RE: Non-obedient BDSM

RE: Non-obedient BDSM (Full Version)

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

Message

denika -> RE: Non-obedient BDSM (12/13/2006 12:01:40 AM)
This has been an intresting post to follow, One of the many comments that struck me was Lady Aleria's about primal equating to a certian amount of control lost during primal play. Knights reply to that was dead on in describing how primal play flows, at least I will speak for myself and say that is how it flows fo me when I bottom to Him. Fight or flight syndrome kicks in when I play primal, that age old neurological urge. Flight rarely happens, I'm a fight kind of person and I become incredibly focused. The unprdictibility factor of never knowing just what He will do next helps feed that responce. When I need to cry or scream or stike back I can just let it happen without thinking it through from begining to end, it is an instict but that focus is still there. I may not be able to articulae very well at that moment but trust me I'm still taking everything in. I do agree that like so many definitions in this lifestyle there is going to be more than one and how I play primal or how anyone else does, is going to be diffrent and subject to interpretation. denika

LuciusAestus -> RE: Non-obedient BDSM (12/13/2006 3:41:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lady Alaria I got the impression that the OP was talking about play that had no element of obedience at all. Not brattiness, just no D/s. An entirely egalitarian relationship on basic power issues with wild primal SM dominance play sexuality. Or that's how I took it. Could be way off. Some people play that way, some don't. While I don't master the English language well enough to be able to put words on exactly how I mean, I think this would be a quite correct explanation of it. I never did mention brattiness, so that wasn't what I meant by no obedience. An egalitarian relationship would also be the correct as I do my best to consider all humans of equal value, only seperated by Will. I could also try to explain through an example with pets as an example. Think of making a dog or a wolf your pet. Fido will, in the classic examples, always be happy to see you, get the paper for you in the morning, follow you around, only be happy to wear a collar and never wish to leave you until death, always obedient, never questioning. The wolf on the other hand isn't as easy to tame, but it may be possible, I guess. It is much more aggressive and you'll have a much harder time having it follow you around all the time, and you'd probably deserve a prize if you could get your wolf pet to featch the newpaper in the morning. Why would you want a wolf as a pet? I'm going to assume you can figure that out. Sorry if I'm just speaking crap, I keep forgetting what I'm saying, so I just have to keep on writing something and hope it makes sense. Now, if you'll excuse me, I got 2 more pages of this thread to read. I never thought it would turn out this big.

kyraofMists -> RE: Non-obedient BDSM (12/13/2006 4:13:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub You haven't been reading my posts. I haven't said that safewords will keep you safe. I have said that a person who won't use safewords is someone a beginner should probably avoid. That's my opinion. Don't care if you like it or not. I guess what you do not realize is that when you tell a beginner that they should avoid playing with someone only because they do not use safewords (and in your first post on this topic your statement was an absolute and not qualified with a 'probably') you communicate that safewords are going to keep them safe. Just the term 'safeword' communicates that it is a word that will keep you safe. I find it reckless to make a decision on who to play with by whether they use safewords or not. I find it reckless to make a determination that someone should be avoided only because they don't use safewords. I think it sounds more like "one true way", must play with safewords or don't play at all. I think it much more useful to tell someone, "I play with safewords and here is the reason why it works for me... and here is so-and-so and they do not play with safewords and they can tell you why it works for them..." Give them both sides of the issue and let them make an intelligent choice for themselves rather than following some narrow-minded doctrine of "avoid all those who don't use safewords". Knight's kyra

LuciusAestus -> RE: Non-obedient BDSM (12/13/2006 4:36:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sweetnurseBBW What you find stupid alot of us enjoy. As a slave I find my obedience is essential. I do enjoy to struggle and fight a bit at times. Because one enjoys something and someone else does not, does not make it stupid. Of course, to each, his/her own. Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough, but I didn't mean that it's stupid when practiced by others who enjoy it, it's just that I don't enjoy it as much.

LuciusAestus -> RE: Non-obedient BDSM (12/13/2006 4:47:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freakgoddess another way to look at obedience: if i want a man who will not obey, i can get that from any man on the street. why would i need a submissive for that? There's a very obvious reason, at this time, all kinds of non-consesual sex is illegal in most parts of the world from what I know. So if you were to find a random man on the street to tie up and have your way with, if he liked it or not, you'd have to deal with the law. And if you enjoy obedience better, then that's fine, as everyone obviously differ at some areas.

Dartantris -> RE: Non-obedient BDSM (12/13/2006 4:59:50 AM)
Interesting comments but none that get at the concept of a "safeword". When you're doing a rape scene, you're pretending. To allow the sub to sustain the illusion that she is being raped, she uses safe words. The sub wants to get into the scene - resistance, screaming, fighting, whatever. So instaed of needing to say "I'm not pretending now. I really do want you to stop.", she can say a word that means that but allows her to keep the scene as real as possible. That's pretty much the idea of a safe word. It's not limited to safety although that is often given as the primary reason for using a safe word. It can also mean "What you are doing now is not too much. In fact, make it more intense." It's all about maintaining the fantasy.

Jnj -> RE: Non-obedient BDSM (12/13/2006 6:06:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dartantris When you're doing a rape scene, you're pretending. To allow the sub to sustain the illusion that she is being raped, she uses safe words. Personally, when my owner, his friends, and I do rape scenes, we do not use safewords. Using safewords makes feel like we are pretending. It prevents me from obtaining any sort of head space, because when we use a safeword, it is always in the back of my mind that if this was a real rape, I would be trying as many methods as possible to get away from it -- so why not just use the one I know will work in this instance, a safeword? If I'm not using something that I know logically will make the activity cease, I am actively giving consent every time the cock strokes inside me. That isn't a rape scene to me. That is a force me and I will pretend I don't like it scene. And that is the goal of a rape scene for me...to actually feel raped, not to pretend I'm being raped. I want to get to the point where I really am saying "I'm not pretending now. I really do want you to stop." and any version of that I can think of, and it isn't listened to. In primal play, I strive to reach a mindset during the scene where I can forget that my partner has ethics, that we have agreements, that we are trying to be safe. I want all of that to melt away, and I want to be taken to a place where I don't obey because I want to, I obey because I am forced to. But then again, I find playing with someone who judges acceptable risk more liberally than I do extremely erotic.

meatcleaver -> RE: Non-obedient BDSM (12/13/2006 6:12:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: darksdesire The other thing is that most submissives/slaves will not submit and obey just anyone. Rather, it is something that an attentive, responsible Master or Mistress inspires from the slave by their ability to lead, guide and dominate. I don't know, but that seems pretty "mature" in terms of relationship dynamics. Sounds pretty vanilla to me, that is not to denigrate it but where is the power exchange? The fact is there is no power exchange in D/s, it is no different than a vanilla relationship where two personalities find a balance which suits them.

darksdesire -> RE: Non-obedient BDSM (12/13/2006 6:25:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: darksdesire The other thing is that most submissives/slaves will not submit and obey just anyone. Rather, it is something that an attentive, responsible Master or Mistress inspires from the slave by their ability to lead, guide and dominate. I don't know, but that seems pretty "mature" in terms of relationship dynamics. Sounds pretty vanilla to me, that is not to denigrate it but where is the power exchange? The fact is there is no power exchange in D/s, it is no different than a vanilla relationship where two personalities find a balance which suits them. Well, actually that's not fact, but your opinion. In my particular case, and I'm guessing for many others, there is a significant power exchange in their D/s relationship. I don't exactly follow your point in regards to the sentences you highlighted. Are you saying that because I choose only to submit to a particular Master, then this is not an exchange of power? I'm not sure how you've arrived at that conclusion.

meatcleaver -> RE: Non-obedient BDSM (12/13/2006 6:49:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: darksdesire Are you saying that because I choose only to submit to a particular Master, then this is not an exchange of power? I'm not sure how you've arrived at that conclusion. I'm saying that any relationship will find its own balance of power between the respective partners whether you describe it as vanilla or D/s or any other term. Where there is consent there really is no difference which is my point. D/s is no different from vanilla except in D/s there is a pretence that a dom has controling power over a sub but that is all it is, a pretence because the sub is consenting and can walk away whenever the sub wishes. Hence the reason I can't take it seriously and hence the reason I simply indulge in S&M where it is acknowledged that the bottom consents.

Devilslilsister -> RE: Non-obedient BDSM (12/13/2006 7:04:52 AM)
quote: I know how far I can push things on that level too. I fought for a good number of years. Maybe it's that training that taught me how to keep myself in control. I'd have to think it at least contributed. I see a huge difference between fighting a no holds barred fight and going into an uncontrollable rage that might leave someone dead. If I thought that my partner wasn't capable of reeling himself back in, I wouldn't be fighting with him....nor would I ever trust him enough to allow him to bind me. I like to play with heavy sadists...and I need to know that they are capable of maintaining necessary amounts of control to stay within the limits agreed upon. I don't have any interest in playing with loose cannons. See, now i'm jealous. I dont think i'll ever have the ability to engage in that sort of play. Most of my fights are usually (and oddly) with men twice my size. It usually comes down to "me or them" fight, i tend to black out and just react. One of the many reasons i have yet to ever have a brawl with another woman. That and they pussy out. Though i DID have one girl who stood facing me and said "look, if you're going to kick my ass there isnt anything i can do about it" I think i was so shocked i lost my motivation to fight and settled things with words. ::sigh:: i think i need to go start a bar brawl so i can know what to expect. Hey! Is wacking ppl upside the head with chairs and beer bottles (hell any bottles) exceptable? Eh, i'm jealous, but i think i will content myself with what my Master and i do.

darksdesire -> RE: Non-obedient BDSM (12/13/2006 7:24:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: darksdesire Are you saying that because I choose only to submit to a particular Master, then this is not an exchange of power? I'm not sure how you've arrived at that conclusion. I'm saying that any relationship will find its own balance of power between the respective partners whether you describe it as vanilla or D/s or any other term. Where there is consent there really is no difference which is my point. D/s is no different from vanilla except in D/s there is a pretence that a dom has controling power over a sub but that is all it is, a pretence because the sub is consenting and can walk away whenever the sub wishes. Hence the reason I can't take it seriously and hence the reason I simply indulge in S&M where it is acknowledged that the bottom consents. Ok, understood. I think that just like S&M though, it's often acknowledged that in D/s, the submissive does indeed consent to the terms. She agrees to relinquish her freedom to a particular dom. I know that some slaves will contend that once they enter the relationship, they do not have the ability to leave, but that's not a mindset that works for me. Considering your interpretation, I don't see how D/s is any more vanilla than S & M. They are merely different relational styles, different dynamics, and both require consent.

mistoferin -> RE: Non-obedient BDSM (12/13/2006 7:37:13 AM)
Ah but we are talking about two different beasts. I play at this level because of my training and experience and because I understand the responsibilities that go along with that. I do know what my capabilities are. It is for that very reason that I have to take the responsibility of maintaining a degree of control. This is play....and for me, anger and a desire to damage someone have no place in it. It is far different than a bar brawl or fighting someone on the street. I avoid those situations as much as I possibly can. Certainly, if there is no other option available I will react as necessary...but even then I have a responsibility to maintain control and only take things as far as the situation calls for. Walking away before it comes down to that is generally the best option. There are some who get swept up in the headspace and emotion to the point that they can no longer be responsible to maintain the necessary control. These scenes for me are very different from other forms of BDSM play where at some point I get lost in my own headspace and drift away. In these scenes, I can not afford to allow myself to go there. I have to stay in the here and now and maintain focus and control. If I were unable to do so it would be irresponsible, in my opinion, to engage in such play.

agirl -> RE: Non-obedient BDSM (12/13/2006 7:49:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: darksdesire Are you saying that because I choose only to submit to a particular Master, then this is not an exchange of power? I'm not sure how you've arrived at that conclusion. I'm saying that any relationship will find its own balance of power between the respective partners whether you describe it as vanilla or D/s or any other term. Where there is consent there really is no difference which is my point. D/s is no different from vanilla except in D/s there is a pretence that a dom has controling power over a sub but that is all it is, a pretence because the sub is consenting and can walk away whenever the sub wishes. Hence the reason I can't take it seriously and hence the reason I simply indulge in S&M where it is acknowledged that the bottom consents. [ quote] I think this way also, to a point. The power that is held over me is one I consented to. I can walk away from that this afternoon, if I wish to. In the same way that I negated the power that my husbands had over me, by walking way. The balance of power in my vanilla relationships never, ever was established in any workable way, for me. I can't say that it had anything to do with the fact that they were vanilla. It is more than likely the incompatability of the people that we were. There's a type of core respect that I didn't ever have. If my master was vanilla, I can't envisage anything changing. Being my master is one thing, but he'd have to be all that in a vanilla sense for it to mean anything at all to me. agirl

julietsierra -> RE: Non-obedient BDSM (12/14/2006 2:59:40 AM)
I've found that so many people couple up the idea of D/s and SM so much that what ends up happening is that when someone says "D/s" the inference is that it includes SM, and when someone says "SM" people infer that there's an element of obedience found in D/s included. In my opinion, one can exist without the other. There are certainly couples that want the service, obedience, control, without involving themselves in any of the more physical stuff. And there are people who want the physical without the servitude. It's all good. I happen to love the D/s AND the SM...and I'm collared to someone who looked for someone who wanted both as well. What is boring for one person is a step toward ecstasy for someone else. I love that we're all so different. I love the AA quote - it seems to fit this so much. "Take what you need and leave the rest." juliet

Celeste43 -> RE: Non-obedient BDSM (12/14/2006 6:47:18 AM)
The kind of person who would shove an icepick through another's brain is not the kind of person who would stop because someone said red. Trite but true. I'm one of those people who cannot safeword. Not refuses to, cannot. In an emotionally traumatic situation I don't speak, I just try to curl up in a ball and hope it all goes away soon. And then I stay there in that ball for hours afterwards crying hoplessly. So I don't play casually and I don't play edgewise things because I don't like hitting these triggers. And in the beginning I was a do-me bottom with just a few things I was willing to do. Because I need things to go slow and have positive outcomes. Luckily for me, he understood I was protecting myself and he wanted me to be safe so he went at a speed I could handle. And when we hit a trigger, we just switch to other activities. As far as the op goes, the problem is that you are male. This means that if you are het, then the average female isn't going to be able to overpower you and tie you up while you resist with all your strength. You have to agree to let her get the ropes on you. So once you've sat there while she restrains you, then you can yell and scream and defy all you want but underneath you know you have consented to this activity.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Non-obedient BDSM (2/1/2007 5:01:08 PM)
I just love "my play is deeper than your play" threads... Well since first liar never has a chance, here is how I do it. I cut their fucking tongue out so they can't safeword, that is how rough I play. I only play with submissives who have good medical care and they usually end up in the hospital two times out of three. I am such a stud, god I love myself!

kyraofMists -> RE: Non-obedient BDSM (2/1/2007 5:26:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuciusAestus Anyone tried/enjoy this? Allow me to explain. I don't really like the obedience part of a BDSM situation. I find it stupid with submissives saying "Yes Master/Mistress" all the time. I don't see the thrill in something being done by the command of another if the one commanding has no direct influence over the one being commanded. I find pure obedience only practiced because of the desire for it to be silly (but that is just my opinion, so please don't take offence from it). Would it not be fun if the submissive, when tied up, instead of screaming "Fuck me hard, Master!", would struggle against the ropes and grit teeth in anger? This is at least what I find myself enjoying the thought of most. There may still be something I like about obedience, but I can't quite put my finger on it yet. I'm sure there's more I should write, but my head is empty for now. I find it humorous that people's own definitions put them in boxes and then calls everyone silly for being in the box. Just because someone is being obedient doesn't mean they can't be screaming and fighting back in a scene. Just because someone is screaming and fight back in a scene doesn't mean that they are not also being obedient to the Dominant. In a scene/play/session (whatever your preferred term is) my girls have one rule... respond in any manner that comes to them. To not do so is actually being disobedient. My girls have indeed responded with intense aggression towards me. I have been punched, hair pulled, a knee to the groin, kicked, and call a multitude of names.... hell of alot of fun if you ask me. I am sure that some look at the scene and see someone being pushed beyond their limits (labeling me as dangerous or abusive)... or see the girls as being disrespectful and a poor example of a slave. In fact these are situations showing incredible obedience and trust. The trust in knowing that no matter what they do... I will not condem them for it... or chastize them for it. In fact.. I respond with my acknowledgment of them showing incredible obedience to my will. Of course... that is after I beat the hell out of them.... G LMAO... I forgot that I read an email of kyra's this morning and didn't log out... mmmmmmm I wonder can anyone figure out who wrote this.,

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 [7]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

2.929688E-02