A lot seems to be made these days about the 'need' to develop solid relationships when going about various BDSM activities; that submissives 'need' to thoroughly get to know potential dominants (lol...in some cases, they're apparently even encouraged to do full scale background checks, etc.), that dominants 'need' to overtly embrace such things as SSC as a fundamental relationship aspect or else they're just posers/abusers, and that an ultimate focus on lifestyle BDSM is really the only genuine form of going about it all.

While cases can certainly be made for knowing your partner and for keeping things positive, has the concept of just having fun or simply enjoying a few moments of intensity without the need for something more gone by the boards? All points of view on the pros/cons of 'casual play' are welcome. (And this is a PRIME opportunity for the apparently considerable number of lurkers to jump in with opinions. It doesn't matter what you've done or not -- just jump on in with what you think!)

Thorn

Thorn,

I think "casual playing" many times confuses play in relationships.

If someone can "casually" do to another person what he/she does to the person they are involved with, then what makes the relationship between the two so special?

I'm not against casual play but I think too many times people run wild with it. To me, there's nothing like "play" that has some type of meaning behind it.

Steel

Lurker jumping in as requested.

Hmm... I guess I'm of two minds about this one. I've always been a proponent of the philosophy "If it feels good, do it!" As long as there's no deception involved, and it doesn't "hurt" anyone, of course. There's nothing like the feeling of first attractions being satisfied, the thrill of the unknown, the rush of adrenaline from being with someone for the first time. It can be great fun, if that's what you're looking for.

But then again... What do you do when that short-lived intensity is no longer enough? I'd gotten to the point where every encounter I had became more of an intellectual exercise than any sort of fulfilling experience. "What can I do to turn this man on?" "What does he want that no one has ever let him have before?" Or even, "Let's see how quickly can I get this guy off." (*shudder*) What a great actress I became. My own desires were subsumed by the challenge of discovering and catering to the fantasies of whomever I was with at the moment. Sounds like fun, eh?

It was that idiotic mindset that led me to a series of REALLY bad decisions that I'm now having to cope with and try to rectify.

Steel, I agree with you completely. There's nothing like "play" with meaning. I've had the rush of a quick thrill, and it's no longer enough. I want something deeper, something committed, something that will satisfy me every day, not just on the weekends. I want it all. Is that asking too much? *g* I hope not, cause several years after I stopped looking, I think I may have finally found it. *happy sigh*

Just my two cents.

~Xaelle

Xaelle the Lurker! hello and welcome to the boards!

Well, funny you should ask Thorn. <g>

I've toyed with the whole relationship v/s play thing for a while now.

In my situation, unless I decide JUST play is for me, I will never have anything this "lifestyle" has to offer.

I wonder if that sounds as harsh as it feels.

The trick for me is that I only have a very special D/s relationship to base feelings on. With the end of that and the growth of my marriage came the question of how to fit parts of what I feel I need, within my marriage. IF that is even possible.

I "think" separating the two feelings is very possible.

There would be no deceit, all cards would be laid out on the table. So the only thing I would be left to deal with is the feelings. WOULD I be able to play without involving feelings? (of course some feelings would have to play a part...honesty and trust by far)... right now, sitting here, I believe the answer to be yes. I feel I can separate the feelings of play v/s relationships.

LOL Maybe because I want it and miss it so bad. :x

~Chris

Been there, done that, but I just don't get much out of it. Never have. To each their own.

Thorn, I think casual play/just having S&M fun is getting a short shrift! I'm all for it! I'd dive right in-- under my Master's supervision and ultimate control. Only in that situation could I feel safe enough to play.

Before I knew about BDSM, my submissive tendencies, poor self-esteem and overactive sex drive combined to routinely result in poor decisions. Although Gloria and Master have been helping me learn to use my critical faculties and make better choices for myself, I still don't trust myself to make the right decision when lust and a dominant man are involved. Or a dominant woman for that matter! I'm not talking simple decisions like "would a quick scene with that guy be fun or would I end up injured", but more like I'd leap into a casual scene with a guy, we'd have a fun time, then he'd want something more and I have a history of saying yes when I should've said no.

So when my Master has supervised (even by proxy), I don't have to be on my guard and can relax and play almost as intensely as I like, but otherwise I feel like a tasty dish of walking submissive meat. I wish I could trust myself more, and maybe someday soon, I will

What about when "play" causes a dom to neglect his/her own? I'm not against casual play but some can just take it too far.

Casual is as casual does. Playing with people whom you have never played with before and may never play with again...or may not even ever see again, can be quite fun and forfilling. Its all in how you approach it I think. Sex is almost never part of play with me, when it is its between gloria and I. So play to me would mean S/M (as opposed to S&M). The activites and the level of intensity that I may be comfortable with for completely casual play will certainly be different than somoene whom I know and have beaten before, but would that not fall to common sense? And that seems to be the catch today in America. Common sense is about as rare as hens teeth, especially when the activity is being fueled by blood engorged pink parts. Something goes wrong and our reaction is to be in one side ditch or the other, never mind the vast middle ground. I'm all for casual S/M (S&M is casual enough as is). I'm also for using the brain the higher power of your choice bestowed on you. Put the two together and a wonderful, time can be had by all parties involved. And yes, even using your head and common sense, bad luck can rear its ugly head, thats life.

Justin Medlin
Equal Opportunity
Ass Beater....
Owner of One.

I'm going to have to agree with Justin on this one. I have played with others with whom I had no connection nor intention to form a connection. Worse than that, I've had sex before even serious "like" was involved...lol.

S/M, like sex, I have found, is much more fulfilling in a committed relationship, and I prefer that greatly, but.......if I'm not in a committed relationship (and I am monogamous in my relationships), and there happens to be an ass around that NEEDS to be beaten...you can always count on me...lol.

Knyghtflyher

Hi,

Another lurker responding.

<<While cases can certainly be made for knowing your partner and for keeping things positive, has the concept of just having fun or simply enjoying a few moments of intensity without the need for something more gone by the boards? >>

I think it depends on who you are and what you want.

IMO the qualities of casual play aren't any different from casual sex. For some people, casual encounters are 'it'. They don't want the 'hassle' of a deeper relationship or don't want to be 'tied down' to one person (or one group of people). For others, casual encounters are too shallow and lack deeper meaning. They are looking for something more serious.

For myself, I've been in a monogamous relationship for 12 years so casual encounters are not part of my life. I can see their appeal, but I need something more than just a fun time.

Eclipse

Hello Eclipse!
Welcome to non-lurk mode!

Ok I may be a bit confused. Is the topic casual S/M or casual sex? Sorry to be the fly in the lube but there is a huge difference.

Justin Medlin

I don't feel comfortable with casual play with strangers at all, or usually in private, or public play parties. I am ok with classes, preferably with someone I know and trust, and certain activities with people I thoroughly know and trust.

IMO casual play is fine. I never expected to like or want it, always thought it would be unpleasant, unfulfiling, or somehow violate the tenets of What Good Sexual Type Interactions Are.

Then I found I loved it.

Thank you, Justin! i haven't responded to this one because i became confused about the subject matter as well... imo/x, play and sex have very little to do with one another--although i understand that it's not the same for everyone.

i don't do casual sex. Casual play, otoh, can be really hot--provided all the safety factors are in place. *s*

rory

PS: What happened to the Poodle Flair? ;->

Justin,

I agree, there is a huge difference. Maybe I wasn't very clear on what I was trying to say. I was trying to make the point that all casual intimate encounters (casual sex, casual S/M, casual whatever) have a common element - the fact that they are casual. And that casual by itself, is the deciding factor for some people. I know it is for me.

Eclipse

Am I really the only one who likes casual sex? I feel like such a slut .

Quickly clarifying the last post ........

I think Eclipse's point is a good one.

I haven't done much casual play. BDSM is pretty close to sex for me [whether genitals are involved or not], and as I'm monogamously involved with someone, that would have to be negotiated. We did try playing casually with another couple, but it didn't do a lot for me - I was just itching to get my sub alone again. I haven't ruled it out though, and will probably do it again. I can't imagine playing with anyone else being as intense and fulfilling as playing with the person I love - to be honest, if I DID get the same feelings with someone else it would feel as if I was being unfaithful to him and would make me uncomfortable.

Now if I was single, or in a non-monogamous relationship, that would be a different matter entirely.

And yes, I do sometimes 'do' [safe!] casual sex when single. I have had some very nice, affectionate, sexy encounters with people I hardly knew. I don't think it's a problem as long as you both have similar expectations and respect each other.

Ahahahah!
(roflmao!)
Dear Jewel: you go, girl!

Deb

To: memneth

lol. Fly in the lube. That's cute.

Yes, the topic is 'casual play', but wouldn't you agree that even when non-penetrative, any degree of 'play' involving kink opens up a means for deeper sexual expression?

One of those ubiquitous fuzzy little lines that seems to keep moving, huh?

T.

To: Eclipse Above
To: Xaelle

Welcome 'a-Board' to you both. Glad to see you decided to join in on this (and contribute some wonderful thoughts). I hope more will take your cue and jump in as well.

Eclipse...a quick question if I may: You say that it's the factor of 'casualness' that makes the difference for you. Does that mean you believe if the activity itself is compartmentalized as 'casual' that it's somehow 'less intimate' in your view?

Be safe,
Thorn

To: Jewel

Obviously I don't know the details of your specific situation, so this question will likely come off as a bit presumptive, but when you say that you have had <<some very nice, affectionate, sexy encounters with people I hardly knew>>, why do you think that those elements (possibly) conflict with any fulfillment you might get from a casual BDSM encounter? Perhaps they're not fulfilling the same way as those you feel with your submissive, but aren't they still fulfilling to some degree on their own? In other words, in the specific compartment of 'casual', wouldn't such a result be counted as a complete win?

(And I agree with Deb... you GO.) <eg>

Be safe,
Thorn

Oh yesª¥`L

Thorn,
      It depends. If you have someone who is n-e-double k-by gawd-i-d then there is sexual energy. Does that mean that the goal should be sex? Cause if thats the case, then I have screwed it all up for 11 years. Of the 8 people I played with at the LOCK camp out, I fucked one, gloria, and that was not inclusive of, or centered around SM. I know that I stand in a huge minority, but SM to me does NOT center around sex. I do engage in what many would consider "casual" play, in no small part based on two reasons:

1) I'm good at what I do

2) they know that they are safe.....and I don't mean be not needing a first aid kit....but safe from the pressures of putting out, during or after.

Is there sexual energy? You betcha. Has play for me never lead to sex with the person I was playing with? Can't claim that either. But they are still two seperate animals. Just because a Dodge Viper has 400 bhp and will do in excess of 200 mph, doesn't mean that it HAS to do that, nor is that its only purpose.

Justin Medlin
Young Dinosaur
    With
Cornholio Poodle
Flair In Lincoln
    Nebraska

Thorn,

<<Does that mean you believe if the activity itself is compartmentalized as 'casual' that it's somehow 'less intimate' in your view? >>

That is a tough question to answer. Knowing a little about my past might help you to understand my perspective. So here's the short version:

I have been married to my wife for over 12 years. We started as a vanilla relationship and have been engaging in BDSM to some degree for about 10 years. Prior to my marriage, I had several vanilla short-term relationships and one long-term relationships which included some BDSM. So, I have never done BDSM activities casually.

When I had casual encounters (vanilla), I found the experience to be just as exciting as the same activity in a non-casual environment. However, I was left wondering, so what was the point of that? Sure, I had fun, it felt good, but I need something more. When I think of having a casual BDSM encounter now, I find myself asking the same question - what is the point beyond having fun?

So I guess my answer to your question is yes, I need the additional intimacy that comes from performing the activities in a non-casual environment. Non-casual doesn't make the activity itself more intimate, but it does make the encounter more intimate. More importantly, non-casual makes the activity more meaningful and gives it a purpose beyond just having fun.

I'm not 100% sure, but I'm fairly certain that for BDSM activities, the additional intimacy/meaning/purpose is even more important to me. Also, I think I would need the additional stuff more for D/s activities than for S/M activities.

Wow, am I needy or what?

What I find interesting is that to some extent I'm the same way with non-intimate activities. I guess its the greater meaning and purpose in encounter that has the appeal, not just the fun.

Thanks for asking - I didn't really realize all of that until I thought about how to respond.

Eclipse

In my opinion, at least to me, BDSM is sex. Every caress of mine, be it with my hand, my cane, or my flogger is driven by the primal urge. No, I am in a monogamous relationship and I have "sex" only with her, but, when I did not have such a relationship, BDSM encounters did occasionally end that way...with "sex", even if they were "casual" encounters. I was safe in my play and my "sex", and muchly prefer a long-term committed relationship, but I cannot, in all truth, say I did not enjoy, and occasionally even seek out, such encounters.

Separating "sex" and BDSM is, in my life, impossible. I never feel more "domly" than when I grab her hair, twist her arm up behind her back, and give her a good bite on the neck. For both of us, it is instant headspace, and a couple of times she has "flown" with nothing more than that stimulus. It leads to intense "play" and then "sex". For some reason, I am just "wired" that way and, thankfully, so is she.

Knyghtflyher

To: Eclipse Above

Well, it might have been a tough question, but that was certainly an exceptional reply on your part. Thank you for your candid thoughts. (I'd even be willing to bet a few hundred people solidly related to your post. Perhaps some of them will sound off here with how they identified with it?)

Be safe,
Thorn

To: knyghtflyher

I respect your opinion and certainly do understand the 'wiring' that goes into it. I suspect, however, that the subject of "BDSM = Sex" (or not) would make a fairly spirited hot topic on its own. <g>

So, regarding the topic at hand, let me ask this (and it's certainly not my intention to put you on the spot, so please feel free to disregard): As someone who openly identifies as sexually monogamous AND as someone who believes it's impossible (for you) to separate BDSM and sex, would you say that those two primary elements negate the possibility of your enjoying BDSM in any sort of casual manner? For example (and a VERY hypothetical one at that), let's say you and your spouse were at a BDSM club for an evening out and the two of you became friendly (and comfortable) with another couple who were doing a spanking scene. If the dominant of the couple were to offer you the opportunity to get in a few licks (nothing else would be involved -- just for fun), would you even consider it? Or, would your default position tend to be that since you equate BDSM and sex inseparably, it would somehow violate your monogamy?

Again, this is just a hypothetical for discussion purposes. (For that matter, if anyone else relates to the example, please feel free to post your comments.)

Be safe,
Thorn

In the contract that I have with my janiece, I specified that I would do nothing that would damage her, physically or emotionally. If I felt that my participation in such a scene would cause emotional damage to her, I would, of course, decline. It would have to be taken on a case-by-case basis and her headspace judged accordingly. This clause was geared more toward multiple slaves in the household, but could apply in a case such as you presented.

And, there might be some who would look as this as "topping from the bottom", but, I wrote the contract, so I guess that I would be guilty of allowing that to occur in our relationship, should some judge it that way.

Should I decide to participate, I am sure I would find it enjoyable.

Knyghtflyher

>> I know that I stand in a huge minority, but SM to me does NOT center around sex. <<

Depending on how you mean that, I may be that way too. BDSM is a sexual act for me, in a way -- but it isn't the same thing as intercourse, or a prelude to intercourse. Intercourse isn't nearly as fun I mean, don't get me wrong, sex is a wonderful thing.

But given the choice between never having "sex" again and never going into topspace again, I'd give up "sex", easily. Everything I really need out of sex, I get tenfold from topping. No, I've never come doing it -- but it's much more powerful for me than any orgasm ever has been.

Oddly enough, even though I see BDSM as very personal, I've never had a problem playing "casually", if that means at parties and with people other than my partner/s. I don't much like that term "casual", though -- I see BDSM as a way to get uniquely close to people, and having that chance to connect, even if it is only for a few hours, is a wonderful thing to me. I see no reason to limit it to one person.

I was about the business of archiving the hot topics threads when a thought occurred to me. It's my impression that most of the Dominants and switches have posted in this thread about how they engage in and enjoy casual SM play, but us submissive-type people have been more cautious about the idea. Is that a valid impression?

Also I noticed that Thorn, although he posed the question, didn't voice his own opinion That's not fair!

Hi ketzele:
i kinda noticed that too. *s* i haven't weighed in on this one because it doesn't apply in my current situation: i'm not allowed to play without permission, and then only under approved circumstances, with certain people, and supervised. <shrug>

i *have* done casual play before--sometimes it was... interesting <G>, other times just flat. i don't much miss it, since my plate is pretty full and varied right now anyway... The main interest in casual play, for me, was always the fear factor of the unknown--and i get plenty of that now just playing with my Lady (the gods know, there's no telling *what* might happen, with her!).

But you're right--i'd like to hear from a few more subs on this one! *s* (As well as Thorn's actual answer!)

rory

I have been meaning to add my own reply here but, well, now I want to hear more from subs too! Is it possible that subs do NOT enjoy casual play as much as the club scene would seem to suggest? Are there subs out there who go to the clubs hoping to meet Master or Mistress Right and end up playing instead because "something's better than nothing," but go home with mixed feelings? Is it easier (less emotionally threatening) for doms to do casual play than for subs? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Lots of food for thought!

To: ketzele (with regards to your master)

My intent, Jen, was to provide a subject that ALL could discuss regardless of experience level, nationality, orientation or (lack of) prior participation here. Facilitating it, therefore, was my contribution to this point.

My personal stance on casual play has, as you might imagine, changed radically over the years. Very candidly, when I first began exploring (via the club scene back in the late 70's/early 80's), all I did was play casually. This wasn't really due to any lack of ability/desire to commit, but more a result of believing that that's all there really was (much along the lines of if you want to listen to live jazz, you go to a jazz club; or, if you want to play golf, you go to a golf club, etc.) Additionally, most of my life focus at that time was taken up with school and starting my career, so it didn't really leave a lot of time for developing relationship-based experiences. BDSM at that time, FOR ME, was a way to have fun, relieve intense stress, provide a distraction, and (to a certain degree) serve as a viable outlet for a lot of extreme feelings.

The thing is, Jen, times change. Circumstances change. Influences change. People don't. When, over time, it got to the point where club play became almost boring, it moved me through a stage where I began to look for something 'more'. From that point forward, casual play was less and less an interest and eventually came to where it is a very rare exception rather than the rule.

There's a LOT of value in casual BDSM exploration. For myself, it was a building block in an overall foundation which became a way of living (read: lifestyle). Taken for what it is, the value is in bridging gaps in several areas. But once those bridges are crossed and (casually) left behind, one does have to continue to move onward -- looking for a proverbial place to call 'home'.

Be safe,
Thorn

Thanks rory The fear-thrill of the unknown is definitely a big turnon for me too! Sounds like you and I are in the same situation there.

Thorn, if I might ask, why did club play become nearly boring for you? Was it the clubs that changed, or did you just get bored with it? I've heard people say that SM clubs in the past used to be exciting, edgy and thrilling, but that today they're tame. It makes me suspicious when people say stuff like that though-- are they just misremembering the past?

Adding a few more thoughts....

I haven't heard too much about the turn ons of casual play. I've heard sexual energy and thrill... is that the same as the panty wetting, hardness stuff I'm thinking of?

Maybe I'm just being selfish (or excited one) but I think there would be all kinds of fulfillment in casual play.

I think that if a Dom has a need and I have a need then why not "help a brotha (sistah) out"? LOL

There I go.. feeling like I'm coming across as easy
again. If that's what it is, then so be it. <g>

~Chris
(Who doesn't think there has to be feelings when you have fun)

Chris,

Doesn't a lot of it come down to the expectations one sets and being able to be honest with oneself (and a partner) about those expectations?

One of the most common problem people seem to have (straight or kinky) is that they aren't really honest about why they are having sex. Common truisms are that men will say anything (including "I love you" to get a woman into bed, even though their only desire really is to get laid and say bye-bye. Just as common, I think, is for women (especially, though men do it too), to agree to casual sex when really hoping that it will be the beginning of great romance. Sometimes they will feel very hurt or rejected (or dejected) when they realize that the person didn't magically fall in love with them during the SM (or sex), and they may feel even lonelier than before.

I think the same is true of casual BDSM play. If everyone goes into it seeking only a fun experience or a pleasant way of sharing temporary, no-string intimacy, then casual play can be a blast. But if you (or your partner) are doing it because you actually are trying to satisfy a different need (for love, or acceptance, or because you really want something serious and are hoping the terms will change once you've had the casual adventure), it's probably going to end up being a big disappointment.

Personally, I'm an out and out hedonist. I love meaningful sex but I also enjoy meaningless sex. I prefer a close and bonded relationship but for all kinds of reasons (beginning with the difficulty of finding "special someones" clear up through "no time for fun!" casual play definitely has its appeal. In fact, when I don't have any outlets for my dominance/sadism, I start feeling pretty emotionally funky and I know that a good, friendly beating always seems to put a smile on my face. I can get just as excited doing a stranger as someone I love, depending on how they react and the energy that flows between us. That's why, in a BDSM-way, I can get turned on by people who I wouldn't want necessarily to have complete relationships. In the moment, when the Cruel Juices flow, all the other little things fade away--the very same things that can make or break a real and complete relationship. BDSM with love makes it a more spiritual and emotional experience for me; but the lust factor can sometimes be just as intense with a stranger as with a loved one. (And, sometimes, even more so *eg*).

Glory

Public play is also a chance to use things that may not be available at home or in the bedroom or basement. Like 12-15 foot ceilings, hoists, crosses, benches, etc. It is also a way to "show what you know" and to pick up new ideas. It is also a performance to an extent. For some its much easier to push themselves in public. There are free condoms and rubber gloves. And if its all casual for some of those playing there and they all have a good time......then so what? As to people finding public play more tame than in years past, I would guess thats all too true. Things have had the hell sanitized out of them, thats the effect of SSC on public play. I imagine the day when someone will only be allowed to swing a flogger in the direction of a bottom, missing them by the stated distance....say 6 feet and then if the swing was good the bottom can push a control panlel of authorized SSC screams. Of course thats just my opinion. And as we all know, Sacred Cows Make The Best Hamburger.

Justin Medlin

To: ketzele

You asked <<why did club play become nearly boring for you? Was it the clubs that changed, or did you just get bored with it?>>

Short answer up front: Yep.

In expanding that, Jen, I'll tell you that a LOT of both circumstances are in fact my own fault. Though I thoroughly understand your comment regarding the suspicion that it could easily be a case of revisionist reminiscing, what you have to understand is that there are genuine factors associated to the growth of the 'casual BDSM industry'. It isn't what it once was, but that's likely for all the right reasons. The issue, however, is that when you are first exploring something, you tend to develop the foundation for your understanding based on those first few experiences. (Something along the lines of, "First impressions are the lasting ones." As you grow and expand comfort zones and begin to see things differently -- even changing, it's only natural to ALLOW yourself to yearn for the 'good ole days'. But still, it's a personal choice about how I view the way things have changed; so yes, I'm responsible for that.

As for the tangible boredom with it, I'd have to say that a lot of it stems from the way the club scene has developed over the years. It used to be a lot more 'wide open'. Now, just about everything is tightly regulated. Again, perfectly reasonable developments, but when you're used to riding negative 'g' coasters and then you're finding that they've all been replaced with 2 m.p.h. carousels, the boredom factor doesn't take long to kick in. <eg> Again, that's my own doing though. I COULD be just as content to enjoy the tame(r) portions of today's club scene and keep the more intense aspects for private times, but I suppose I've just gotten to a state where I just don't (usually) see the point in going to a club and paying a hefty cover charge just to be bored when I could be doing what I would rather be doing right in the comfort of my own dungeon. (The rare exception, incidentally, would be because it's part of some activity involving people I know.)

I hope that answered your questions.

Be safe,
T.

To: memneth

Excellent points, Justin. But let me coattail one more onto all of that (because it's something that I've found myself thinking more and more these days): Clubs have become, for all intents and purposes, akin to crafting or home improvement fairs to a large extent. It's an opportunity to get ideas (re: different techniques, station elements and construction, etc.) and even to a degree CASUALLY (<g> interact (ask questions/have discussions) with the people involved.

T.

PS: I was smart this time and wasn't sipping my coffee when reading your post. Billy Mays will just have to go hungry this week.

To: GloriaBrame

Exceptional thesis regarding expectations and honesty, Doctor, but here's a twist (kink?) to illustrate how even that's not enough in some cases:

I gave a demo some years ago on electro-stimulation. There were many people attending that I didn't know before that event. After the actual demonstration, I spent some time with Q&A which led back into physically showing some of the answers to questions which were coming up. One particular couple, who I had never met before, seemed to be extremely intent on learning about this activity and trying it out. They asked a LOT of excellent questions -- showed a LOT of sincerity. Eventually, I was asked if I would demonstrate one particular device on each of them so they'd get a better idea of how to set it up and how it actually worked, etc. I agreed. (Mind you, all I knew of them at that point was their first names -- and all they knew of me was what they saw at the demo. Can't get much more casual than that. lol) In any event, going into it, there was no expectation of developing any sort of relationship beyond the demonstration and I'm fairly certain in saying that everyone's intentions were completely honest and open. We did the demo. It went great. He learned a lot from the experience. She found she loved it. End of story, right?

Well, the short version of what happened after that is that, what should have been the end of the encounter right there, actually became a very close friendship that has remained through today. Funny how that happens, huh? Go figure.

Be safe,
T.

Gloria,

I agree, it's about expectations and honesty.

I can see me more (as vanilla) starting up conversation and flirting for casual sex then I can for (as sub/masochist) for casual playing.

Sad that I can ask for a fucking but not a beating when the beating is more of what I need huh?

I'm not saying that if I'm in that situation that I couldn't do it. I just don't think I can see myself doing it because I haven't had the experience... YET.

Then it all comes down to who, what, when, where...

I know what my expectations are with no variations.

Questions in general...

Do y'all remember your first casual playing moment? And how did it all come about? Were you nervous? Did you worry afterwards about any expectations from your partner? Were any of your play partners an ex Dom or sub?

(Asking in general and very curious)

~Chris

I assume it's allright to put a view on all kinds of play, including Vanilla?....

I agree with pretty much everything Dr. Brame said... But I'd also argue that many, especially the young, aren't quite as... umm, sexually cultured? ^_^; Personally, I still have very very very much to learn on the hows and whys of successful relationships... I'd like to believe that I know myself well enough to be able to seperate my personal feelings, or love feelings, from the WHAM! BAM! IT'S OVER! fun.... But the trick is keeping the feelings where you want them to be. This's why I'm pretty cautious of the "friends with benefits" thing, because it's rarely certain if I, or the other party, might suddenly develop some pretty deep feelings. When that happens, things only get messy from there...

Generally, I don't have a problem with casual flings. I think a persons experience, and perhaps age, has a lot to do with how successful the casual stuff will be.... You know, they say your first conquest will be your first love, whether you be male or female...

Thorn,
      Well its sucks for Billy Mays and Oxy Clean, but hell, they did not reknew my contract with them anyway. Your right about clubs becoming the home depot of S/M and BDSM. That is one of the big functions that they serve, which may also help explain why people who have been around forever and a day seem to attend them less and less. Door fees can range from 15-50 dollars per person per visit and if people canno longer play in the manner that they truly enjoy then why should they pay to stand around with a digit in the doo doo? Being more inclusionary has had a lot of great benefits, but one of the things that has come with it are the clubs becoming more EXCLUSIONARY of certain types of play. I still play in public quite a bit, but I don't generally play all out anymore unless its after closing time at the Sanctuary and everyone else has gone home. It amazed me when at some point last year I began hearing a call for blood free zones and that was the first major eye opener that the type of play that I do in public was on the way out. Like you I can enjoy the bumber cars, but if what I want is the negative g's of a roller coaster going backwards at warp 8, I have to stay home or pick my moments carefully. Here's an interesting thought: Do you think that with the santization of casual play in public, that we are in fact doing exactly what we are railing against the government for doing as it concerns the internet? That of letting the most restrictive groups determine the level of play for everyone? Granted, in this case the most restrictive is (or seems to be) the majority, not a minority.

Justin Medlin

To: memneth

You posed a brilliant question, Justin, but I would have to draw one major distinction: motive.

When a majority of PEOPLE are unifying behind a particular standard in restricting certain types of casual public club play, the default motive is that they do so in what they believe to be working towards a good, safe balance for ALL who are involved there. They're fully aware of the purpose of the club, fully cognizant of the inherent risks, and (likely) seeking to frame an environment that encourages participation. In restricting certain types of play, whether we agree with the decision or not, we can at least recognize that the decision is motivated by a desire to perpetuate the club.

In the case of government, the motives are nothing of the sort. They THINK they know better than the people involved, THINK they should prevent people from doing things they believe aren't 'right', and, at the end of the day, want YOU to believe you should be thanking them for doing so. The short version of government motive in such matters is: "You don't know how to care for or protect yourself, so we'll do it for you. You're welcome." Their decisions are motivated by a desire to perpetuate themselves.

Be safe,
T.

To: success0123

You stated <<I'd also argue that many, especially the young, aren't quite as... umm, sexually cultured?>>

I'd have to respectfully differ with you by pointing out that though 'younger generational culture' may be significantly different from preceeding generations, that does not default to it being 'less' in any way.

I'd thoroughly enjoy hearing the specific rationale for your view though.

Be safe,
Thorn

(General posting)

Ok...here's a theory that should incite (errr, inspire) a few thoughts on why submissives don't seem to be as casually inclined as dominants (and yes, that's an intentionally presumptive statement <eg>:

Stereotypically, a dominant needs control. In a casual sense, the control gained is, in itself, the sought-after end. The worth of it doesn't need to be anything more than that. Conversely, a submissive needs to give up control. In a casual sense, if control is given and has no further meaning, then it's worthless.

What do you think?

Be safe,
Thorn

From my *personal* point of view, Thorn, you're very close, but not quite on the button. Simply put, i won't give control in any real sense in a casual situation; my instincts for self-preservation are much too strong for that. The most i would ever give in casual play would be fleeting permission, never control. And for me, play without the power exchange is just not very satisfying. For me, it's all about the power exchange.

Peace
firebaby

Hi Thorn,

Again, speaking with no experience, (is that fair of me?).. I can only offer what I "think" may be.

Please correct me if I'm wrong and being a lil dumb, but casual playing brings out casual status doesn't it?
By casual status I mean, casual Dominance, casual submission. The Dominance and submission one gives during casual playing is far from the kind of Dominance and submission one would give in a relationship. Maybe that just sounds easier to me than it actually is. Or am I wrong?

I would think there would be a difference between certain types of casual playing (meaning how far a person is "willing" to go) then there would be in a relationship, thus not exactly giving up complete control, but as firebaby said, more of a permission thing. Do you think with that kind of thinking, it's a little different form of Dominance and submission? The Dom is still in control and the sub is still submitting... all to a certain extent.

I hope this makes sense and please, if I'm just not getting it, please let know.

~Chris

To: firebaby

Your comment of <<And for me, play without the power exchange is just not very satisfying.>> pretty much makes the theoretical point I threw out. (I think I understand your meaning that it's much deeper for you personally.)

T.

To: ckim25

Well of COURSE it's 'fair' to share what you THINK, Chris. The only way you'll ever have ignition towards experiences is to first have a thought basis for making them happen, yes? (Perhaps more will do the same.)

And your thoughts made perfect sense. Personally, I like that you aimed right for the simplest outlook. In any event, thank you very much for sharing your thoughts here.

T.

Justin,

If I remember correctly, a portion of this discussion re inclusion/exclusion, was held yesterday at the Mystic Rose Book Day. (BTW, absolutely fantastic day...great job and I had no idea that Laura could probably make a fortune as a stand-up comedienne. She had me laughing so hard at a couple of places that I was damn near crying!!!). You know from the comment I made during the discussion that vi started, that I disagree totally with "standards". Right away that gives me heartburn of the "my kink is better (or more proper, safe, etc, etc...)than your kink" type of mentality that generally surrounds "standards".

In the same breath, however, I can say that I have no problem with the type of group that Master Vic has started in Atlanta, because that is his choice, and the choice of all that attend. If I decide to go play is his ballpark then I should expect to have to play by his rules...I don't see them as being my "style" so I won't be going, but that is a personal decision. I will make this same type of decision before joining any group or attending any of their meetings. I feel that is their prerogative...to set the rules and I can then make a judgment regarding whether I wish to play by those rules or not.

When I am in my "private" play space, my rules govern, but when I play somewhere else, in "public", then I can play by those rules or stay home. In my personal life, my rules are the "standard" and whatever other "standard" rules might exist can be discarded, in my not so very humble opinion.

BTW, if you play in my home, you cannot do blood play. And this is not because I have anything against that. You know that I have been know to do a needle or two from time to time. It's just that it is such a bitch to get it out of the fawn-colored carpet at the house.....lol

Knyghtflyher

Last night was the first time I did any actual "play" outside of either a class or a relationship. I was fine with it, because it *wasn't* erotic, and stayed in an "education" frame of mind. However, at one point, I wound up going to lala land, and I'm a little unsure of how to handle that in the future. I'll give a scene report in the "Come Hither" section, since it doesn't really belong here.