3/07/2010

Slaves for their own pleasure?


I've been musing about something I heard on FetLife.


Some people think that slaves and submissives are just meant to be used for someone else's pleasure. In this scenario, a slave would never say, "Please do it softer there," or "Would you go down on me?" The slave would basically just let his or her body be used for the pleasure of the Master (or Mistress.... whatever) unless specifically pushed past boundaries, and would then use a safeword to get out of something that was just too much.


Regular, vanilla sex is about mutual pleasure.


So is BDSM, but in a different way. The mutual pleasure is emotional or relational, but not necessarily physical. I know some Masters and slaves have an entire BDSM dynamic where sexual pleasure is not even part of their relationship. Maybe the slave is a maid, or a servant, or a confidante, but they don't have orgasms. Other people might use sex as part of their BDSM lifestyles, but it is only about what the Master wants. For example, maybe the Master has to be brought to orgasm before the sub gets pleasured, like earning your orgasm. Or maybe only the Master gets pleasured. Or maybe they have sex, but the slave doesn't get a say-so on how or when or how hard or how long or anything--the slave is just a tool for the Master.


And for some people, that really gets them off. The idea of being used, totally and completely, may not be physically pleasurable, but it sure can be a real kind of mental and emotional pleasure.


Some people in our society think sex should always be equally pleasurable, mutually satisfying, with no one partner being used, abused, beaten, or coerced. I'm totally for that kind of sex, too! But when we start telling people the "right" way to have sex, that means there is a "wrong" way, too. And is there really a wrong way to have sex, if both people enjoy it (at least on some level)?


I'm not advocating rape here. That is a wrong way to have sex, when one person is forced or truly coerced.


But in a relationship with two consenting adults, when one person says, "I want to give the power up to you, I want you to use me as you see fit, treat me like dirt and use me as a play-thing, and think only of your own pleasure" and the other person thinks that sounds like a great idea.... is that "wrong" sex? Maybe it's not something a lot of uber-feminists would be okay with, but I'm not sure why not. If a woman is free and equal to a man, and freely chooses to give that up so she can be dominated, treated like trash, and bossed around, who are the feminists to tell her that her free choice was the "wrong" one? If that's what gets her off, mentally or emotionally or physically.... isn't that "right" sex for her?


Just my thoughts of the day.

3 comments:

Jenn.Hoorenbeek said...

Too often, being "accepting" means being accepting of anything up to and including one's one level of acceptance.

You're right ... giving up totally to another, mutual sexual pleasure or not, can be pleasurable in and of itself. That pleasure can easily outstrip orgasm in its priority.

pathofpassion said...

Hi

I am new to your fantastic blog. I find it very useful and I totally agree with your thoughts in this post.

It´s easy to get popular by judging others and often it builds on lack of information.

Black Matrixx

MrJ said...

Well, I guess that is just the core point.
The meaning of freedom, by ikts nature even more than any other value,is in the eyes of the beholder, is it not?
In addition, submission requires also true commitment and investment from the side of the dominant. A good D/s is obviosuly no symmetric relationshop, but neither is it an unbalanced one.

Mr J