RE: Fantasits v realists

RE: Fantasits v realists (Full Version)

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

Message

tamaka -> RE: Fantasits v realists (7/21/2017 10:44:40 AM)
Ultimately it's not about the pleasure or pain, it's about stimulation.

WhoreMods -> RE: Fantasits v realists (7/21/2017 12:28:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Ultimately it's not about the pleasure or pain, it's about stimulation. Pleasure and pain are stimulations.

tamaka -> RE: Fantasits v realists (7/21/2017 12:35:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Ultimately it's not about the pleasure or pain, it's about stimulation. Pleasure and pain are stimulations. Exactly.

heavyblinker -> RE: Fantasits v realists (7/21/2017 1:25:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Ultimately it's not about the pleasure or pain, it's about stimulation. Yes, well said. Also the engagement, I suppose.

tamaka -> RE: Fantasits v realists (7/21/2017 1:32:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Ultimately it's not about the pleasure or pain, it's about stimulation. Yes, well said. Also the engagement, I suppose. Agreed.

longwayhome -> RE: Fantasits v realists (7/21/2017 2:00:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Ultimately it's not about the pleasure or pain, it's about stimulation. Of course it is - that's the point about the mice who were stroked and the mice who were shocked having similar lifespans whilst the isolated mice died earlier. We all know people who thrive on drama, despite it making them unhappy. Bad attention is better than no attention. We are however more sophisticated than mice (or we think we are) and should know the difference between good bad attention and bad bad attention, if that makes sense.

tamaka -> RE: Fantasits v realists (7/21/2017 2:04:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Ultimately it's not about the pleasure or pain, it's about stimulation. Of course it is - that's the point about the mice who were stroked and the mice who were shocked having similar lifespans whilst the isolated mice died earlier. We all know people who thrive on drama, despite it making them unhappy. Bad attention is better than no attention. We are however more sophisticated than mice (or we think we are) and should know the difference between good bad attention and bad bad attention, if that makes sense. Yes of course but unless there is a guarantee of 'good bad attention' people who need stimulation will keep 'bad bad attention' as opposed to going without any stimulation. And as a side note, especially if the bad bad attention is more authentic and genuine than good bad stimulation. For example, real abuse is more genuine than 'fake play'.

heavyblinker -> RE: Fantasits v realists (7/21/2017 2:13:48 PM)
What about good bad bad bad bad bad good attention?

tamaka -> RE: Fantasits v realists (7/21/2017 2:19:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker What about good bad bad bad bad bad good attention? That might work.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Fantasits v realists (7/21/2017 3:37:24 PM)
quote: What is the difference? Oh that is easy: The perception of the viewer.

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Fantasits v realists (7/21/2017 8:20:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Ultimately it's not about the pleasure or pain, it's about stimulation. Of course it is - that's the point about the mice who were stroked and the mice who were shocked having similar lifespans whilst the isolated mice died earlier. We all know people who thrive on drama, despite it making them unhappy. Bad attention is better than no attention. We are however more sophisticated than mice (or we think we are) and should know the difference between good bad attention and bad bad attention, if that makes sense. The mice that were zapped might have died sooner if they would have stopped jumpstarting them.

kdsub -> RE: Fantasits v realists (7/21/2017 9:17:46 PM)
I believe we are all both... we fantasize first... then experience reality. Most of the time we are at least slightly disappointed but once in a great while reality is even better than our dreams. Butch

longwayhome -> RE: Fantasits v realists (7/22/2017 7:35:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker What about good bad bad bad bad bad good attention? Good question. Right up there with the classic "who put the bop in the bop dee bop dee bop"? I guess we'll never really know...

longwayhome -> RE: Fantasits v realists (7/22/2017 7:40:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I believe we are all both... we fantasize first... then experience reality. Most of the time we are at least slightly disappointed but once in a great while reality is even better than our dreams. Butch I agree completely. Our imaginings are entirely part of our reality.

longwayhome -> RE: Fantasits v realists (7/22/2017 10:46:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Ultimately it's not about the pleasure or pain, it's about stimulation. Of course it is - that's the point about the mice who were stroked and the mice who were shocked having similar lifespans whilst the isolated mice died earlier. We all know people who thrive on drama, despite it making them unhappy. Bad attention is better than no attention. We are however more sophisticated than mice (or we think we are) and should know the difference between good bad attention and bad bad attention, if that makes sense. Yes of course but unless there is a guarantee of 'good bad attention' people who need stimulation will keep 'bad bad attention' as opposed to going without any stimulation. And as a side note, especially if the bad bad attention is more authentic and genuine than good bad stimulation. For example, real abuse is more genuine than 'fake play'. Ah - the old "real" vs "play" conundrum. It's a bit like talking about "made-up words" when all words are in fact made up. Some of them just have a longer usage and are more accepted. Unless someone is actually trying to kill you, abusing someone is a form of play. It is a game played for specific outcomes. We all know however that "play" can be a game without much depth, e.g. if it is all for show, the bottom is in control of the scene, the clothes are more important than the act etc. That kind of play is no less valid if it is what floats your boat but it is by its very nature limited. There is however a difference between a game you play where both partners really mean it and abuse designed to permanently damage. You may choose a damaging form of abuse over no interaction of any kind but it is no less of a game than any other social or sexual transaction. It may feel more authentic because the stakes are higher but it is not the only form of "genuine" or honest power exchange. And it does have limits (hopefully short of the possibility of death) but those limits may not be acceptable to most people. All of which raises a valid question about consent. Is it abuse if you have fully consented to it? Is anything really forced if you are ultimately willing to put yourself knowingly in the position where something can and is likely to happen? And if it does happen do you still kid yourself that it is more "real" than if you asked for it explicitly?

longwayhome -> RE: Fantasits v realists (7/22/2017 10:54:46 AM)
Duplicate post in error

tamaka -> RE: Fantasits v realists (7/22/2017 6:04:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Ultimately it's not about the pleasure or pain, it's about stimulation. Of course it is - that's the point about the mice who were stroked and the mice who were shocked having similar lifespans whilst the isolated mice died earlier. We all know people who thrive on drama, despite it making them unhappy. Bad attention is better than no attention. We are however more sophisticated than mice (or we think we are) and should know the difference between good bad attention and bad bad attention, if that makes sense. Yes of course but unless there is a guarantee of 'good bad attention' people who need stimulation will keep 'bad bad attention' as opposed to going without any stimulation. And as a side note, especially if the bad bad attention is more authentic and genuine than good bad stimulation. For example, real abuse is more genuine than 'fake play'. Ah - the old "real" vs "play" conundrum. It's a bit like talking about "made-up words" when all words are in fact made up. Some of them just have a longer usage and are more accepted. Unless someone is actually trying to kill you, abusing someone is a form of play. It is a game played for specific outcomes. We all know however that "play" can be a game without much depth, e.g. if it is all for show, the bottom is in control of the scene, the clothes are more important than the act etc. That kind of play is no less valid if it is what floats your boat but it is by its very nature limited. There is however a difference between a game you play where both partners really mean it and abuse designed to permanently damage. You may choose a damaging form of abuse over no interaction of any kind but it is no less of a game than any other social or sexual transaction. It may feel more authentic because the stakes are higher but it is not the only form of "genuine" or honest power exchange. And it does have limits (hopefully short of the possibility of death) but those limits may not be acceptable to most people. All of which raises a valid question about consent. Is it abuse if you have fully consented to it? Is anything really forced if you are ultimately willing to put yourself knowingly in the position where something can and is likely to happen? And if it does happen do you still kid yourself that it is more "real" than if you asked for it explicitly? It's not play when the guy is a sociopath who is really pissed at you, believe me.

longwayhome -> RE: Fantasits v realists (7/23/2017 10:01:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Ultimately it's not about the pleasure or pain, it's about stimulation. Of course it is - that's the point about the mice who were stroked and the mice who were shocked having similar lifespans whilst the isolated mice died earlier. We all know people who thrive on drama, despite it making them unhappy. Bad attention is better than no attention. We are however more sophisticated than mice (or we think we are) and should know the difference between good bad attention and bad bad attention, if that makes sense. Yes of course but unless there is a guarantee of 'good bad attention' people who need stimulation will keep 'bad bad attention' as opposed to going without any stimulation. And as a side note, especially if the bad bad attention is more authentic and genuine than good bad stimulation. For example, real abuse is more genuine than 'fake play'. Ah - the old "real" vs "play" conundrum. It's a bit like talking about "made-up words" when all words are in fact made up. Some of them just have a longer usage and are more accepted. Unless someone is actually trying to kill you, abusing someone is a form of play. It is a game played for specific outcomes. We all know however that "play" can be a game without much depth, e.g. if it is all for show, the bottom is in control of the scene, the clothes are more important than the act etc. That kind of play is no less valid if it is what floats your boat but it is by its very nature limited. There is however a difference between a game you play where both partners really mean it and abuse designed to permanently damage. You may choose a damaging form of abuse over no interaction of any kind but it is no less of a game than any other social or sexual transaction. It may feel more authentic because the stakes are higher but it is not the only form of "genuine" or honest power exchange. And it does have limits (hopefully short of the possibility of death) but those limits may not be acceptable to most people. All of which raises a valid question about consent. Is it abuse if you have fully consented to it? Is anything really forced if you are ultimately willing to put yourself knowingly in the position where something can and is likely to happen? And if it does happen do you still kid yourself that it is more "real" than if you asked for it explicitly? It's not play when the guy is a sociopath who is really pissed at you, believe me. Not in the "fun" sense of the word no, but then I would hope that no-one regarded that as acceptable "real-life" BDSM. In my mind there is a line between BDSM and abuse, although I know that line is blurred for others. It partly depends on what you mean by the word abuse. There have been plenty of other threads about abusive relationships, the damage they cause, the difficulty people have in getting out and in accessing services to support them. I would never wish anything like that on anyone and sincerely hope that people do find ways out, however difficult it is.

LadyPact -> RE: Fantasits v realists (7/25/2017 8:57:34 AM)
<Fast reply.> Simplest definition: Fantasists think/dream about doing stuff. Realists do stuff. Sounds harsh but I'm going to explain it. There for a while on the boards, I had a sig line that went like this. "I don't have fantasies. I have goals." Frankly, that's pretty much my attitude about kink. There isn't a whole heck of a lot within the BDSM realm that a person can't learn about and manage to find somebody to engage in with for you to actually do it. Might take time. Might take patience. Might take finding the right person to do it with. Might take travel. These are not insurmountable obstacles if a person wanting to engage is determined. (Before anybody has a fit, I do get that some people can't do this for various reasons. However, it is my opinion that any person needs to do some self examination and determine if it is really can't or won't. There's nothing wrong with won't. Just be honest with yourself about it.) This is not to imply that I think I've done everything there is to do in BDSM. There's a lot of stuff out there in the big, bad world of kink, but I'm not into all of it. The stuff I am into, doesn't necessarily interest me with every single person walking the planet who is into it as well. There are some things of interest that I don't think are worth the risk. While I don't feel that I fall into this category, I know that some people have fantasies that may not be especially good for them, so it might not be a good idea for the person to live them out. Like everybody else, I have hard limits about certain kinks. Still, I have to say, I get to do a lot of fun stuff. [:D] OK. So that's the answer to the original. Now, I'm going to address the rest. What tends to happen a lot on CM is there are certain folks who think that because they are D/s, M/s, O/p, pick a flipping term, that they are better, more real, more true than the bondage enthusiasts, the sharps players, the e-stim fans, and the leather fetishists. Well, you're not. At least those people who are going out and engaging in their kinks. That's realism. I'm not going to listen to people's horse hockey about it. I can guaran-damn-tee people that if I'm engaging in S/m, the sh^t hurts. Blood, bruises, sweat, and tears are real things. Even if we call it play. Even if it's called a scene. If I so much as negotiate an encounter and I beat somebody with a stick, that's real. Maybe some of you elitists should get away from your computers once in a while.

WickedsDesire -> RE: Fantasits v realists (7/25/2017 9:30:31 AM)
Hells bells I did an okay thread on this forum - well by my standards wonder what they are - which granted can be occasionally cryptic to say the very least but I am not here to bandy the metaphysical and malarkey and obscure....anyway how about you all chuck in one half decent thread a week into this forum? Just saying ;) Good point Ladypact no two people are the same - I like your thinking. longwayhome thanks again for all the typing, as that takes time. oh come on heavyblinker ive seen you start a few good threads on the sweary forum - give it a try on this one. Now, I will touch on something LP and HB and LWH mentioned in no logcial order to most 1. I remember reading The Naked Ape a very along time ago. 2. I think the abused more often than not gets what it wants - both are to blame. And white noise like myself and credible opinions are often filtered or driven out of the equation, or bigger picture. So that only scum remain, in essence. 3. No two people are the same as I said, or perhaps you said that, or perhaps we have said that on many occasions a. as you also typed a lot in this one too and thanks - when does the line become obscured, and does it matter and to whom?

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.640625E-02