love...

Often discussions on this blog, including some recent ones, seem almost to predispose a loving D/s relationship as being key. I know I often talk about trust and communication as being so important. Also central seems to be an empathy and care for the needs of another. This has often seemed to imply a loving relationship and many commenters are fortunate in having such a relationship within which they can explore their needs safely.

But surely a "loving relationship" isn't really necessary. I have played with friends successfully where we were "just good friends". Yes, trust and understanding have to be built up, but not necessarily love.

It would be unusual nowadays to presume love before a sexual relationship started so is it not just the same for a BDSM or D/s relationship? Cannot BDSM buddies exist in the same way as sex buddies? Perhaps I am stating the obvious but it has recently struck me that some of my discussions on here seemed to imply love as part of what made D/s possible in a serious context. Surely that is not the case?

Or is it that the aftercare needed following an extreme session needs truly loving care? Does love make so much more possible? Is it possible to have a 24/7 non-abusive relationship that is not loving?

Ae you in love with your Dom or your sub? Does it matter?

lifestyle

In a comment to my previous post humiliation, needs and likes, Lea wrote,"It takes quite a person indeed to be able to humiliate but still retain the loving part of the relationship."

That has had me thinking about a few things.

The D/s lifestyle and BDSM activities include many things that would be anathema in normal society. How can one humiliate or cause physical, emotional or psychological pain to someone on a regular or ongoing way and call it a loving relationship?

From the outside it must seem impossible or at the very least peculiar and strange. I am sure many would assume such relationships are abusive - and in some cases I know they truly are from correspondents who came to realise that was the nature of their relationship and then chose to do something about it.

For many perhaps such activities are kept within boundaries and the trust and respect and desire to meet each others needs in an equal way is what characterises them as loving relationships. Many though live D/s (and other classifications that better describe the full nature of their relationship) on a daily basis. It is then not a separate activity with clear boundaries but an essential part of the relationship.

How in 24/7 relationships does one ensure that the barriers between respect and abuse are not crossed? The Dom has clear responsibilities here. But he is the one with the power. And, as Lea wrote, it takes quite a person indeed...

Many relationships, like mine, are on a continuum between in the bedroom only and 24/7 lifestyle. That may be from choice or from practical constraints such as family, social contacts and employment. I wonder though if the closer one is towards the 24/7 lifestyle end of the spectrum the harder it may be to retain that essential love and care and the more danger of it degenerating into abuse.

I have found it hard to find the right words for this post. Do I have it totally wrong? How can one ensure that love, care and respect are truly there when activities of hurt and humiliation are also key parts of the relationship?

vacation

I'm away at the moment.

Back next week, all being well.

humiliation, needs and likes

The most visited post on this blog is titled Humiliation. That in itself is fascinating.

I started to think about it in terms of our recent discussions about needs and likes. Can someone actively like being humiliated? Where it is desired is it because if fulfills some deep down need? Is humiliation a way of creating a deep feeling of submission to another? Is humiliating another a way of exerting power and control in a strong way? Is it a psychological equivalent of a severe beating?

Are there any readers who like or need to be humiliated? There were several in response to the first post.

enjoyment and submission

I found it really interesting to read the comments to the last couple of posts about spanking. (You can read them here and here.) It was fascinating reading different people's perspective on what worked for them. There were some for whom spanking was a very deep experience which filled a real need and was something they desired.

As Dani wrote, "...need is indeed what one feels. The connection at a base level of humanity. ... Why is the desire so strong?" and "...they can be divine or torture. In the end the outcome is the same, fulfilling a need, want and desire on many levels both physically and mentally."

There were others like Jz who liked them but didn't need them, "It's a liking. I like cookies, too... but I don't need them."

Some though didn't particularly like receiving a spanking but still felt a strong need for one. little monkey wrote, "Yes, I do. The part that I need most is the intention in the mind that drives the hand that strikes. I need that. So much so it borders on desperation at times."

This was developed further by Wilma Rubble who wrote, "... I NEED dominance. In our house, often submitting to a spanking is the ultimate form of submission. Why? Because physically I do not LIKE spankings."

So for some, like Wilma, the need for spanking is to help them feel submissive.

I wonder how much this is the case with lots of BDSM activity. Does a submissive often need not to enjoy the activity in order for it to make her feel submissive. That is the point. If she enjoyed a spanking or another painful or restrictive activity then it would no longer be submissive. The point of it not being a pleasant experience is to help her feel submissive to the needs and desires of another and to feel their dominance in making her do something unpleasant. Does then submission to the will of another imply being prepared to do things or accept things that one does not enjoy, or perhaps actively dislikes, for the pleasure of another or doing it quite simply because they command it, however unpleasant it might be? The stronger the dislike, the greater the feeling of submission.

But many (most? all?) submissives do enjoy BDSM activities. They are fun and fulfilling and help create the dynamic. They can be full of desire and wanting (and, yes, needing too.) They can be playful and fun ... and still within the dynamic. So perhaps a sub can enjoy an activity, revel in it even, and still be submissive.

So is there a contradiction here?

Are you truly submissive if you enjoy all you are commanded to do and all that is done to you?

another spanking...

Thank you to all who answered the question in my last post a spanking...

I asked the question, "Do you need a spanking?"

There were many very interesting replies. The impression I got from those who said they did indeed need a spanking was that it was because of the way it made them feel submissive and emphasised the dominance of their partner. They might not like the spanking itself but it met some other deep need.

I was taken to task by a correspondent for writing "who claim not to need it - but who do actually like it". It was the use of the word "claim" as if I might disbelieve those who said they do indeed like a spanking that annoyed her! She went on to write, "I was surprised that almost no one else would cop to simply liking a spanking, rather than needing it. I think I can understand the point that spanking is a quick and easy way to feel dominated, but it's not the trigger for me." The implication is that there must be many who want, desire, like and even enjoy a spanking.

So that is this weeks question...

Do you like a spanking?

a spanking...

Do you need a spanking?

play and relationships

A recent post here on play resulted in a number of responses and an interesting discussion.

It stimulated Misty to write her own post about it which you can read here. In turn that has generated a fascinating discussion about the nature, role and importance of play in relationships. Do pop over to read it and perhaps join in.

labels

There are so many labels in BDSM and so many interpretations of each. Just that one for a start. There are people who will give different words for the letters B,D,S or M.

Where does one start with the rest? D/s, Dd, M/s; submissives, slaves and dominants; Daddies and babygirls; sadists and masochists...

I'm sure we could compile a huge list. Perhaps that just shows the huge variety in what we do. In fact many call it "This thing that we do". Perhaps that is a recognition of the huge diversity in what we do but also the fact that there are common threads. Perhaps it says that there is more that unites us than divides us in all of our differences.

I worry sometimes though that people can get too hung up on a particular label and what it means to adhere to that concept. I like things to be inclusive rather than exclusive. I don't like to feel that I'm not quite part of a particular scene or group because my profile doesn't fit with a particular definition. I think it may be that I just don't like being labelled. Not just in this world but across my life.

But can labels be positive? Do they bring a sense of community? Does it help with identity, self image and self esteem? Or can labels exclude as well as include? Is this how cliques form and criticisms of outsiders becomes justified?

Personally I tend to avoid identifying myself with particular labels but I recognise how helpful it can be to help others understand.

What about you? Do you like to adhere to a particular label? Does it help identify you as a person and give you strength in this world? Or can they be a negative thing?

play

My last post smoke and mirrors, inspired by a comment from Anonymous, stimulated a very interesting discussion.

Anonymous also wrote here

My rumination on this topic comes from the term 'play' for intimate time spent between dom and sub, or master and slave, etc. It seems far too cavalier a term for something so intense and intimate.

That too hit home and got me thinking. We bandy about the term "play" about activities that as Anonymous writes are so "intense and intimate". Perhaps it chimes with discussions about the appropriateness of the word "fantasy" in comments on my previous post. However the word "play" is used commonly and is a useful word to describe much of what we do.

Is it too important, central to the dynamic, essential to a relationship, to be called just "play"?

smoke and mirrors

My inspiration for today's post comes from a comment by Anonymous to an earlier post here.            

I am not convinced that living this life, this 24/7 D/s 'lifestyle', is possible at all. It's all fantasy, and keeping that in mind is key. If indeed it's all about compromise and negotiation, then it's all smoke and mirrors and so be it. Yay for smoke and mirrors. We come together for mutual satisfaction - whether sexual or otherwise - but maintaining personhood is crucial. If marriage lasts forever, when does the 'playing' end due to age, infirmity, children, etc ?

There are many who claim to live the lifestyle 24/7. However as anonymous writes. Is this not just smoke and mirrors? Isn't it really fantasy however much one is really involved in an intense D/s relationship. For instance one may like to describe oneself as being a slave or being owned. But ultimately one can walk away from it all - otherwise I would be very concerned.

Anonymous contends that maintaining "personhood" is essential. Is she not right in this? Can one really completely give up ones personality or rights as a person? Is that something anyone with a moral compass could agree with?

I would love to hear readers views on this.

Romance

When I started writing the Beau blog many years ago I used the strapline "a hopeless romantic". Following a long discussion with a reader I changed it to "a hopeful romantic". I wonder if I am still a romantic or whether I am growing cynical as the years pass.

I am in the middle of a conversation at the moment with a submissive woman who described to me how she had become hopelessly infatuated with her top. Sadly it was unrequited as she (her top) had a separate romantic partner. However, they remained good friends and play partners. She wondered how often it was the case that bottoms developed such strong feelings for their top.

I wrote back with the following thoughts,

Bottoming, submitting, giving yourself for another's use is a very intimate activity. It involves huge levels of trust. Where one's trust is respected and paid back so that you feel safe and cared for as well as used then one surely cannot help a bond forming. This would be magnified hugely if it became regular play. How could one not become close to one's top? I wonder how one could not feel strong emotions for them following such play. Perhaps the stronger the play - the stronger the emotion. And when aftercare is given then this must feel very loving.

So perhaps your unrequited crush is more common than we realise!

She wrote back agreeing with what I had said but still felt that a romantic attachment was something different. She is happy to share her top's body but wants her heart all to herself.

I've been thinking this through for over a week now - she must think I have forgotten her. I suppose part of me is reflecting on the nature of this romantic love, that is desperate for the heart of another in a way that is perhaps even stronger than the bond formed by total submission.

So help me out romantics. How do I respond to her?

ethical sluttishness

In the previous post I discussed the redefining of sluttishness. The word "slut", typically used to describe women, is most often used as a negative description. Whereas calling a man a "stud" can be seen as a positive description. What is the difference? Each is someone who may have a number of sexual partners. Why is that seen as something to celebrate in a man but something to denigrate in a woman?

A friend some time ago gave a copy of The Ethical Slut to Inès though I am not sure if she has read it all. I am afraid I have only browsed it quickly. Wikipedia has an article about it here in which it summarises the theme of the book like this,

The authors define the term slut as "a person of any gender who has the courage to lead life according to the radical proposition that sex is nice and pleasure is good for you." The term is reclaimed from its usual use as a pejorative and as a simple label for a promiscuous person. Instead, it is used to signify a person who is accepting of their enjoyment of sex and the pleasure of physical intimacy with others, and chooses to engage and accept these in an ethical and open way—rather than as cheating.
The Ethical Slut discusses how to live an active life with multiple concurrent sexual relationships in a fair and honest way. 

Is this not a positive and ethical approach to having multiple partners? Can it be done? Can I be a slut and still be a moral person?

Any more sluts out there?

redefining sluttishness

I wrote some years ago about "on being a slut" here.

I just came across a great article about Helen Mirren's views here.

(To digress, I once met Helen Mirren in a France Telecom office in Provence but that is another story!)

Helen is reported as having praised "'shameless women' who are redefining beauty, citing Pussy Riot and Kim Kardashian as role models who have rejected labels such as slut..."

She goes on to say, "I love shameless women. Shameless and proud!"
and
"They all raise their middle fingers to this epithet of ‘slut’. They wear what they want to wear, behave as they want to behave.’"

I know there are many as part of their bdsm activity may delight in being a slut with the person who dominates them - whilst appearing perhaps almost demur to the real world. There are perhaps others who delight in their sluttishness whatever the context.

I wonder about my readers. Do some express their slutishness just with the one close to them? Is it only for private or also in public? And what about Doms. Do you like your subs to express their sluttishness in public or do you want it kept just for yourself?

Are you a slut and proud of it? Or - do you have one for your pleasure and to show off?

Desire...

On my post about excitement Innerdeamons commented (I paraphrase slightly)

...i realised that this is what i wanted; the excitement would fade and desire and want would slowly start to consume me; i feel for me personally that the desire is more powerful than excitement and that in its own way is exciting.

It got me thinking about desire and bdsm. It also got me thinking about the power of desire and whether it was more consuming than excitement. I think it is difficult to compare the two. As Innerdeamons implied, the power of desire itself can be exciting. Perhaps desire is just a very powerful kind of excitement.

I know too that bdsm causes desire in me as well as giving me excitment. I want Inès. Her submission causes desire. Exerting my power over her causes desire.

So of course - that is exciting!

Does bdsm cause desire in you too?