New Discussion: What's an internet sub for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

I'm sorry if I seemed judgemental. I'm not really. I just want to understand. If I understand your situation correctly, OL isn't and wasn't your first choice. It's simply down to it not being practicly doable for you to meet the love in your life at all any other way, right? So it's not a question of you prefering OL, but simply down to available options. Which is a completly different bag of tricks. You have met Benz in reality right?

---

yes we have met in RT...this xmas just gone he flew over for a whole month

Don't you just love the no b.s. incites Warbaby brings to these discussions?

As someone who has been in the scene for many years, and who has been married to someone who I love more every day, it really has become a balancing act. My wife knew of my lifestyle when she married me, and she agreed that she would not object to me playing with another sub, as long as she knew about it. No sneaking around! That means in r/l or on the internet.

Like Warbaby said, even if it is on-line, a relationship is still real. The internet allows us to have a relationship with someone on another continent, but it's all really a mind game. Since the mind is the most devious of sex organs, it allows us to do just about anything.

But we must be careful. A breakup can be devastating as SBBE has stated. With that in mind, yes I like to role play as evidenced by the two I'm involved with now. However, I am not going to risk my marriage by getting involved in a serious D/s relationship with anyone, either in r/l or in cyber.

I've EVERY intention of sticking around, tessa, and to meeting you all eventually.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Thank-you, Tom:

"What I'm trying to say is that I don't really get it. Even after reading the posts made here, I'm still none the wiser what it's for." I think I am a bit wiser now. Online is yet another way to develop a relationship, whether it blossom or wither in time. If it withers, it was likely to have done so in real life too. Just like any other relationship it will stand or fall on its own merits. I accept that.

But Tom made another point, only once referred to by anyone else (Warbaby), and then only in passing: the sex. (OK, I think for Sir Russell, sex is so obvious, it's a given!) This is a BDSM site, so doesn't sex come into it? Control <--> sex <--> submission.

For Tom, sex is fundamental and I can see that too. This was an unformed thought that partly prompted my original post - if the sex isn't real, then it's just masturbation: if the control isn't real, then there isn't really any true submission. For people like Tom, then, an online sub can never be ideal.

Sir Russell disagrees. Or rather, he differs from Tom, and disagrees with me. He is happy with RL and OL. He says his OL control is real, and I infer the sex is satisfactory too. (Is there a delicate way to say that? I mean no offence.) And this is achieved by hard vetting so that only suitable subs who are totally honest and whom he trusts are accepted.

I think I am coming to the view that OL relationships can be good - wonderful even - but are always less than RL Ceegee, for example, will fulfil her relationship when she at last reaches Oz. Sbbe and cadence use OL to fill gaps in RL (I hope I understood that right).

But OL does something that RL doesn't do - at least, not nearly so easily. It allows people to gain experiences denied to them elsewhere. There's no way, for example that I can have a real life BDSM experience, but I can look for it here. Thus, like sbbe and cadence, I have a gap in my real life that OL may satisfy, and, clearly, that is what an online sub is for.

---

For some, and I don't think I am alone, BDSM does not have to involve sex. It can be more about submission and control then sex. If it s all about sex for some then that is all well and good for them. It doesn't make it wrong for others where no actual sex is involved. We are all different remember.

Some still don't seem to get the concept that on line is still happening in your real life. Your not dreaming it and looking at it from afar, you are living it. Every single minute of it is real. The emotions, the feelings, the submissions, the control, and especially the love are all very real and happening in real life.

You asked for reasons for on line relationships. I and others have tried to point out some. Though you may not agree with the reasons given, they are valid to those offering them.

Hey wait a minute. The expression RL as in "Real Life" is just a joke phrase that has entered common word usage on the Internet. It just means anything that isn't on-line. It doesn't in the least imply that life on-line isn't real. That's part of the joke.

Taking jokes litteraly is um....a bit special...Or maybe someone got a humour tumour.

I'm sure nobody thinks that the people posting aren't real people. I promise you all that I am very much a real person, and anything I do is really real. For real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

Hey wait a minute. The expression RL as in "Real Life" is just a joke phrase that has entered common word usage on the Internet. It just means anything that isn't on-line. It doesn't in the least imply that life on-line isn't real. That's part of the joke.

Taking jokes litteraly is um....a bit special...Or maybe someone got a humour tumour.

I'm sure nobody thinks that the people posting aren't real people. I promise you all that I am very much a real person, and anything I do is really real. For real.

---

I don't see Real Life or on line life as being a joking matter which ever you want to use. Nor do I see the joke of using it to define anything. I do see a definite destination between real life meaning to have D/s 24/7 or even casual and on line life meaning by some that it is less than real life experience.

I always thought I was fairly good at getting jokes but if this is a joke it may need explaining to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warbaby1943

BDSM does not have to involve sex. It can be more about submission and control then sex. If it s all about sex for some then that is all well and good for them.

---

Now it's down to semantics. I will argue that BDSM is always and only about sex. It may just be that I have a wider definition of sex. It can be sex even though private parts aren't deposited into fleshy cavities. Sex for me happens first and fore most in the head. I do think that a slave submitting is in every way a sexual act, on- or off-line.

My problem is the reciept. How do I know the communication is working. It's hard enough even with two people in the same room. I had comunication issues with my ex-wife even after six and a half years of marriage. It may be that I have some serious inadequesies in comunication....but yeah...you know... to continue using the expression.... Maybe I'm not unique.

Me personally, over the net I tend to project a lot. Fill in the blanks with wishfull thinking. Since I know I have this tendancy, I fight it. But I often notice it sneaking in.

Comunication is always extremly hard in any setting. Why make it any more difficult?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warbaby1943

I don't see Real Life or on line life as being a joking matter which ever you want to use. Nor do I see the joke of using it to define anything. I do see a definite destination between real life meaning to have D/s 24/7 or even casual and on line life meaning by some that it is less than real life experience.

I always thought I was fairly good at getting jokes but if this is a joke it may need explaining to me.

---

It comes from the very old pre-Internet expression of "not having a life", which the computer nerds of old where accused of not having. It is based on a joke whether you like it or not. Here's the wiki.

I promise that the expression doesn't imply that people with on-line romances aren't having real romances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

It comes from the very old pre-Internet expression of "not having a life", which the computer nerds of old where accused of not having. It is based on a joke whether you like it or not. Here's the wiki.

I promise that the expression doesn't imply that people with on-line romances aren't having real romances.

---

Followed the link and still fail to see the joke or any reference to a joke. I guess we all have different senses of humor, not to mention opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warbaby1943

Followed the link and still fail to see the joke or any reference to a joke. I guess we all have different senses of humor, not to mention opinions.

---

I didn't say it was my humour. I just happen to know how the expression came to be, even though it isn't covered in the wiki. The wiki aptly explains it's usages

Quote:

---

Online

The abbreviation RL stands for "real life", with the meaning "not on the Internet." For example, one can speak of meeting in RL someone whom one has met in chat or on an Internet forum, or of an inability to use the Internet for a time due to "RL problems".

---

See? It doesn't imply anything other than that RL is not on the Internet. There's no implicit judgement made about people using the Internet.

it just feels right, and cuz i dont think i could ever find... any person like my sir.. near!. and i couldnt imagine.. what would i do if i didnt had him!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

I didn't say it was my humour. I just happen to know how the expression came to be, even though it isn't covered in the wiki. The wiki aptly explains it's usages



See? It doesn't imply anything other than that RL is not on the Internet. There's no implicit judgement made about using the Internet.

---

I read it already from your link. You implied or out right said it was joke. I still don't see the joke whether it is your humor or not, I see no joke even implied in these definitions.

Since we are well off topic talking about a "joke," or lack of one, I won't bother with any more replies unless I feel it address the subject at hand which is "What's An Internet Sub For?" To me my sub is part of my real life and fills a gap of what is missing in my off line life. And she fills it nicely with love and submission that makes us both happy. Bottom line, that is all that is important, being happy with your circumstances.

I agree with you both Warbaby and Tom, a while ago a bright sub said she objected to the term RL and suggested F2F which can be taken as either face to face or flesh to flesh.

There are those that meet only to play (Tops and bottoms) little exchange of themselves and not much of a comitment involved. To me that is fantasy and actually a lot less of life then on the internet between 2 people that care about each and live the life through tasks. Allowing the Dom to assist in the sub growth and the sub finding the joy of being controlled.

Russell

OK ... I agree the past few posts drifted off topic a bit - but heigh-ho - we in this site should never worry about a little deviation, should we? And I wanted to provoke debate.

I agree with Tom, sex is prime when it comes to BDSM, but the form it takes might not be obvious. Sex is a GOOD thing and is prime in ordinary life too. It's just that in BDSM, sex has a broader range. And yes, it is mostly mental. Sex without the psychological aspect, even in real life, is animal lust. Possibly, BDSM without a sexual or a caring attitude is simply torture/humiliation.

So which is cyber sex? Is it just obtaining basic relief by wanking to an erotic picture or scene or by having some sub talk dirty ... or by making the sub masturbate him/herself? Or is it something else, fulfilling. arousing and completely free of any need to exchange body fluids, or do anything else with them?

Warbaby, I do agree with your sentiments. I simply feel that BDSM is sex focused. Even making a sub wear specific clothes ... the "whoelsome swimsuits" mentioned elsewhere, for example ... can be sexual, by deliberately making her (in that case) suppress her sexuality. I could be turned on by making someone do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfs_lilgirl

it just feels right, and cuz i dont think i could ever find... any person like my sir.. near!. and i couldnt imagine.. what would i do if i didnt had him!

---

Smiles... that is as it should be.

I've said on other threads ... one's perception and how they interpret things makes it become reality. It's not for others to judge.

If we were to judge for example.. I've seen some relationships on this board and have wondered how they can glue together is beyond me. so my perception doesn't influece that one.

If trust is an issue to being a workable online.. then you first must trust yourself before you can place trust in another. Then you start with what they have said is reality until you learn or are shown otherwise.
If we doubted everyone and everything we come across what would actually be accomplished on any day ?

Be content in the knowledge that what the Dom says is being done, carried out, proof if she is willing and let her respond appropriately.....
Is a trust given.. not trust earned. Is a courtesy we extend to others until such time as we are shown it is draining or negative.

ALL My opinons and how i do things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warbaby1943

Bottom line, that is all that is important, being happy with your circumstances.

---

I'll drink to that.

I did some more thinking, and I've distilled my question a smidgeon.

To me chosing slavery in the BDSM world is a very serious and deep comitment based on love. From your earlier posts Warbaby, I'm guessing that you have the same view.

Maybe I'm a superficial crud now, but how do you know it's love without ever meeting? Isn't love a to a large extent a very physical thing?

I had a discussion with my slave about this and she is a self-proffesed "expert of Internet dating". She's done it a lot, way more than me. And she said, (which I whole-heartedly agree with) "No matter how much and long you've talked to somebody on-line. Finally meeting them IRL is like meeting a new person".

This is the whole essance of what I've been trying to say. How can two people have that level of commitment, trust and love without knowing how they will be physically. Words is only one of many human ways of comunicating.

I'm hoping that this is just one more thing I need to learn, that I can blame my naive youth for not understanding. I am a nosey bastard aren't I...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

So which is cyber sex? Is it just obtaining basic relief by wanking to an erotic picture or scene or by having some sub talk dirty ... or by making the sub masturbate him/herself? Or is it something else, fulfilling. arousing and completely free of any need to exchange body fluids, or do anything else with them?

Warbaby, I do agree with your sentiments. I simply feel that BDSM is sex focused. Even making a sub wear specific clothes ... the "whoelsome swimsuits" mentioned elsewhere, for example ... can be sexual, by deliberately making her (in that case) suppress her sexuality. I could be turned on by making someone do that.

---

I'm not going to try to answer which or what cyber sex is. That could be a whole new topic.

I want to make it clear that I am not saying that BDSM is not sexual or, as you say, sex focused. I have always known, felt and believed that to be true. I am saying that even though it is on line and no actual sex is involved between the two partners does not make the submission, control, or BDSM activities any less real. I just don't know how to say it any clearer.

That's fine, Warbaby. And I think it's an ideal note to end on.

Thanks everyone ...

<How do you close this thread???>

ask one of the mods to lock it

MMI, I am not going to close this thread, that is a tool which we use as little as possible, since it disempowers members. It is possible that other members may have other thoughts they wish to add to it, either now or in the future, and if not it will just start to sink.

Thanks for starting an interesting thread...

cariad

I very much agree with cariad on all counts. You started a good thread that will teach a lot to many new and old members. Don't feel that you have to answer every response but keep a hand in, and be proud of a good job.

Russell

Oh I totally agree with cariad and Sir_Russell. I see no reason to end the thread. I'm sure others have ideas and maybe they will eventually see and contribute to this. Nobody's opinion is wrong as long as they believe in what they are saying. Some here want threads with more substance in them then the fun and games and this sure qualifies as one of those types of threads.

I still want to know what this cyber sex thing is...............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceegee{Benz}

I still want to know what this cyber sex thing is...............

---

If you're serious why not start a new thread and phrase your question so it may draw some interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

"No matter how much and long you've talked to somebody on-line. Finally meeting them IRL is like meeting a new person".

---

Perhaps this is where the disconnect is occuring in your understanding of online relationships. You are basing your judgments on the premise that the relationship will eventually become F2F (thanks Sir Russell). I really don't care if Brosco F2F were like a different person (which I don't concede) because I am having a relationship with online Brosco. And online Brosco fulfills my needs. He listens to my woes. He celebrates my triumphs with me. He lets me vent my frustrations. We debate, we tease, we pick each other's brains. He is there to greet me at the end of every day. We are able to complete let our emotional communications shield drop (perhaps because the nature of online in itself provides a kinds of shield), something which I have trouble doing F2F. As pointed out, much of sex is mental, so the mental connection and D/S which occurs during our sex play makes it a fantastic sexual experience. After a year of this online relationship, I can only say good things. It allowed our mental and emotional compatibility to be the centerpiece of the relationship rather than physical attraction. In F2F, issues would arise than might make us incompatible, but online they don't matter. Example: he smokes a lot - I'm allergic to smoke; he drinks more than I think is wise; my apartment is a pigsty - he likes an orderly place; I am a workaholic - he's semi-retired. The key to an online relationship is compatibility and you cannot discover you are truly compatible unless you are intellectually and emotionally honest with each other.

I guess to be completely honest in this post, I do have to mention one need online relationships cannot fulfill - and that is the need for human touch. The mere comfort we derive from being warm bare skin to skin cannot be acheived online. But hey, nothing in life is perfect.

fantassy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fantassy

I really don't care if Brosco F2F were like a different person (which I don't concede) because I am having a relationship with online Brosco.

---

Wow - it is so obvious when you put it like that. A great post fantassy, and has certainly given me food for thought.

cariad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fantassy

Perhaps this is where the disconnect is occuring in your understanding of online relationships. You are basing your judgments on the premise that the relationship will eventually become F2F (thanks Sir Russell). I really don't care if Brosco F2F were like a different person (which I don't concede) because I am having a relationship with online Brosco. And online Brosco fulfills my needs. He listens to my woes. He celebrates my triumphs with me. He lets me vent my frustrations. We debate, we tease, we pick each other's brains. He is there to greet me at the end of every day. We are able to complete let our emotional communications shield drop (perhaps because the nature of online in itself provides a kinds of shield), something which I have trouble doing F2F. As pointed out, much of sex is mental, so the mental connection and D/S which occurs during our sex play makes it a fantastic sexual experience. After a year of this online relationship, I can only say good things. It allowed our mental and emotional compatibility to be the centerpiece of the relationship rather than physical attraction. In F2F, issues would arise than might make us incompatible, but online they don't matter. Example: he smokes a lot - I'm allergic to smoke; he drinks more than I think is wise; my apartment is a pigsty - he likes an orderly place; I am a workaholic - he's semi-retired. The key to an online relationship is compatibility and you cannot discover you are truly compatible unless you are intellectually and emotionally honest with each other.

I guess to be completely honest in this post, I do have to mention one need online relationships cannot fulfill - and that is the need for human touch. The mere comfort we derive from being warm bare skin to skin cannot be acheived online. But hey, nothing in life is perfect.

fantassy

---

Thank you fantassy. So much of what you say I live.

Maybe I am wrong, but is wouldseem to me the difference in a D/s relationship R/T vs. R/L is the difference between day and night, you can't compare the 2, they are 2 different thgings, one is fantasy the other reality

mkemse I agree partially and I think you actually found the point. They are both real but also very different. F2F also differs in 2 many ways, those that use it as sex play and those that live it.

I have found that F2F is not just my strong suit it is the only way for me to live and enjoy the life. In my old age I guess I am over just playing too.

Those that find what they need in any of these are to be congratulated each takes a certain amount of work to do well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

they are 2 different thgings, one is fantasy the other reality

---

I agree they are different, but I disagree that o/l is fantasy and f2f is reality. I think the amount of fantasy v. reality in ANY relationship varies depending on the persons involved. Surely you have had friends whose perception of their f2f significant other was largely based on their fantasy of what they wanted the person to be or the fantasy the f2f person projected, whether intentionally or subconsciously. Moreover, it is wrong to assume that all online are merely roleplayers.

As to the D/S in particular, again what matters is the compatibility. Some subs need to be grabbed by the hair occasionally to feel submissive - online obviously wouldn't suit that sort of dom. Others get their pleasure from voluntarily giving up control - online is more likely to work.

Neither is better or worse, one just suits some people and the other suits other people.

fantassy

fantassy , I like the thoughts and direction of both your posts.
This is how i think as well. Those who give a false sense of themselves are not going to have a very successful relationship in either role as they can't maintain it with consistency and eventually it will break. Many of us have seen just such situations.

Again different strokes for different folks and again the key seems to be honesty and compatibility. On line to me is no fantasy by the way. It works for us and that is all that matters, isn't it?

Warbaby again it is all real for those who truly live it.

Russell

I too want to add that just because my relationship is online, this in no way means it is a fantasy! I do not role play or pretend, every thing I say or do is real. I can understand how someone who has never had an online relationship might think they are all play, but for many of us they are as real as any other relationship in our lives.

I agree too that it really does depend on how compatable you are with your partner and how well you cope without that physical presence of another during play. For me, it works, but I know others who just can't get their head around what it means.

Back to the original question, what an Internet sub if for? for me, it is the same as what any sub is for. My submission is real, my feelings are real, my time I put into the relationship is real. The difference lies in the way the relationship is run.

I know there are people who think online is only for games, and that is fine, but I hope through discussions like this one, everyone can get a bit more understanding of how real and fulfilling an online relationship can be.