What's your safeword?

[BootmanLA]

On 11/19/2023 at 9:02 PM, hntnhole said:

Thanks for your always-worthwhile response.  I very much hope I've been clear.  

You have, as always - and I hope it's clear(er) that I wasn't questioning YOUR views on BDSM, merely trying to find whether any situation might justify that kind of "tear-down/build-up" language. One point I was trying to make was that it would probably rarely be appropriate, and only in the context of a fully committed relationship that also had Dom/Sub/BDSM as an element. If that wasn't clear, I'm certainly sorry for not being clearer.

[hntnhole]

Thanks for the kind response. 

This is what in-depth discussion of serious issues is all about - and the reason I enjoy BZ so much.

While I don't read every single post about every single subject, I always enjoy reading what you have to say; most worthwhile every single time. 

😉

 

[hntnhole]

12 hours ago, Ieatcumholes said:

Do NOT collect $200!

Shucks - it would be worth that just to get him out the door (in Monopoly money, of course).

[Guest]

I've done a number of scenes where I let a stranger use me without a safe word.  Actually I never even considered it.  In all these scenes it was me who initiated the play and made it clear what I wanted in the scene which was to be naked, bound tightly and ass whipped with a belt before being fucked.  It seemed like I knew the person a bit after chatting online, I felt safe but I'm sure that it seems foolish and very risky to a lot of you.  But if you want the ultimate high then this has to be it.

[hntnhole]

First, to the OP:

It changes every time you do a scene with a new guy - during the negotiation.  One of the points of a negotiation is for the bottom to allow a safeword to come into his own mind, all by himself.  Thus, he's more likely to remember it if he feels he needs it during the scene.  You can write it down on a sticky note, in case you might need it - preferably out of the bottom's sight.  

26 minutes ago, rawinme said:

it seems foolish and very risky to a lot of you

Yes, it does, and I'm glad nothing serious happened to you.  Placing yourself at risk of hospitalization (or worse) seems a bit too heavy a risk to achieve "an ultimate high".  It can happen for you over and over again, when delivered by a man who knows his craft, and can be enjoyed over and over again. 

On the other hand, the "one and done(for)" seems to be risking too much.

Good luck.

[1hornyjohn]

Stop

[ErosWired]

5 hours ago, rawinme said:

But if you want the ultimate high then this has to be it.

For you, perhaps it is.

For otherd, especially those who are experienced at doing it often, it may not be anywhere close to their “ultimate high”. But don’t let that stop it from being yours. I do remember the feeling being delicious. I wish I could get it back again.

For me, it’s little more than a tickle any more. That’s the thing about the “ultimate high” - once you’ve felt it, you never feel it quite as sharply again, and after you feel it again you always get the sense that something’s missing, that there must still be an ultimate…er high out there, which means this must not have been it to begin with.

Perhaps it represents the “ultimate high” to you because that’s as far as your imagination has taken you, and you can’t conceive of anything more ultimate than that. But, oh, my friend…there are such debaucheries, such depravities, such dizzying tightrope walks between ecstasy and self-destruction, that they make the notion of letting someone have access to your body without negotiated parameters seem like a naughty decision to eat your tea-cake with your fingers instead of a fork.

I candidly don’t know what an “ultimate high” would look like for me anymore, and I’m a little afraid to find out. It would be at the end of a very twist rabbit-hole, I’m pretty sure, probably would involve altered states of consciousness and/or test the limits of some or other law of physics, and would in all likelihood require someone at least slightly psychopathic. If my bodily responses were not completely untethered from my rational thought by the end of it, it wouldn’t even be worth the effort.

[hntnhole]

On 11/21/2023 at 4:23 AM, BootmanLA said:

"tear-down/build-up"

I didn't mean to imply that I ever "bought into" that philosophy - but I knew guys that did. 

It doesn't make sense to me that one guy should play "deity", and the other guy should play "lump of clay" needing to be remade.  That may be fine for some guys, and I have no judgement to offer regarding what other's do; I only hope informed decisions are made by both guys during the negotiation.  I much prefer the "work with what is, and see if you can make it even better" approach.

You're entirely correct that this type of interaction definitely implies a long-term, committed relationship, which should be explicitly a part of the foundation the two build their lives upon.  One guy gets the fulfillment of caring for his "property"*, the other gets the fulfillment of knowing he's secure and treasured.  

*obviously, nothing more than language used within the Bd/Sm community.  A "collared" boy is off-limits unless and until his Dad decides to share the boy, and then only after a serious chat with the prospective Top.