One form of BSDM-ish behaviour I can sort of see myself getting into would be the whole owner/pet thing.
Not in an abusive way…. violence of any sort simply has no place in the world of my sensuality. So whichever role I am playing, there is to be no cruelty, violence, torture, or abuse.
But I can definitely imagine myself in either role. That’s just how it goes with me. I can be either parent or child, and I can switch on a dime in the right circumstances. That’s how I am built. I can see myself settling easily into the sort of relationship based on mutual nurturing, one of us always playing the caregiver to the other, and swapping places according to need.
So it would be a very gentle kind of BSDM. Call it BDSM Light. I would be very gentle and caring to my pets, and would only use discipline when absolutely necessary. This might disappoint some potential playmates, who expect to be dominated and abused, but that is nevertheless how I roll.
I have no inborn need to dominate. It could be brought out in me, I suppose, by a gallingly disobedient pet, but that is a road down which I refuse to go. I have so much darkness within me, and a potential Krakatoa of suppressed rage, that I dare not risk letting it loose all at once.
I have to let it out slowly and carefully. Soon I will figure out how to go geothermal and turn all that latent energy into things like charisma, optimism, determination, and other positives. It will mean carving a path through all that depression so that the energy can reach the positive side of my personality, but I am getting closer every day and soon, I will be able to really and truly shine.
As a pet, I would be looking to exchange affection, loyalty, and entertainment for stability, security, and a certain degree of pampering and indulgence. I could be very loyal to someone who treated me right, and like I have talked about before, I have no problem being second banana. As long as I am treated with respect, I can be the lesser of the pair no problem. Like I said, I have no inborn need to dominate, and that means I can be on the bottom without feeling like this means I have “lost”.
I am too independent for that. I choose the situation that suits me. I don’t care where that sits on the scoreboard of life.
I’ve never believed in scorekeeping anyway.
So I could be very supportive and nurturing, like the classic ideal 50’s housewife, just as long as my husband understands that he is not to confuse subservient with inferior, ever. I will happily be your (not so) little housewife just as long as you don’t insult, belittle, or impugn me.
And if you do, you better bet there will be hell to pay, maybe now, maybe later. Depends on my mood.
I am perfectly capable of causing a massive scene in order to make a point.
And obviously, bondage is out of the question. I know some people are excited by that kind of thing, but if someone ties me up, all I want to do is escape and kill them. I know that’s very harsh, even a little psycho, but that’s how it goes with me. It’s the anger component of my generalized claustrophobia. If someone tries to confine me (something I deeply fear), then it’s not enough to merely escape. I have to destroy the source of the confinement so that it can never confine me again.
And to punish it for having the temerity to try to control me, too.
So no leash. In the other role, I might tie someone up if it really made them happy/horny. But nobody ties me down (or ties me up) and lives to tell the tale. Not. Going. To happen.
I never said I was sane.
Watched the rest of Team Foxcatcher.
And yup, pretty depressing. It is, in a sense, the perfect tragedy story because you can see what is coming but feel just as helpless to prevent it as the people who were actually involved. John duPont’s paranoia just got worse and worse, especially when some motherfucker started supplying him with cocaine, a drug which turns normal people into paranoid wrecks, so you can imagine what it would do someone who was already paranoid to begin with.
And when I say we get to see it happening, I mean that in a very literal sense. Everyone at Foxcatcher loved to take home video. I can’t imagine what an embarrassment of riches that must have been for the people making the documentary. So the doc has loads of footage from these people’s actual lives.
Add some talking heads footage with those same people, and you got a documentary.
The documentary also does an excellent job of illustrating how cruel an illness paranoid schizophrenia is compared to the other psychoses. Other kinds of major mental illness incapacitate the individual and while that is horrifying, it limits the damage they can do to others.
But a paranoid remains active and tuned into reality until the very last stages of the illness. And that’s bad enough, but it also causes them to turn on those who care about them. John had a lot of people who genuinely loved him in his life, and they had to watch helplessly as he turned from a childlike innocent into a paranoid monster who would accuse them of plotting against him in the most hideous and bizarre ways while being completely unstable and unpredictable.
And you know who loved him the most and who was the truest and dearest friend John had in the world? Dave Schultz… the person he shot and killed.
It’s especially tragic because in the documentary, Dave comes across as maybe a little below average in the intelligence department, but a social genius whom everyone loved because of his warmth, charisma, and optimism. He made everyone feel good. So I can’t help but feel that this was the person least capable, on any level, of plotting against John.
The kind of good news is that John did not get away with it just because he was rich. He died in jail. Sadly, due to the nature of the law, that meant the prosecution had to argue that he was not legally insane, when he so clearly was.
I really think we need to change “not guilty by reason of insanity” to “not guilty but too crazy to walk amongst us” or maybe just “guilty but crazy”.
Makes me glad to be the quiet kind of crazy.
I will talk to you nice people again tomorrow.
There is no consensual domination that is actually abuse. It’s all role-play. Everyone’s looking to get a particular experience out of it.
When submissives get together, the talk sometimes turns to what forms of domination are too mean, and therefore limits. It’s not uncommon for things like “slut” to be OK and even a little flattering, but “fat” or “stupid” to be outside the limits.
Amos doesn’t think I’d be able to get along with a true dominant because one thing that would be a deal-breaker for me would be not being allowed to explain. If I’ve truly made a mistake, I’ll own up to it. But if something wasn’t my fault and I wasn’t allowed to clarify, or finish my sentence, I’d just have to disobey.
Sorry, I shouldn’t have used the word “abusive”. What I meant was not in a violent or painful or humiliating way. Some people are into that… I am not.
Hmmm, yeah. He or she (or a little of both) would have to be a JUST dominant. And of course, no sub/dom relationship starts out red hot and ready. Trust has to be built over a long period of time. You would have to trust that your dom will not ask you to do anything that goes beyond your preset boundaries.
And there’s always the safeword!