BDSM verses Sex

Yes, I know many of you will have read that subject title and now being thinking that it just simply doesn't make sense, or does it?

A while back I had a incredibly interesting chat with a submissive man. He told me he lives with his domme, but they never have, or have had, sex. At first I thought he was kidding, or perhaps referring to some kind of long term orgasm denial, but no, theirs is a totally bdsm nonsexual relationship. They function just like any other bdsm couple except they don't engage in any form of sex. She has regular meetings with another man, in fact apparently she often uses that to humiliate her submissive--telling him what a great fuck he is and that kind of thing. He masturbates but rarely gets an erection when they're actually playing. The relationship is happy, well, that is to say, they're both find it very satisfying.

It would seem that while bdsm and sex is a delicious mix, the two need not always be synonymous. I think it's a little like enjoying bacon and eggs. They taste best together, but their also ok to eat one or the other.

I think, too, that perhaps some people discover their masochism long before before their sexuality. E.g. How many of you submissives out there were naughty children always "looking for spanking"?

Sadists too, I think perhaps often find the power of being in control of another person's pain to be rather additive long before puberty. Again, I cite kids--kids who seem to relish embarrassing and shaming their parents, or pulling the wings of flies.

I realise it's not entirely fair to make these kind of generalisations, but it's still an interesting thought isn't it?

So getting back to the topic of bdsm and sex, what is more important to a sadist or a masochist, bdsm or sex? And, it you had to choose one or the other which couldn't you live without?

For me BDSM IS sex. Even if no genitals ever received any contact, what I do with my master is sexual. From my perspective, your submissive friend's relationship with his Domme is sexual, it's just mental and sexual. Does he really separate it? Is he not getting off or getting turned on from those experiences?

I got spanked as a kid and I hated it. That punishment from my parents didn't scratch that masochistic itch at all. At the same time, I fantasized about being caged and locked up by ominous strangers, which turned me on, although at the time I didn't even understand I was getting turned on. So for me, masochism is sexual.

Of course it's not just about getting off, it satisfies a deep personal need too. But this is also true of vanilla sex for vanilla people. It gets them off, but also satisfies a deep need to feel connected to and loved by their significant other.

NGG - I had almost an identical take on it. I hated spankings! I also had fantasies while playing with my doll house of being locked up or being forced to be an exhibitionist.

When I read Alex Bragi's post, I thought oh, I'm just different again.

I agree with both NGG and Claire. For me, BDSM always incorporates sex. Whether Master and I engage in floggings or intercourse, it all is about sex. And while growing up I also hated to be spanked and I think it wasn't so much physical pain that I didn't like, but the realization that I had failed somehow. I had failed to be a good girl, I had failed to get my parents' approval, I had failed to obey them, etc. Now that I am an adult I love spankings from my Master. And for me receiving pain from Him is sexual. As NGG said, masochism is sexual.

While growing up I also had fantasies of being locked up and held against my will, and I still do today. The fantasy of being kidnapped, raped, forced to submit to a stranger, is a well-loved fantasy of mine.

BDSM is what connects me to my Master, on a very deep emotional level. I could not live without the BDSM in O/our relationship. I learned in my first (vanilla) marriage that there has to be more to a relationship than just sex to hold it together. BDSM helps Master and I to connect on so many levels. Would W/we still love each other like this if W/we were not a BDSM couple? Now that, I can't answer for certainty. But I wouldn't want to test that theory. I can't go back to vanilla and if something (Goddess forbid!) were to happen to Master and W/we were no longer a couple, I would seek out another Dom to be with. Sex is easy to obtain. It's something I could do with nameless strangers in the dark. But I wouldn't be happy or fulfilled doing that. I have to have the BDSM as well. Without it, sex is dull and life is dull as well.

do you mean a choice between a D/s relationship and bdsm sex?
i get a bit muddled up sorry as im not really used to the term bdsm relationships, but D/s relationships and bdsm as the kink/sexual side of it.

id take the relationship (D/s,) i used to be in vanilla r/ship and other than the minor games i could convince people to play i found the vanilla sex boring and vowed i would never ever go back to that.

but Icehawk is more important than any of the games we play and our r/ship would have to come first. im not saying it would be easy though lol and id miss it like hell.

It is possible to have a BDSM relationship without sexual contact. Note, I say sexual contact, not sex, as the definitions of sex given in this thread so far all seem to assume that 'sex' is a mental thing as well as physical. I have known of couples who have vanilla partners and BDSM partners and yet do not consider themselves 'polyamorous' becauase they do not have sex with thier BDSM partners. They go to their vanilla partners for sex and use their BDSM partners to satisfy the urgings for bondage and domination. There is often a lot of debate over this as to whether this constitutes polyamory/cheating and I don't think that issue will ever be easily satisfied.

One thing I have heard several long term members of the lifestyle say is that BDSM is not primarily about sex or sexual gratification. It is about the dominance and the control of an indivudual. Sex may be involved in that (it may even, as in many cases, be a primary method of control) but it doesn't need to be.

Of course, this is different to the relationship often lived by or aspired to by members of this forum that I have seen so far. By this I mean the 'BDSM marriage' (whether it is a real marriage or a long term relationship) wherein a Master/Mistress and slave live together 24/7 in an exclusive BDSM and sexual relationship. Basically, I think it just goes to show that there is a lot of variety in the lifestyle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

She has regular meetings with another man, in fact apparently she often uses that to humiliate her submissive--telling him what a great fuck he is and that kind of thing. He masturbates but rarely gets an erection when they're actually playing. The relationship is happy, well, that is to say, they're both find it very satisfying.

---

You just said here they they're both sexually satisfying each other. As I see it there are two relevant definitions for sex:

1) Reproduction.
2) Good feelings and intimate social bonding involving our sexual organs. The brain is a sexual organ.

Just because he takes the sexual tension her domme creates and later flogs his dolphin doesn't mean that his later satisfaction from masturbating isn't connected to the former.

I think he's confusing the two definitions.

Well I don't know what's more important, but I certainly believe you can have a D/s or BDSM relationship without sex.

To me that's kind of the ultimate projection of D/s- to tie a girl, tease the heck out of her & not have sex. I like the thought of being fully clothed while she's naked & moaning.

Hmm, I'll stop there.....

Here's a rhetoric question. When two people are role playing and having on-line sex, how are they not having sex? They're both filling each others sexual needs, and both masturbate to relieve sexual pressure. I don't think it's strictly necessary for them to masturbate for it to pass as sex. But it's still sex. Two or more people satisfying each others sexual needs.

This reminds me of an Iranian girl a friend was fucking who only wanted to get fucked in the ass, because she wanted to stay a virgin until she got married.

Let's not change the meaning of the word "sex" because we want to feel like we're not being unfaithful or breaking various sexual taboos.

If we want our partner to be faithful, it's not body parts being inserted into orifices that our greatest concern, its always the shared intimacy, the bonding. This does not need penises and vaginas.

Am I right or am I right?

So it would seem the definition of sex needs to be done before truly answering the question.

Sex (the physical act), Sexuality (the mental stimulation), it's all "sex" in my opinion and no, for me I couldn't, and wouldn't want to, have BDSM activities without "sex".

It brings to mind the play party I witnessed in February - They were openingly flogging and spanking and such but they were not allowed to do anything that involved transfer of fluids (fucking, sucking, licking) - so to me it held absolute zero appeal because I would have Needed the complete act and as my release isn't as important to me as His, I would feel let down to miss that part of it for me.

Now I do understand that it would hold much sexual appeal for the exhibitionist or voyeurs in the crowd, neither of which I am.

So, bottom line? I think that BDSM is sexual regardless of how you cut it, it Stimulates our Base Sexual Instinct simply.

P.S.: Tom - yes, you are right ;) hehe

Oh yes, definitley correct on that. Which is why you do need to outline a definition of what sex is exactly. What do you seek to gain from it and why?

Intimacy is the word to examine here. You can get intimacy without any need for nor reference to phsyical contact. So, is talking to a good friend, someone you are intimate with despite never having sex, in itself sex? Its a difficult question to answer because there are so many variables and part of it hinges on the concept of platonic love and whether or not it is possible for platonic love to exist.

The fantasy of BDSM, the images we have all undoubtedly been drawn to intially, is undeniably sexual. Whether it is a leather clad mistress or dom, an erotically bound slave or the thought of being forced into sexual acts that you claim never to want to do but actually secretly want to but have never had the nerve there is a lot of sexual eroticism inherent in the lifestyle. However, I think as you get more into the lifestyle, the emphasis shifts. You are not so bothered by the sexual imagry and are more concerned with the control aspects. The control fulfills a psychological need to either dominate or submit. I am not sure that this emotion is as sexual as the 'kinky sex' aspects most of us are initially drawn to. At its root it has a sexual drive but the majority of the feeling is less so.

Is fulfilling this emotional need to control or be controlled a form of sex? Its certainly a form of intimacy and does involve the brain, a sexual organ, but I am not sure it is rooted in sex. It is a different need being fulfilled. I know of subs (including myself) who have felt more fulfilled simply knowing that another person is now controlling thier life. This person may never lay a hand on them - sexually or otherwise - they may not perform any sexual function at all. All they do is tell them what to wear, how to behave, what and when to eat and so on. At least part of it is the giving up of responsibility and the immense sense of relief that certain things are no longer your problem :) BTW, I think this latter point is often why so many apparently dominant people in real life often enjoy being submissive in private, they enjoy the feeling of being no longer responsible for themselves or others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fetishdj

The fantasy of BDSM, the images we have all undoubtedly been drawn to intially, is undeniably sexual. Whether it is a leather clad mistress or dom, an erotically bound slave or the thought of being forced into sexual acts that you claim never to want to do but actually secretly want to but have never had the nerve there is a lot of sexual eroticism inherent in the lifestyle. However, I think as you get more into the lifestyle, the emphasis shifts. You are not so bothered by the sexual imagry and are more concerned with the control aspects. The control fulfills a psychological need to either dominate or submit. I am not sure that this emotion is as sexual as the 'kinky sex' aspects most of us are initially drawn to. At its root it has a sexual drive but the majority of the feeling is less so.

---

This is an issue I'm facing in my current relationship. What drew me to bdsm (to this site!) was my interest - my horniness!? - in submissive sex. Now, I'm much more interested in how D/s plays a part in our every day lives. He's asked me if I'm ready to submit to Him in every way, eventually moving our relationship in to TPE. And honestly, even though I want to shout YES, I have a lot of questions about making this real.

So yes, the emphasis has shifted. And - to answer Alex's initial question (sort of) - the thought of submission to Him is becoming less about sexual service and more about allowing myself to completely trust Him and be totally open to Him everywhere else.

Quote:

---

Is fulfilling this emotional need to control or be controlled a form of sex? Its certainly a form of intimacy and does involve the brain, a sexual organ, but I am not sure it is rooted in sex. It is a different need being fulfilled. I know of subs (including myself) who have felt more fulfilled simply knowing that another person is now controlling thier life. This person may never lay a hand on them - sexually or otherwise - they may not perform any sexual function at all. All they do is tell them what to wear, how to behave, what and when to eat and so on. At least part of it is the giving up of responsibility and the immense sense of relief that certain things are no longer your problem :) BTW, I think this latter point is often why so many apparently dominant people in real life often enjoy being submissive in private, they enjoy the feeling of being no longer responsible for themselves or others

---

I know I can't speak for anyone but myself. I haven't been in the kind of relationship where someone is telling me how to behave, eat, dress, etc. or in a relationship where I am no longer responsible for myself. If this works - much like the relationship Alex talked about - then I think it's great 2 people have found satisfaction in this.

For me, submission is definitely not about asking Him to solve my problems or take responsibility for my actions. Quite the opposite. And I struggle with this all the time. Because I'm so used to being independent, so used to being the super trooper - able to solve all my problems on my own! It's hard for me to open up.

For us, it's being open enough to share our issues together. What's on His mind? And what can I do to share or help in His concerns? What are my goals, issues, weaknesses? And how does He play a part in helping me achieve those goals, solve my problems?

I don't think I'm communicating this clearly.... I feel like I'm sounding all self righteous. And I have to leave for work.

This question was very timely since the idea of being in a TPE relationship has been on my mind. How does D/s play a part in our every day lives? Sort of thinking about the non-sexual side of bdsm. (emphasis on the D/s).

i think it might also help the discussion to clarify BDSM...

as i understand it theres the BD (bondage and discipline- tied up or put in the corner for being naghty etc) SM (sadism and masochism- whips and pain etc) and the often overlooked D/s (dominance and submission- one person exerting control over the other etc). they can be mixed in combinations or taken completely seperately, all with different effect.

it seems to me that people mix and match as they please and often include engaging in sexal contact but not always.

as for the sexual feelings.. well, i have heard of rare D/s relationships without even particular sexual feelings or attractions- i ran into a girl once who felt fulfilled in a D/s way by devoting her heart and soul to being the perfect assistant to her boss at work. she turned it around into a D/s thing in her own mind by making it an ongoing service she did for him with total devotion. i gather she wasnt interested in him in a sexual way and i think sex would have ruined it for her (though i dont recall discussing it with her in depth or anything). my impression was that she felt fulfilled by being pleasing, by being of service to him and to his important work. she did extra work off the clock without pay and doing everything she could for him was her life's focus. the paycheck was immaterial.

also i should say im not sure he even knew, so that might kick it out of the "relationship" category but i thought it might be interesting example for the discussion anyway *smile*. i think she might have said he was catching on ... perhaps i saw her asking how to handle that or something, i dont recall *shrug*... but i would think they could easily have had the same arrangement if he knew. hmmph.. well there it is anyway *smile*

We were at a munch and they were discussions sessions at play parties. They would go into detail on the BD/sm but not there was never talk about intercourse. Is there a separation of the two specifically at a play party (meaning no intercourse)?

Good topic . . .we were wondering about that -sex and BDsm. I've always thought of them together, but as I am learning, new to BDsm, I find that it seems that it seems less about intercourse, but more about the pain. :)

I feel there may be a difference between what is done at a play party and what is done between a couple in their own dungeon. PArtly this is due to laws on public displays of lewdity. I suspect you can get away with whipping a naked woman on stage and call it 'artistic' in a performance art sort of way but showing erect male genetalia or actual intercourse is generally seen as pornography and often illegal... One thing to ask - do they talk about the close bond between the couple on stage or is it just a Dom and 'some sub they got to do the demo'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

You just said here they they're both sexually satisfying each other. As I see it there are two relevant definitions for sex:

...

---

Well, not to put too finer point on it but, no, I actually said "they satisfy each other", I assumed from chatting to the man that sex, certainly in the way I think of sex, was not a part of the satisfaction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

Well, not to put too finer point on it but, no, I actually said "they satisfy each other", I assumed from chatting to the man that sex, certainly in the way I think of sex, was not a part of the satisfaction.

---

erm.... ok, then. But I think you're bending over backwards now. If they aren't satisfying each other sexually, then what is he doing there? What other possible need could she fulfil? Money, an apartment, company...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

erm.... ok, then. But I think you're bending over backwards now. If they aren't satisfying each other sexually, then what is he doing there? What other possible need could she fulfil? Money, an apartment, company...?

---

Are you saying Tom that a relationship cannot exist if there is no sexual satisfaction between two people when there should be?

I do know that you don't have to have sex to keep the relationship going. I know of a couple who are married, but have never consummated the marriage; he is not attracted to women, she is bisexual. They each play on the side. They are quite happy with each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

...

If they aren't satisfying each other sexually, then what is he doing there? What other possible need could she fulfil? Money, an apartment, company...?

---

Well, since this man I'm referring to freely admitted to masturbating (alone) and that he's rarely sexually aroused during said dominantion, I got to thinking that in his case, and maybe others too, the want/need for domination could be considered separate to the want/need for sex.

Another interesting example is the case cited (above) by candence.

I believe in the possibility of platonic love, a deep friendship between two people of compatible sexual genders which is not motivated by sexual needs. Now, I don't think anyone here would consider this a major problem. I think the main debate is whether a relationship that is entirely D/s or BDSM based constitutes a sexual relationship even if no sexual contact takes place.

While I agree with Tom that sex is not just physical contact but also mental and emotional connections, I think there is a difference between the mental and physical relationship between a sub and a Dom/me and two lovers. In many cases the two can be the same thing because a couple can be both. However, if someone else is fulfilling the needs of one and another is fulfilling the needs of another then there is clear seperation. It is frighteningly common for those in the lifestyle to fall in love with someone who is not interested in the lifestyle, partially because they have not at the time of falling in love, fully understood the needs they have for kink.

I am reminded of a documentary on homosexuality in the 1950s where they interviewed a number of homosexual men who got married to women and barely had sex (sometimes they had it once or twice, sometimes never at all) and only realised in the 1960s - 70s (when the gay scene leapt into prominence) that they were actually gay and this was why they never desired sex with women.

a bit off topic, i have to say in all honesty that ive never really considered BDSM as a r/ship, BDSM to me is simply a cover all term for a particular sexual preference either with or without actual penetration.

if for eg you regularly practice bondage for pleasure would you consider yourself in a 'bondage r/ship'?

the r/ship in and of itself is simply D/s alone...many people enjoy BDSM but have a 'vanilla' r/ship and many have a D/s r/ship but have no interest in BDSM.

A very interesting point to ponder there, icey. :)

Brilliantly put icey. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadence

Are you saying Tom that a relationship cannot exist if there is no sexual satisfaction between two people when there should be?

I do know that you don't have to have sex to keep the relationship going. I know of a couple who are married, but have never consummated the marriage; he is not attracted to women, she is bisexual. They each play on the side. They are quite happy with each other.

---

But that's different. They're just friends.

Maybe I'm being narrow minded here. But D/s for me is sex. If one party is being dominated by another there's sex going on. Because if there's no sexual tension, the submissive will get bored and fuck off. Nobody enjoys just giving without getting anything back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

Yes, I know many of you will have read that subject title and now being thinking that it just simply doesn't make sense, or does it?...So getting back to the topic of bdsm and sex, what is more important to be a sadist or a masochist, bdsm or sex? And, it you had to choose one or the other which couldn't you live without?

---

OMG, Alex, another great question! Certainly you have heard the phrase, "I was looking for a job when I found this one." It means that your current position holds nothing over you and you can take a new position in life...if you had to. If I had to, I could choose sex over BDSM, but why the f*** would I put myself in the situation to have to choose?

But again, a great question! I have often wondered if I would be able to deny sex after dishing out a strong dose of discipline to my slave--just because you posed the question I feel obligated to experiment (even though she is here reading as I type!).

To answer your OP, BDSM arouses me, and at this point, I would have a diffficult time differentiating sex and BDSM.