ssurgul: (Default)
It strikes me as odd. We as humans seem to thrive on tragedy. The train wreck, the bus crash, the multi-car pile-up, the sports figure getting horrifically injured (again and again and again on the instant replay). We watch them with a grim determination and fascination. Psychologists have known about this for decades; humans have known about it for millennia. But then an odd similarity struck me. We, as humans, ALSO require a blood sacrifice of some sort for any sort of significant, meaningful, lasting change to our culture and our ways of life.

Could it be that at least part of the fascination we have is not 'just' to thrive on the idea that we're still alive, and that their blood isn't ours? Could it also be that we thrive on this, we watch it so closely, to try and potentially be a part of the Next Big Change that sweeps through us all? One never can tell as it happens that Yes, *THIS* thing is the 'Big One'. It's only in the aftermath that the change is visible. Some little trigger in the subconscious knowing that they 'should' bear witness because who can say what might come of this.

Just a thought.

*smirks a bit*

2008-May-17, Saturday 10:34 am
ssurgul: (Default)
Well, isn't that fun.

A quote from "Woof! Perspectives into the Erotic Care & Training of the Human Dog" which quoted Jay Wiseman's "SM 101":

What does it mean to humiliate somebody? Basically, it means to reduce them in status, usually in an embarrassing or mortifying way. Key point: Humiliation is mainly a state of mind. For an experience to be humiliating, a slave must consider it humiliating.

I'm so strongly reminded of a conversation I had with one of Fuckhead's friends, while we were together. This friend had decided that I was a completely irresponsible Master because I had 'humiliated' the slave, by referring to him in the pet name assigned, 'Little girl'. Well this friend didn't like it, decided that it was totally humiliating, and was only too happy to be vocal about how irresponsible I was at the time, simply because he didn't like the situation himself. On talking with Fuckhead about it, he said specifically that he was honestly confused why that was the case as he didn't consider it humiliating in the slightest. It's what he was, he knew that (at the time) I loved him and that the name was one of a certain intimacy.

The lesson? That the bulk of furries really have zero clue what legitimate BDSM is. Which is why so many of them never make it in the non-furry BDSM community. And why they're so mocked in general, from BDSM'ers. When you don't get something, and you try and ascribe a false belief to it, and then reinforce your mis-belief with lies, gossip and childish behavior it doesn't show you're mature, strong, or right. Further, it will certainly be great to hear final confirmation that by now, Fuckhead's views have gone 180 degrees and now he's almost certain to be holding me accountable to 'humiliating' him nonconsentually with such terms, simply because all his 'friends' have ego-stroked him into believing that what he said wasn't what he said, and what 'really' happened was what they want to have happened rather than any sort of reality.


ssurgul: (Default)

May 2012



RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 2017-Sep-22, Friday 01:03 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios