BDSM without the toys... is it still BDSM?
Well, yes, you can make an argument that BDSM is more about the relationship between two people-- is one in control? Is the other submissive? You can create the allusion of control without the bangs and whistles, without the whips and gags and rope and handcuffs. It is possible through the positions, the words, the way he holds her down, even where he holds her (I, for instance, am a big fan of having my neck grabbed).
But while the accoutrements do not make the experience, they certainly enhance it. That's why every sex store has a BDSM section with canes, whips, ball gags, handcuffs, and bondage rope. That's why all the pictures you look up with the keyword "submission" have either a photo including some kind of bondage or pain, or a caption with words. You just can't get a real snapshot of dominance and submission without one or the other. Something makes the experience dominating. It's not just having the guy be on top, because vanilla people do that. It's not just declaring yourself to be in charge and then proceeding to have vanilla sex. There must be some other quality, something ethereal and hard to define, something about the way he handles you or the tone he uses, something about the toys you incorporate or the pain he inflicts.
Otherwise... it's just vanilla.
1 comment:
You can absolutely have BDSM without accoutrements, but I think they are certain instances, not all encompassing. If you look at an entire relationship, all the non-sexual, every scene, there's gotta be some kind of prop. But for just one scene, or a certain experience, accouterments aren't necessary.
Yesterday Sir and I had a pretty intense experience, and he did use one accouterments (his belt), but most of the intense things had no props at all!
Post a Comment