Noah
Posts: 1660
Joined: 7/5/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Missokyst ... And lol.. about half the doms immediately said; "It is about control! How is it submission if we are giving you orgasms for YOUR pleasure? If you enjoy it, it isn't submission." They were all dorks. quote:
Well.. I have done plenty I didn't particularly enjoy because I was with someone who made me mindnumbingly happy in other areas. And.. actually, doing those things, even though they were not enjoyable.. became enjoyable because I really needed to please that guy who brought me such physical relief. Ah. Life's rich tapestry. I almost pity people who, unlike you, imagine that when presented with two contradictory claims they need to declare at least one of them untrue. You, as the kids like to say, go. Furthermore, it is your birthday. quote:
I have to wonder if there is a need to control orgasms because they have so much fear of unabandoned sexuality. What are your thoughts? ... Okay. I know it is just a figure of speech to say "I have to wonder" but I think it is worth reminding you that you needn't wonder at all. In the first place, that someone decides to engage in this seems to me to be no suggestion whatsoever that they "need" to. Just as the fact that you usually take the same way home from work does not prove, show, or even indicate in some vague way that you need to. So often here, when one writer is discussing a choice by another person--a choice of which the writer disapproves, this "need" language is slipped in. "My Master likes to (blank). Does anyone else's Master like to (blank.)" "(Blank)ing is evil and horrid and not even tax-deductable. Anyone who feels the NEED to (blank) is evil and horrid and pays too much in taxes." In some way that you just haven't thought of yet, orgasm denial may lead, for this couple, to sexuality of such wild abandon that it would make your head spin. But what is your first thought? That they are sexually repressed. A very old book says somewhere: "We see the world not as it is, but as we are." This whole business points to another trend I see here. When a writer is discussing a practice they don't understand, that writer will so often play this attributing motivations game, yes. But moreover--and this is the really consistent bit--it is as rare as hen's teeth for them to ever attribute some sort of laudable motivation. If someone does this thing I don't get, it must be because of (this or that failing, lack, deficiency, etc.) Since these conversations start on a note of "I don't understand this phenomenon," how is it that they so often proceed to psychological attributions? I Mean isn't it hard enough to make reliable psychological attributions about people you know, doing things you understand? But so many writers discussing things they freely admit they are clueless about, seem to feel nevertheless qualified to pontificate about the motivation for the behavior even though they don't understand the utility, meaning, or value of the behavior itself. I just kind of think it would be a much more appropriate thing, to wonder about the activity itself, and maybe explore it, or the idea of it, for a while, before bothering to think a single thought about what may lie deep in the psyche of some stranger, or hypothetical person who might choose (or, yes perhaps) need to engage in whatever sort of behavior is in question.
|