quote:

ORIGINAL: iliv2servher

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha

In other words, do a lot of subs really need/want to know that their Mistress
is getting "turned on" sexually by their submission, or is it rewarding
enough that the Mistress is simply *really enjoying herself*?

Of course we do.  However, I do need to qualify the "we" party by explaining that the collective "we" refers to the consensus of submissives (both male and female) who's satisfaction is primarily derived from knowledge that his or her Dom/Domme is being satisfied.

Having said that, and in the aforementioned Mistress/slave scenario, I do not know how to separate the realm of sexual satisfaction from any other need to be satisfied.

quote:



But then there is the other type of arousal in a scene - sexual arousal -
and often I communicate that to a sub as well. It's always there anyway (In
other threads about "is bdsm sexual" I know I commented that for me, sexual
arousal *definitely happens*, but I am not after the almighty orgasm, I'm
too wrapped up in the power rush), so often I will *show* my sub how much he
is getting me wet.  It's also a sinister little act in itself - there is
something so wonderfully devious about the suffering of a man who cares
about me resulting in a pair of very wet panties.  

I would assume that this kind of arousal is much more of a turn on to a sub,
and also more motivating for him to "take more" for his Mistress.  But is
the other type pretty satisfying as well?

Not to simplify the issue, but for this topic I break down arousal into two kinds: sexual arousal and non-sexual arousal.

The "Is BDSM sexual?" topic has been knocked about for years, but since you bought it up...

Please explain what you mean by "non-sexual arousal."  Where does it come from?  Is the feeling of having power over someone else a result of sexual desire?  Does the gratification obtained by exercising power over another equal sexual gratification, or aren't we just taking about the same thing?

I am sure that we have all heard/read that experts in the field of human behavior view the act of rape as a power issue rather than a sexual issue, but where is the dividing line between "power over another individual" and "sex?"  I believe that, even though consentual BDSM is not rape, it still falls within the topic of  "power over another individual."

quote:

ORIGINAL: iliv2servher

Please explain what you mean by "non-sexual arousal."  Where does it come from?  Is the feeling of having power over someone else a result of sexual desire?  Does the gratification obtained by exercising power over another equal sexual gratification, or aren't we just taking about the same thing?

quote:


I am sure that we have all heard/read that experts in the field of human behavior view the act of rape as a power issue rather than a sexual issue, but where is the dividing line between "power over another individual" and "sex?"  I believe that, even though consentual BDSM is not rape, it still falls within the topic of  "power over another individual."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Donnalee
Who would enjoy getting flogged by a Don who's more into a sports game on TV?  D/s is about being intensely connected to another person...if one partner's head isn't joining in, it's not much fun or rewarding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha

quote:

ORIGINAL: iliv2servher

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha

Non-sexual arousal is hard to define because I don't know how other people feel it.  It's a rush, a high, a feeling that can result in a climax-like peak but all the while it requires no direct sexual stimulation. I can be fully clothed.  If I had some experience taking drugs, maybe I could compare it to one; I know it feels really good, and I know I crave it.

It's hard to define because maybe...just maybe...it comes from the same space and has the same degree of energy.  Do you agree that sexual desire originates in the mind?  And if what it is that we do is prompted by the same enorphin rush as love, lust, drugs, etc., then why can't all of the above be catagorized as coming from the same or similar origins?

quote:



I also know it makes me incredibly wet.  If I am engaging in hot bdsm for an hour, not sexual in nature, no nudity, no sexual touching, my panties will be soaking wet when I am done.  However, I am not aroused in an "oh my god, MUST HAVE ORGASM" way - the sexual arousal is a mere side effect not requiring any attention.

On the other hand, if I engage in one hour of sexual foreplay - fondling, making out, nudity, carressing -- and, I get totally wet -- I MUST have an orgasm.  To deny that would frustrate me endlessly. 

I think that the greatest orgasm can come from fantasy fulfillment which begins as an idea.  And whether or not the actual activity culminates in a physical orgasm, the result can be just as powerful, if not more so.

quote:



BDSM arousal, for me, does not need to end in sexual orgasm. It's a nice added touch, but when given the choice, "more bdsm, more intensity" or "stop now and have an orgasm" it's a no-brainer - I want more BDSM.

You have obviously developed into one who appreciates the highest level of eroticism that BDSM can bring to us.  Those of us who evolve into beings who can appreciate eroticism without having to experience orgasm as a means to an end will not doubt understand it and appreciate BDSM for what it is.

(in reply to AAkasha)

quote:


responses from female subs too.


... do a lot of subs really need/want to know that their Mistress is getting "turned on" sexually by their submission, or is it rewarding enough that the Mistress is simply *really enjoying herself*?