Living A Sugarcoated Lifestyle?

[Caitlin]

Are you living a sugarcoated lifestyle? How real is your involvement with BDSM?

Dr. Cindy Pam from her book 'Pandoras Box' said that...'The whole thrill of BDSM is letting someone take advantage of you knowing that they wont.'

Granted, not all people want to be taken advantage of, but there are others who do.

At first I thought this statement was an over simplification, and sugarcoated explanation of the attraction of BDSM for those not into this lifestyle, but then, maybe its not.

Is this your experiance? Are you mearly roleplaying out your desires? Are you just living a spicy, but sugarcoated fantasy? Or is it more involved and deeper? What buzz do you get out of this lifestyle and why?

[BDSM_Tourguide]

I don't think I've ever take advantage of anyone, not have I ever particularly had the desire to do so. Ouside of written fiction, of course.

I simply see BDSM as something I need to do.

[Finding_Fantasy]

Sure, there are those that take advantage of it. "Dominants" that go after a woman (or man) submissive simply because they have to have that ego boost and self importance that leads them to take advantage of them.

Does a submissive want to be taken advantage of? Maybe some, but I don;t think that is true for the vast majority. I think The Doc needs to get her facts straight.

[Caitlin]

Good point FF. I think what the Doc was saying is that the excitement is in the role playing of being taken advantage of, but knows that the Dom wont. ??

The quote was in her conclusion of her explanation of BDSM. I didn't truly understand what she was saying, and I don't think she does either.

To be taken advantage of can mean so many things, however, she says the allure of BDSM is wanting to be taken advantage of but knowing that your not going to be.

Yet is that what subs really want. Where is the respect element of the Dom for his sub?

I for one wouldn't want to be taken advantage of, and I think BDSM is more than just roleplaying.

[gregor2001us]

For me, it isn't about role playing. It is about me being in a position where my Domme is in control, and I am not. I am trapped. At her mercy. While there are side boards to it, it is real. The rush for me is being controled by her. In real life. The ways she shows, or emphasizes, that fact are the biggest turn ons.

Gregor

[BDSM_Tourguide]

The rush for me is being controled by her.

Interesting. Especially considering that you are the one in control.

Confused? Read more here.

[J's blu]

interesting discussion. to me it depends on Your definition of advantage. my Master takes advantage of the fact that i will do whatever He tells me to. i take advantage of the fact the He DOES tell me to do things. He takes advantage of the fact that my body is available to Him for whatever He wants to do to it. i take advantage of the fact that He will do things to it. it is also to my advantage that the things He does to it give me pleasure incidentally while He gets pleasure. now thats A LOT of adantages as far as i can see

[Ruby]

Dr. Cindy Pam from her book 'Pandoras Box' said that...'The whole thrill of BDSM is letting someone take advantage of you knowing that they wont.'

In my opinion, this statement is an oversimplification of the many terms and concepts within BDSM and doesn't really take into play that it can be more than kinky sex, it can be a whole lifestyle choice. It's got enough half truths to be interesting, but it sets off warning bells in the brain.

BDSgirl has a great way to use the word advantage, yet it's not "taking advantage".

Catlin who asked the question later said,"The quote was in her conclusion of her explanation of BDSM. I didn't truly understand what she was saying, and I don't think she does either."

Finding_Fantasy, TG and gregor2001us have made very good points.

It seems the doctor doesn't understand BDSM, the lifestyle choices we make or why we make them.

I can't see TG, my hubby or any of the doms in healthy relationships "taking advantage" of their submissives, but there are "advantages" everyone can receive from their relationship.

Catlin then says,"At first I thought this statement was an over simplification, and sugarcoated explanation of the attraction of BDSM for those not into this lifestyle, but then, maybe its not."

Well, it's not. It's just wrong for so many of us and she's attemtping to define the motivation for a group of people instead of perhaps the motivations of a single individual. My kink isn't your kink and who am I or anyone else to define what motivates you?

Is this your experience? No.

Are you mearly roleplaying out your desires?
Huh? If yes, then I roleplay in everything I do from running a company to being a mom, etc. The roles we play are how we choose live.

Are you just living a spicy, but sugarcoated fantasy? No. My life is very real to me and the people in it. I'm not a fictional character.

Or is it more involved and deeper?
More involved and deeper than her statement and a sugar coated fantasy.

What buzz do you get out of this lifestyle and why?
I get the same buzz out of doing anything I enjoy doing.

Anyone else want to try to answer Caitlin's questions?

[MMark]

I think that some of you are misinterpreting the quote. You're putting the period in the wrong place and dropping off the end of the sentence.

'The whole thrill of BDSM is letting someone take advantage of you knowing that they won't.'

While I'm willing to admit my own inexperience, I would venture that one of the guiding factors for a Sub is the perceived loss of control. The doc's statement does not end at merely with being taken advantage of, but that there is a risk of such, and the Sub trusts the Dom not to do so.

[Ruby]

I'm just as hung up on the first part of the sentence - "the whole thrill" as the middle and the end. :-)

The complete sentence doesn't begin to define what I get out of my BDMS relationship with my hubby or the thrill for me.

Does it for you? Any of you?

[gregor2001us]

There are too many ways to look at it to be able to explain it simply, in one sentence. For me, I need to have some side boards (limits) that allow me to feel comfortable placing myself under my Domme's control. Without them, I would not do it.

But once they have been agreed to (ie I am comfortable giving up my ability to direct and modify the outcome) the turn on is being at her mercy and being controled by her. I at that point have no choice and cannot control the outcome.

As TG said, you can look at it from a variety of perspectives, and may come to different conclusions about who is in control. I may not really know who is controling the situation. I only know what it feels like to me. But I don't really care what outsiders think they know. I know that I am turned on and enjoying the rush of being controled by someone else, and have (for my purposes) no control.

gregor

[Master Jack's pet]

you might want to read an essay by laura antoniou entitled, "unsafe at any speed or safe, sane and consensual, my fanny". i know that it is in her newest collection, "the catalyst", but don't know if you can find it elsewhere.

her rant in essence is that bdsm has been watered down by the ssc credo. she believes that part of the thrill of bdsm is the fear and the danger and knowing that you have set all kinds of limits takes all of that away.

[Caitlin]

I think her explaination what the attraction is about the BDSM lifestyle is too narrow and too generalised. This is her key sentance to sum up what the attraction is. She says, and she says it from the subs point of view that the:

'The whole thrill of BDSM is letting someone take advantage of you knowing that they wont.'

Even being taken advantage of in this lifestyle can mean so many things to so many people.

There are some people in this lifestyle, as well as vanillas, who are taken advantage of, and they stay in those relationships because they don't want to loose their significant other. I know I'm talking about abuse here, but I used it is an example.

I think the Doc's statement is too simplified to be a true explanation of the attration to BDSM. I think she generalised too many things. I don't think she had a random sample of people in the BDSM lifestyle to interview, if she had interviewed anyone, to find out what the thrill is, and what it is about the lifestyle that attracts them.

[BDSM_Tourguide]

her rant in essence is that bdsm has been watered down by the ssc credo. she believes that part of the thrill of bdsm is the fear and the danger and knowing that you have set all kinds of limits takes all of that away.

This is one of the main reasons that the SSC movement is being replaced in real-life BDSM communities by RACK. RACK hasn't managed to work its way into many areas of the net yet, as internet communities seem to be quite intolerant of change for some reason.

[alura]

I swear, sometimes I feel like I live in this secret society where everyone knows the code words but me.
What is SSC and what the heck is RACK?

This is one of the main reasons that the SSC movement is being replaced in real-life BDSM communities by RACK. RACK hasn't managed to work its way into many areas of the net yet, as internet communities seem to be quite intolerant of change for some reason.

[BDSM_Tourguide]

I swear, sometimes I feel like I live in this secret society where everyone knows the code words but me.
What is SSC and what the heck is RACK?

SSC is Safe, Sane and Consensual. It's been the "BDSM motto" since the 60s. Basically, it just means that all play will be safe for all parties, done in a correct frame of mind (not in anger, etc.), and between consenting individuals.

RACK is Risk Aware Consensual Kink. It's a newer term that appeared in the late 90s/early 2000s. Basically, it means that people are aware of what they are doing, they know some of it is dangerous and they accept it. In other words, they are aware of the risks, but they still consent to the kinky activities.

[Darkgirl]

I must admit that I too don't know some of the abreviations to certain words or phrases. Maybe this could be another discusion/thread.

Anyway back to the subject - If your a sub and want to be under total control and completely powerless, wouldn't 'YOU' choose that person to be the Dom because of trust and honesty and not just obediance and loyalty?
So a 'sub' does have an amount of control to perform the 'need' to be under total control. Does this make sense? Is this the white boards that you speak of?

Afterall, to achieve the 'lifestyle' that you want you have to organise, plan, comunicate and have all the trust and honesty between two people in order for this to work no matter how deep or different each others needs are.

[Locked Advantages]

With me I would never let myself be taken advantage of because I've been through enough as it is...when I know I can trust the partner's love and trust that is when I submit. Why submit to someone you don't trust?

[Darkgirl]

That is exactly what I mean!! You can create the 'illusion' of a situation where you are captive and or made powerless but this can only be done by the 'key' points already mentioned. Thanks Locked Advantages!!!

[Locked Advantages]

I was just telling my point of view, didn't read many of the responses in detail but I am glad my response helped,lol. Why submit to just submit......if someone will hurt you?

[fluff]

Poor quote indeed...maybe if you replaced "advantage" with "use you for ultimate pleasures" I'd understand. I get used..and in being used I get what I want, as does He....it's reciprocal. That quote is crap, tell the good Dr. to come see me and I'll set her straight so she can at least speak from experience

:Omfg:

[midnightsky]

Id have to disagree as well...though more with the word "won't"...when you sumbit (to me at least) you end up having the ultimate power since you are in control of how far things go- you dicate what your like, dislike, what you can handle, etc.

and just cause i cant help commenting on it...
i dont think bdsm is sugarcoating anything about sex or life...quite the opposite, really. yes, there are limits, rules, thigns to be considered. But bdsm is not structured around the expectations of the "rest of the world", rather, it allows us to break free of that to experience (dare i say with carnal desire?) true lust, which is often squashed in everyday life for most of us.

[MrJerseyGuy]

When someone is forced to comply, I'm pretty sure they still call that rape. When a sub accepts pain and even torture to please her Dom/Master...they call that fun!

[VixeyandPhoenix]

The problem with paraphrasing is that you never really get the feel of the whole. The impression that I got was that the sub is giving someone the ability to take full advantage of them, but they will not out of respect. THIS is the thrill. I know that I can make Vixey do anything that I want her to, but there are some things that she is not comfortable with. I have no idea what it is like to be a sub, just like I have no idea what it is like to be a woman, but my best guess is that when you are lying there taking what is being dished out, you do not truly know what is going through the mind of the Dom. For all you know, the Dom could be planning some deviously twisted thing and you could become a victim rather than a playmate, but in the end, you get out safe and had fun, completely giving yourself to the whims of another. I don't know if this makes sense, but I enjoyed the discussion.

[bunkerchief]

BDSM is an ersatz experience so yes, it is sugarcoated. Take out SSC and consent and you have the real thing but you are less likely to get the real thing in the life style than outside it. BDSMers are more cautious about sex and kink in general than people who don't see themselves as being into kink.

My first experience with BDSM was without any knowledge of BDSM or its language and conventions and it was what my partner at the time called high wire sex. I doubt I will ever experience something so intense again because now I'm too knowledgeable and aware. Though we are not partners anymore, I do revisit the scene of the crimes with this old partner and though we don't get to the dizzy heights of before, we do get a more intense experience than with other partners. I guess the sugarcoating has softened the taste.

My biggest disappointment with the BDSM life style is how tame and polite it is. I think one of the problems is the over intellectualisation of what is basically an instinctive and intuitive act.

As for D/s relationships because of the market, subs being much less numerous than Doms (Just look at Alt.com or Bondage.com), the subs are really the people who hold the power which defeats the whole idea. The Dom is really the person on the end of the leash and not the sub, in reality the Dom services the sub and as long as he performs the sub won't walk away and he'll keep his position, which really isn't a position of power at all. You can see the psychology of this in the ads written by subs, the whole diction is one of someone possessing something that is in high demand and they are asking a high price.

However, no one wants to end up in jail so sugarcoated it will remain and we will all play the game and fantasize it is the real thing or at least try to.

[Ozme52]

I think you're about to hear some rebuttal on your stats b.c. It may be true if you include all the wannabe's posers, and trolls. But the true subs believe they far outnumber the true Doms.

Regardless, it always takes "two to tango," lifestyle or not. It has nothing to do with 'BDSM being ersatz or sugarcoated unless you remove consent...' unless you believe all sexual encounters to be such. The requirement for consent appears to me to be built into just about all the warmblooded fauna in the world... with the female being the one who ultimately chooses. Afterall, the female is the biggest risktaker. She sacrifices more time and life-energy to create, protect, and nurture the offspring...

Human sexuality may not always be about procreation, but the "dance" we dance is certainly rooted in it.

[Aesop]

My biggest disappointment with the BDSM life style is how tame and polite it is. I think one of the problems is the over intellectualisation of what is basically an instinctive and intuitive act.

Tame and polite are not synonyms. I'm a very polite man most of the time, but I've never been accused of being tame. I think you want the fantasy of BDSM to be the reality. Well, it can't all be "fuck me, cunt" moments and that's just how it is.

As for D/s relationships because of the market, subs being much less numerous than Doms (Just look at Alt.com or Bondage.com), the subs are really the people who hold the power which defeats the whole idea. The Dom is really the person on the end of the leash and not the sub, in reality the Dom services the sub and as long as he performs the sub won't walk away and he'll keep his position, which really isn't a position of power at all. You can see the psychology of this in the ads written by subs, the whole diction is one of someone possessing something that is in high demand and they are asking a high price.

Damn right they ask a high price. Don't they deserve to? Should they submit to the first guy who comes along holding a crop? No, of course not. I think what you seem to be missing in this whole thing is the power exchange. Yes the sub holds the power, but then it is willingly given up to the dom. Taking that power and keeping it is the challenge and joy of being a dominant.

However, no one wants to end up in jail so sugarcoated it will remain and we will all play the game and fantasize it is the real thing or at least try to.

This in my opinion is a horrible statement. No one wants to end up in jail? Fatasize it's the real thing? What real thing? Real torture? Real rape? Surely you don't advocate those things?

[submissivewife]

BDSM is an ersatz experience so yes, it is sugarcoated. Take out SSC and consent and you have the real thing but you are less likely to get the real thing in the life style than outside it. BDSMers are more cautious about sex and kink in general than people who don't see themselves as being into kink.

Don't you think this is because people who are in the lifestyle are more knowledgable than those who do not see themselves as kinky? From what I can see people in the lifestyle read and understand the risks so that play is safe. There is nothing wrong with that.

My first experience with BDSM was without any knowledge of BDSM or its language and conventions and it was what my partner at the time called high wire sex. I doubt I will ever experience something so intense again because now I'm too knowledgeable and aware. Though we are not partners anymore, I do revisit the scene of the crimes with this old partner and though we don't get to the dizzy heights of before, we do get a more intense experience than with other partners. I guess the sugarcoating has softened the taste.

Your phrase of "scene of the crimes" is very interesting. Why do you call them crimes? We call them play. If you were really into the lifestyle you don't call them crimes, you call them play. Which is how it is suppose to be.

My biggest disappointment with the BDSM life style is how tame and polite it is. I think one of the problems is the over intellectualisation of what is basically an instinctive and intuitive act.

LOL Polite yes...I have met the most polite people through this lifestyle. Tame...not the Doms I have dealt with. Daddy and Sir, I would never call tame. Damn they would probably tan my hide for such a statement.

As for D/s relationships because of the market, subs being much less numerous than Doms (Just look at Alt.com or Bondage.com), the subs are really the people who hold the power which defeats the whole idea. The Dom is really the person on the end of the leash and not the sub, in reality the Dom services the sub and as long as he performs the sub won't walk away and he'll keep his position, which really isn't a position of power at all. You can see the psychology of this in the ads written by subs, the whole diction is one of someone possessing something that is in high demand and they are asking a high price.

A submissive finds comfort in her/his Dominant. Through their control and power; submissives are in control. Not meaning they control the dom...NEVER. Just that submissives are more able to function at their best through their dominant.

A high price...hell yes it is. A dominant is asking a submissive to trust them with their lives. That is not a trivial thing.


subwife

[Brosco]

I too feel compelled to respond to this post. It seems to me that it judges all others based on tastes and ideals of Bunkerchief, but in doing so, also contains contradictions.

BDSM is an ersatz experience so yes, it is sugarcoated.

Uuuummmm maybe it is an ersatz experience for your tastes, but that doesn't make it so for all others. I claim to have a D/s lifestyle because it provides me all I need to describe my tastes and desires. Anyone that finds it false or sugarcoated is not really a part of this lifestyle, but belongs somewhere else (probably jail).

Take out SSC and consent and you have the real thing but you are less likely to get the real thing in the life style than outside it. BDSMers are more cautious about sex and kink in general than people who don't see themselves as being into kink.

If you take away SSC (or RACK) and consent, you are now talking about abuse, and possibly even more. As asked by another, what do you see as 'the real thing'?

My first experience with BDSM was without any knowledge of BDSM or its language and conventions and it was what my partner at the time called high wire sex. I doubt I will ever experience something so intense again because now I'm too knowledgeable and aware. Though we are not partners anymore, I do revisit the scene of the crimes with this old partner and though we don't get to the dizzy heights of before, we do get a more intense experience than with other partners. I guess the sugarcoating has softened the taste.

My first experiences were also without any knowledge of BDSM, or that others like me even existed. And yes, it was very intense, as we learnt together and pushed ourselves way past what we assumed all others were doing. Every little thing was new and exciting, no matter how tame it may seem by today's standards with so much more information available.

BTW, it is here that you provide us with a major contridiction. Your ex-partner clearly agreed to what you did together, to the extent that you can still visit and do the same now - so you must have had a "ersatz experience" then also, because she consented to this .. and consent is part of your definition of sugarcoating. If she didn't consent at the time - uuuumm - why aren't you in prison?

My biggest disappointment with the BDSM life style is how tame and polite it is. I think one of the problems is the over intellectualisation of what is basically an instinctive and intuitive act.

As others have already stated: Tame - NO. Polite, yes. Being an asshole to others is not one of my desires

"Over intellectualisation"? I disagree. One of the things that the net did was to provide resources so that people have easy access to understand these strange feelings they have. OK, in our young days we both explored without having any reference material available - but how many supressed their feelings because they thought they were weird?

As for D/s relationships because of the market, subs being much less numerous than Doms (Just look at Alt.com or Bondage.com), the subs are really the people who hold the power which defeats the whole idea. The Dom is really the person on the end of the leash and not the sub, in reality the Dom services the sub and as long as he performs the sub won't walk away and he'll keep his position, which really isn't a position of power at all. You can see the psychology of this in the ads written by subs, the whole diction is one of someone possessing something that is in high demand and they are asking a high price.

In your first BDSM experience your 'sub' could have walked away, otherwise you were breaking the law! I am not sure that you really understand D/s. It is a Power Exchange. Yes the sub has the power to accept or deny what may happen with her (or him), the Dom then uses that power that has been granted to him. In the (decent) adverts written by subs or Doms, the list of requirements are not demands on ever reader of the ad. They are simply a starting point to establish a compatibility. Why would a sub come to me if she wants to Orgasm 2 or 3 times a day, when my kink is to deny orgasms whenever I want? Is it false (ersatz) for a sub to have any desires at all? Is it false for a sub to have limits - say, incest, beastiality, children, her own children, etc?

However, no one wants to end up in jail so sugarcoated it will remain and we will all play the game and fantasize it is the real thing or at least try to.

All my wants and desires can be fulfilled without me ending up in jail and the 'game' I play is not fantasy - it is very real.

I would suggest that you catch the next space shuttle to Gor, I think you will be happy there.

Brosco

[Brosco]

Thinking about this some more... it occurred to me, I assume that bunkerchief does not think that all women are subbies. If he does, he will have a real problem in this world. Forget BDSM - he is just socially unacceptable and will be locked away.

So that leaves him with those that DECIDE for THEMSELVES to be subbies, and of course that won't work for him because he doesn't like the element of consent!

Then we have the added problem for bunkerchief - he fails to comprehend that each person has their own degree of submission... it seems to me that BC expects all or nothing. Well BC, there are a few out there that desire this, just like there are a few out there like you that expect this. I hope you find each other.

In the meantime, let those of us who seem to be the majority, enjoy what we have, and do not trivialise it just because it isn't your taste.

Brosco