BDSM friendly psychotherapists.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

SM Relationships: Why Submissive Isn't Always Sexy by Tanonymous

SM Relationships: Why Submissive Isn't Always Sexy

By the clear definitions of SM logic, dominants are attracted to submissives and vice versa. Right? So you should walk right up to the studly or butchalicious object of your masochistic lust and grovel piteously at their spit-shined boots. This is a good way to prove what a humble slave you are and thereby make yourself irresistibly attractive in the dominant's merciless eyes. Bzzt. Wrong. If you do this in a Wal-Mart, you will make of yourself a very silly spectacle. If you do this in a leatherbar, you have a better chance of getting what you want out of the encounter - if what you want is a bar quickie. For some very good reasons, you can risk permanently turning off the dominant in question if they're looking for a sane adult partner for a long term relationship as opposed to a fast fantasy encounter. Believe it or not, even the studliest dominants tend to have some fairly ordinary standards as to the human beings they wish to play with and associate with - at least in the long term. Their criteria for selecting a submissive play partner is much like their criteria for entering into any relationship, whether that's a business relationship, a friendship or a romantic partnership. In short, they'd like to spend time with people who have their shit together, are emotionally stable, self supporting, healthy, etc. In other words, reasonably self-actualized human beings. Grovelling to a stranger on the basis of their really butch leather outfit might be cute in the short term, but it might not be the world's best advertisement for you as a sane and stable adult who wants to enter a serious D/s relationship. Also, some dominants might have ethical issues playing with a person who was perpetually in this kind of emotional state - how real is his consent, and how healthy is it?

Somebody who approaches me with a friendly and polite smile and a "Hello, Sir/Ma'am, it's nice to meet you. If you'd like to play, I'd be happy to negotiate a scene with you where I am submissive," is a lot likelier to get a positive response than somebody who cringes and crawls up to me with, "Hi. I am the scum of the earth. I'm a terrible person. I don't like myself very much. Punish me for being so bad." A strong, self-actualized person who is emotionally healthy and stable and who likes himself, who is comfortable with his sexuality and his orientation, is an attractive play partner and friend. Someone who does not like himself, is conflicted and guilty, who has low self esteem, who seems terribly needy, wimpy, grovelling, etc, is not usually considered attractive. The former is a healthy mutual transaction, and varying degrees of dominance and submission as well as SM play can be negotiated from that point. The latter strikes me as potentially getting involved in a situation that is really emotionally unhealthy. It may be that the person who approaches me in the latter way is actually already deep into his "slave" persona and in his everyday life is healthy and well adjusted, but I have no way of knowing that. If he starts out talking to me in this state of mind, I never get to see the mentally competent, emotionally stable adult who gives meaningful consent to being submissive. And that is a major problem in my book; I need to know that I'm participating in a healthy mutual transaction between consenting adults, not being used to further a genuinely self-destructive, emotionally unhealthy impulse. When you first approach the dom-of-your-dreams, there's always going to be a fine line between polite and submissive, deferential and annoyingly co- dependent. If you already know his or her preferences, you can act accordingly. If you don't, it's smart to start out with basic courtesy and keep your eyes and ears open for cues that will tell you what you should be doing next. On your knees right off, or out for coffee and chat? Only time will tell, and appropriate sensitivity to your partner's needs and desires.

Topping, Bottoming, Subspace, and Consent by Tanonymous

Topping, Bottoming, Subspace, and Consent

I distinguish two different modes of scene play - SM or sensation play which is topping and bottoming, and DS, which is dominating and submitting. In topping and bottoming, sensation play, SM, etc, without a strong DS component, the bottom often bears at least 50% of the responsibility for communicating, setting limits and discussing likes, dislikes and issues around the scene that is happening even while it is happening. That is a perfectly valid mode of play, and in fact the one I most commonly engage in as a casual top. For me, and for many other people I have had discussions with, subspace is a wholly different place to be, and the responsibility (indeed, the literal ability) to speak up and change something that isn't working shifts much more heavily to the dominant. A person deep in subspace may not be easily able to object to your renegotiating or reinterpreting the limits they stated when they were in their normal, thinking adult persona. As a dominant, I am *very* careful to stick to the limits I discussed with the thinking adult persona when I have any reason to believe that his consent from subspace would not be meaningful to his normal personality. I've run into this situation too many times not to be wary, and also I know what it feels like from the other side. I think that it is important for players to discuss clearly beforehand how much responsibility might or might not shift to the dominant to protect the sub and enforce the normal persona's stated limits even if deep subspace can make the lines of current consent blurry. If you are a dominant and you attempt to renegotiate the limits of a scene while your partner is in subspace, the consent you get may not be meaningful and may be deeply regretted by your partner in the morning. It is the ethical equivalent of pressuring someone who is drunk or stoned to have sex with you, even though you know they did not consent to this before their judgement was chemically altered. Subspace is effectively an altered state of consciousness, even if it is arrived at without the help of any chemicals outside of the body's own natural endorphins. A responsible dominant understands this and should not attempt to alter an earlier agreement about limits that was made while hir partner retained sane, sober adult judgement.

Humiliation and SM by Tanonymous

Humiliation and SM

The degree to which you can be damaged by verbal abuse is generally agreed to depend on your own emotional stability, the degree of intimacy you have with the individual who offers the negative comments and what value you assign hir words internally. The possibility (even probability) exists for verbal abuse and humiliation to cause long term psychological damage if the negative expressions are internalized consistently with an unhealthy self-image. The key here is how the individual who is on the recieving end of this psychological edgeplay percieves and internalizes the situation. These facts are concurred to among professionals in the mental health community. An individual with strong codependent tendencies who is verbally abused, especially by a spouse, close friend, lover or co-worker may internalize and accept the negative expressions as valid judgements of hir self worth. Such an individual should probably not engage in psychological edgeplay such as humiliation or verbal degradation, as sie is not healthy or strong enough to participate without great risk of harm or damage.

An individual who is not codependent and who has a strong and well developed sense of self worth and self esteem is more likely to react to verbal abuse from anyone, regardless of their level of intimacy or believability, with consistent internal rejection - *even if the experience is deliberately sought out and eroticized*. The negative expressions are not internalized and are not consistent with hir self image. The emotionally stable individual is not likely to suffer any significant alteration to hir psyche as a result of such experiences. Such an individual is a good candidate to participate harmlessly in fantasy roleplaying games which may involve elements of humiliation or verbal harshness. Sie understands at a core emotional level that even if sie is called harsh names as part of playing out a fantasy role or to emphasize an eroticized power imbalance, these names do not reflect on hir personal worth in reality as a human being. No harm or damage occurs; the game or role is played out to its conclusion with no long term effects.

Love this video...Wish our society were open enough to do this in public

Free Fetish Porn VideosMobile Porn on DrTuber.com

Boy's toys the new frontier for erotica industry

 

 

AFPNOVEMBER 29, 2010

 

 

 

Photograph by: Francois Guillot, Getty Images

It took the erotica industry a decade to turn the sex toy from seedy gadget to sassy lady's accessory, from vibrating rubber ducks to dolphin-shaped dildos. But men were largely left out of the fun -- until now that is.

Once the stuff of garish sex shops, vibrators underwent a small revolution in the mid-2000s, as quirky, colourful playthings flooded the market and the rotating "Rabbit" was immortalised in the U.S. series "Sex and the City".

These days dildos in cheerful hues of pink or blue, picked up in lingerie shops or department stores across the West, nestle in the bedside tables of suburban pensioners or trendy urban singles -- barely raising an eyebrow.

But now the industry's creative labs have taken on a mightier challenge: the male sex toy.

"The market has really opened up in terms of sex toys for women -- and now it's opening up for men too," Patrick Pruvot, owner of a Paris chain of upmarket sex shops, told AFP.

"But it's still a real step for a man to go out and buy a sex toy -- it's still much more of a taboo than for women."

Despite the advent of the designer dildo, men's sex gadgets are still viewed with suspicion.

"A woman who uses a sex toy is a woman who is exploring her body," Pruvot told AFP. "But a man using a sex toy is seen as someone who can't get a woman."

This is where sharp design comes in.

"Designing sex toys for men is difficult -- it requires big investments," said Pruvot's colleague Fleur Breto. "If the packaging is ugly and it's called something like 'cum-a-minute' -- well it's just not going to work."

Blazing the trail is a Japanese firm that has pledged to "revolutionize the realm of adult goods".

The revolution's weapon of choice looks for all the world like a man's shower gel tube, in the same bold hues of striped red, black or white.

But don't be fooled by the tame design: flip the cup upside down and it reveals a soft, lubricated silicone chamber, whose intricate ridges and curves promise to deliver the user "never-before-experienced" sensations.

This is the Tenga onanism cup, or Onacup for short, launched in sexually-adventurous Japan in 2005 and now sold in over 40 countries -- with global sales of 13 million units including 1.5 million in Western markets.

The highly-engineered, single-use toy exists in a dozen versions each claiming to simulate the feel of a different sex position -- with names like "Deep Throat" leaving little to the imagination.

Its creator Koichi Matsumoto -- a car mechanic by training -- says he wanted to help male toys shed their "nasty" image, and promote pleasure-for-one as a healthy activity and "nothing connected to obscenity".

The firm, which recently launched a more environmentally-friendly reusable version, expects international sales to exceed those in Japan within a few years.

Pruvot started importing the Tenga 18 months ago, and now sells 1,000 per month from his three Paris stores.

"Design helps to break the ice," he said. "Like the rubber duck that made it OK to own a vibrator. The men's deodorant that conceals a sex toy is the same idea."

Advocates say the toys can have an educational role too.

"Sexologists send me men who are traumatized by the need to perform -- whether it's at the office, at home or in bed," said Breto. "These objects can be very useful for getting over short-term difficulties."

The Tenga is not the only toy in town: another is the German-made "Cobra Libre", a rechargeable gadget shaped like a futuristic toy car, with a two-inch deep vibrating socket at one end.

Or for pleasure on the go, there is the Egg, also by Tenga, a ribbed, stretchy rubber sleeve that fits in the palm of the hand and is billed as the perfect travel toy -- promising its users "knee-trembling sensations".

Christian Palix, the founder of a specialist erotic cosmetics firm, says he increasingly caters to male tastes in designing his products, whether targeting couples, gay or straight men.

"A white design will suggest a feminine product. With black and gold, you are moving into more masculine codes," he said.

And the same applies to smells: for the scent of his latest massage oil Palix hired a professional perfumer, who chose unisex notes like ginger and rosemary instead of the feminine vanilla or passion fruit.

Yes, Laura observes draw Muhammad day to protest Muslim fundamentalistic view and threats against right to freedom of speech. 

Draw Muhammad Day: Censorship, Sabotage, Threats & Murder

http://drawmuhammad.tumblr.com/image/86401518622

Draw Muhammad Day is not an assault on Islam or Muslims, and certainly not on Arab people of any nation. The protest is not racist or ethnocentric. The protest is not an attempt to infringe on the rights of others or curtail any individual’s religious freedom. The protest is in defense of individual freedom of expression. The protest is against one group forcing its religious doctrine on everyone, and censoring other’s rights of free speech and expression.

The protest was launched because serious threats were issued by Islamic Fundamentalists against the creators of South Park after an episode was aired showing a cartoon depiction of Muhammad.

Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee, aka Zachary A. Chesser of Virginia, took exception to Trey Parker and Matt Stone’s satire of Muhammad and immediately launched a campaign of intimidation.

On April 15, the day after the first of two episodes of South Park featuring Muhammad aired, Chesser made his first comment about the program through his Twitter feed. “May Allah kill Matt Stone and Trey Parker and burn them in Hell for all eternity. They insult our prophets Muhammad, Jesus, and Moses…” Chesser posted similar entries to his Mujahid Blog as well as the Revolution Muslim website later that same day. The post included a graphic picture of the Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh laying dead on the ground with a knife in his chest after he had been assassinated by a Muslim extremist in 2004. Under the photo was the caption: “Theo Van Gogh – Have Matt Stone And Trey Parker Forgotten This?”

In the same post, Chesser provided the address to Stone and Parker’s offices in California, telling readers to “contact them” or “pay Comedy Central…a visit.” He also posted the link to a Huffington Post article that described a Colorado retreat owned by the two men. Chesser also noted: “We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh if they do air this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.”

The threats resulted in Comedy Central censoring the episode and removing it from online distribution.

If an individual wants to create some depiction as part of their own personal expression, that act deserves the same tolerance and freedom from persecution as those who accept, as part of their own religious idiology, that they are not allowed to make such a depiction. In a democratic society that protects the equal rights of individuals; if Muslims are to ensure that their own rights are protected, they must work just as hard to protect the same rights for all, whether they agree with them or not. These are the principles we live by. To be the recipients of religious tolerance does not mean that you have the right to impose religious dogma on individuals that do not adhere to your belief system.

There are many individuals of other faiths and world views who do not agree with the doctrines of Islam and who diligently defend the rights of Muslims to practice their own religion without persecution or oppression. These same individuals have the right to eat pork, draw Muhammad, engage in intimate relations with same gender partners and declare that they have negative feelings about Islam. These rights too must not only be tolerated, but vigorously defended if the right of Muslims to practice their religion is to also be ensured.

America is by no means alone in dealing with the public imposition of Sharia law within a democraticsociety. Discord has been growing in England as laws requiring Muslim Prayer rooms in public buildings, including privately owned work places, must be provided at tax payer or employer expense. Also causing disharmony has been the establishment of Muslim only swim days at public community pools. Apparently non-Muslims may only attend if they wear traditional Muslim dress, otherwise they will not be allowed to participate.

As Muslim immigration increases throughout Europe conflicts of this nature increase. In 2004 Theo Van Gogh was brutally murdered because of a film he made that Muslims found insulting. (See photo above)

Van Gogh’s film Submission aired on Dutch television August 29, 2004. The film depicted four semi-nude women in dark, opaque veils, who had texts from the Qur’an written in calligraphy on their bare skin. The women had what appeared to be red whip marks on their backs and legs, on which were written Qur’anic texts that described the physical punishments prescribed for disobedient women. The highly controversial 10-minute film sparked outrage from the Muslim community.

On November 2, 2004, at approximately 8:45 am, an unknown assailant dressed in a traditional Moroccan “djelleba,” viciously attacked Mr. Van Gogh as he bicycled to work in central Amsterdam. The attacker shot and repeatedly stabbed him in the chest despite his pleas for mercy. Mr. Van Gogh struggled against his injuries to flee and managed to get as far as the other side of the street before his attacker shot and stabbed him yet again. The assassin then slit Mr. Van Gogh’s throat with a butcher knife as shocked onlookers screamed in horror.

On January 2 of 2010 a Danish cartoonist was attacked in his home by an ax wielding assailant intent on carrying out a fatwah that called for the mans death. Kurt Westergaard, a cartoonist who had received death threats for publishing images of Muhammad, managed to survive the attack by hiding in a secure panic room until police were able to detain the would-be assassin.

What has resulted from these attacks is terror, not tolerance. The use of violence has defined threats by members of the Muslim community as definite statements of intent rather than specious rhetoric uttered in a moment of passion. Rather than change a television channel, close a book, fold a newspaper or leave a theatre, some members of the Muslim community are deliberately choosing to expose themselves to material that contravenes their religious doctrine, then violently attacking whoever they deem culpable for offending their sensibilities.

On May 11 of this year, just last week, Lars Vilks was offering a lecture on free speech at Uppsala University in Sweden. Immediately after the start of his presentation Mr. Vilks was physically assaulted by a contingent of Muslim attendees. Rather than leave the voluntary lecture these individuals assaulted Mr. Vilks, hitting him on the head and punching him in the face, breaking his glasses. As police officers attempted to end the attack and rescue Mr. Vilks, they too were hit and kicked. Two individuals were arrested. The Muslims present hurled threats and profanity at Mr. Vilks until the lecture had to be cancelled because of security concerns. I young Swedish woman who tried to plead for the lectures continuation, and the freedom of speech of all the others present, was shouted down by the aggressive Muslim mob.

This is not an issue of religious tolerance. Religion should be tolerated and allowed to be exercised and expressed by its adherents as long as it does not violate other’s rights by forcing them to adhere to its doctrine. What religion cannot do in a democratic society, where all individuals enjoy equal protection under the law, is act as a political or legislative entity that dictates laws for all.

Sharia law is completely anathema to the American Constitution and the principles of democracy. Law based upon democratic principles are offensive to Islam because such law is based upon people. Sharia law is based upon the Qur’an and the writings of Mohammed, which Muslims believe to be the only perfect guidance. Therefore, Muslims consider it an offence to Islam for Muslims to live under democratic constitutional law. Sharia law openly despises democracy because it comes from man whereas American Law and the Constitution are based on the principle of governance of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Islam is primarily a political system. The Islamic legal code is called Sharia, meaning the way. The source of the Sharia is the Qur’an and the Sunna (found in the Sira and the Hadith). Sharia law covers all aspects of life including how a man and woman should have sex.

Sharia Law is based upon dividing all actions into forbidden (haram, haraam) and permitted (halal). Islam demands that Muslims form their own political units without influence from non-believers. Under Sharia Law non-believers are second class citizens, dhimmis, not given all the same rights as Muslims yet required to live by Sharia Law.

Pakistan, an Islamic country that operates under a somewhat informal application of Sharia Law, responded to the “Draw Muhammad day’ campaign on Facebook by blocking access to Facebook for the entire country beginning May 19 and lasting through the end of the month. The proclamation issued by the Lahore Court includes any other sites or links that may feature such images and allows that it the ban be extended past the end of May at the discretion of the court.

There are 1.8 million Facebook users in Pakistan, not all of them Muslim, but all of them subject to the censorship imposed by the court.

The official PR notification as reproduced by Aamir Attaa at ProPakistani is as follows:

BLOCKAGE OF FACE BOOK WEBSITE DUE TO PUBLICATION OF PROFANE ANTI ISLAMIC CONTENT ON ITS WEBSITE.
ISLAMABAD: MAY 19, 2010
In compliance with the orders of Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore, on the Writ Petition No.10392/10, dated the 19th May, 2010, the Ministry of Information Technology has issued a directive to Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) to block the ‘Face Book’ and all other internet links displaying sacrilegious caricatures of the Holy Prophet.
Ministry of IT has also directed the PTA to remain alert and watchful and block all such links displaying the profane caricatures immediately.
Ministry of IT has requested public at large to contact a dedicated Telephone No.0800-5505 and e-mail address: complaint@pta.gov.pk , to transmit necessary information, should anything to the effect of objectionable caricature get displayed/propagated at any website.

Although the Facebook ‘Draw Muhammad Day‘ page is up and running, as of the writing of this article the DrawMuhammadDay.com website is down. It has been intermittent throughout the day but seems to have finally succumbed. It has been rendered inaccessible by an apparent campaign to crash the site. ‘Youfan’s blog‘ and ‘It’s All What You Want‘ have been offering instruction on how to help take down the site and are publicly celebrating their cowardly violation of other’s freedom of speech and expression. Although not causing personal injury or death on this occasion, the impact on the rights and freedoms of others is no less violent.

Samuel Langhorne Clemens, aka Mark Twain, once wrote; “Irreverence is the champion of liberty and its only sure defense. True irreverence is disrespect for another man’s god.” These statements, irreverent though they are, represent key principles of a free society. The acts of criticizing, satirizing, and mocking are part of process that removes pomp and circumstance from an issue, allowing us to see more clearly and comprehend. The ability to challenge and test the veracity of our most sacred thoughts and beliefs is not merely a privilege but a shared duty.

The constitutionally protected right of free speech provides the cornerstone to a democratic society where derision and disagreement fuel the process of negotiation, discovery and cooperation. Our individual as well as societal growth and development are aided by access to the opinions and criticisms of others. Every idea, belief or endeavor benefits from the collective input of our society whether it is solicited, welcomed, encouraged or feared.

Free speech promotes development where a strong foundation is present, and exposes weaknesses where they either hide or lay undiscovered. Free speech is loved by the strong and feared by the weak. Truth welcomes free speech and accepts the strengthening process of criticism, where lies and falsehoods are unable to withstand its trials. It is for this reason that corrupt systems of thought, and the organizations, institutions and regimes built on them, will do anything possible to prevent this powerful force from exposing their masquerade.

Often time, the more ridiculous an assertion is, the more violently it is defended. When something is unable to withstand any questioning or criticism, it’s proponents seek to quell any dissent by any means necessary. In cases such as those mentioned, when both the assertion and the proponents are lacking in strength, the ridiculous is defended with the extreme. This unintended admission of weakness seeks to replace the strength of an enduring truth with lies wrapped in the protective cocoon of terror.

The rights of a free society cannot be allowed to wither and die in the shadow of threats. Terror cannot be allowed to subvert liberty. It is a constant battle that must be attended, and where an inch is given it must be reclaimed. Freedom cannot be allowed to erode by the giving of ground in the face of an irrational and tyrannical onslaught. In the name of freedom of expression; pick up a pen, pencil or crayon and draw your best Muhammad whether it be a portrait or a stick figure. Photograph it or scan it and upload it to the Facebook page and then pin it, tack it or tape it up for all the world to see.
Happy Draw Muhammad Day.

Related articles:

1. American Atheists: Happy Draw Muhammad Day
2. Draw Muhammad Day
3. May 20: Everybody Draw Mohammad Day
4. Negotiating Armageddon: UN Nuclear Conference and the National Day of Prayer
5. May 19, 2010: Atheist Cartoons draws Muhammad