIGINAL: verbatimguy


Do you ride your bicycle nude?
Do you take the bus nude?
Do you go to the library nude?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LilJuly76

a lot of people like Mr V there confuse nudity with sex but that's what some people do, jump to conclusions about everything.

I worked for a Dominant once, as his administration assistant, I did most things in the nude and nope didn't require sex either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andalusite
BDSM can be sexy, and certainly can be sensual /feel good even if I am not turned on at all. Dancing is also fun, frequently sensual, and can be sexy, but I don't consider it to be having sex. In an intimate relationship, sometimes the lines between dancing and sex, and/or between BDSM and sex can be pretty darn fuzzy.

If I am dancing or doing BDSM play casually, with someone I don't have a romantic connection with, it isn't sex to me. I don't want them to touch my pussy, and I won't caress their privates. I don't want an audience for my orgasms, and don't want the play or dancing to go in a strongly sexual direction with someone I am not involved with romantically.

Yes, I have fun, it feels good, and I want my partner(s) to feel good too. I don't want to get them off or for them to get me off.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andalusite
BDSM can be sexy, and certainly can be sensual /feel good even if I am not turned on at all. Dancing is also fun, frequently sensual, and can be sexy, but I don't consider it to be having sex. In an intimate relationship, sometimes the lines between dancing and sex, and/or between BDSM and sex can be pretty darn fuzzy.

If I am dancing or doing BDSM play casually, with someone I don't have a romantic connection with, it isn't sex to me. I don't want them to touch my pussy, and I won't caress their privates. I don't want an audience for my orgasms, and don't want the play or dancing to go in a strongly sexual direction with someone I am not involved with romantically.

Yes, I have fun, it feels good, and I want my partner(s) to feel good too. I don't want to get them off or for them to get me off.

Who was it who said dancing is the closest you come to sex with your clothes on?

So yes, dancing can be sensual and sexual. For both the doer and the observer.

But it doesn't have to be.