Jarbaby, I have to disagree with you a little bit in this particular case. While I agree with you that there’s nothing wrong with someone’s individual kink, whatever it may be, and humiliation is certainly a kink that lots of folks have, this scenario as outlined in the OP kinda struck me as objectively wrong.
Why?
Because this person and his pet were doing all of this in front of complete strangers, in a setting which, as described, was not a BDSM party. I think what they were doing was incredibly rude, and objectively wrong, and I would not want to associate with them whatsoever. Lord knows I have my own kinks, but I try to keep them at least somewhat private.
File this in the same place as those rants about teenagers mauling one another at the mall… It’s all about the time, and the place.
The phrase “but socially he is still a boy” was what really bothered me, in that there was a potential question about the mental and emotional capacity of this young man. If it really is truly consensual, then fine, but I would hate to think that something other than that was going on.
I’m not claming to know the details of Doghood’s life, but this didn’t seem to have the ability to say ‘no’… my point is that he thinks he should be treated like a dog, no self respecting dog owner would ever treat their dog like this. If my dog even whimpers the whole family runs to him as they would a a baby crying… yes he’s a spoiled little fuzzball. Now if Dooghood wants to be a human with concent then act like one… other wise he should be given the same rights as a non-consenting animal.
On a side note… damn that even sounds WEIRD! :eek:
Wait. I don’t get that it was complete strangers. Why would complete strangers be having dinner at someone’s apartment? Dorkus referred to the D/s couple as “their other friends”. I would strongly suspect the nature of their relationship was known before the invitation was issued.
And I don’t think Dorkus was complaining simply about doing it at a party, I think he/she things the whole relationship is wrong.
I got no problem with it as along as the master doesn’t use his slave/dog as a teaching assistant or cram gerbils in his ass in front of the his 4th grade class. (OTOH, Lemmiwinks DID become the Gerbil King.)
They were strangers to everyone but one person at the dinner. It wasn’t a BDSM setting at all and they stuck out in a significant way. I don’t think any consensual adult relationship is wrong for the most part. I would never consider Doghood an adult though because he doesn’t act like one at any time. Supposedly, he lives his life as if he were a dog.
Something of a hijack, jarbabyj - but can you offer some insight on just why this gets you off?
Years ago, I had a girlfriend that seemed to crave this sort of thing. She wanted to be called a slut or a whore while making love, and she … well, no need to get in to details; let’s just say that her enjoyment of things sexual wasn’t complete unless she was being humiliated or degraded.
I didn’t get it then, and I don’t get it now. At the time my response was to part company, because I didn’t like the thought of being on the giving end of that sort of treatment.
But I’m just puzzled.
Certainly it’s a personal question, and I’ll understand should you choose to decline the discussion.
Dorkusmalorusmafia, next time you’re in downtown DC, you should go to the Green Lantern (by McPherson Square Metro). My bf and I were there last weekend, and we saw a “slave auction” last Saturday night, where one of the slaves being auctioned off was into the pretending-to-be a-dog thing. While that sort of thing is very much not my cup of Earl Grey, it is not my place to judge other people’s sexual kinks. After all, as gay men, we want the Baptists to leave us alone, so in turn, we should leave the BDSM crowd alone. As long as it’s safe, sane, and consensual, people can do whatever they please.
NPavelka: If this person was sticking needles in his “human dog,” I can guarantee it was consunsual. You may not get off on having needles stuck into you; this person obviously does.
When jarbabyj says something about saying NO to being set on fire while tied up…she means it. People in healthy BDSM relationships (and just shut up right now with the “no such thing” horseshit) trust each other to an extreme. If he says "I’m going to set you on fire and she says “No,” in whatever fashion they’ve agreed it MEANS “NO,” he will not set her on fire.
But they may both get off on the fear that he would have.
If you don’t understand the fundamentals behind a BDSM relationship that’s fine, but throwing your lack of knowledge around is not very productive.
I agree with most other posters here- you may find it weird, and it’s perfectly okay for you to think that, but as long as both parties consent and no law is being broken, then what’s the big deal?
I’ll admit, it rubs me the wrong way, too. I don’t like the idea of abusing or humiliating or being abused or humiliated by a sexual partner, even in fun. But that’s my preference. I’m not into BDSM, and while I understand why some might enjoy it, it’s just not my thing. Like jarbabyj said, different strokes. I certainly wouldn’t pass judgement on someone who was- it’s their choice, and quite frankly, it’s none of my business.
It does become my business when they’re in my living room, however. Yeesh! I understand these people are having a good time and pursuing their hobby, but some things are private, you know? Just because I accept your choice of lifestyle doesn’t mean I want to watch. For instance, if I pick my nose in private, I doubt anyone would condemn me for it. But how many people want to sit and watch me root around in my nostril for twenty minutes? There’s some things we just don’t do in public.
No. This was their first time. The apartment’s owner knew the master from an earlier meeting with mutual friends but Doghood wasn’t there.
I don’t know. The one person who was friends with them wasn’t really talking about it. No one else there knew anything about them. They were essentially strangers to all but one person there. For the record there were 8 people there total.
Only one person there knew them well and had been exposed to their behavior. That person was not the owner of the apartment. That person didn’t mention anything about them either.
If I may butt in, it will serve to inform them that any further actions like that may and will be considered rape.
Re: the OP, these people have the time and resources to commit a very large amount of their time to sustaining a fantasy that makes them both very happy. I have no interest in making someone my dog, ponygirl or (pick your lower animal of choice), but I can give them enough leeway that I can get my head around their existence.
On the other hand, maybe we should all go back to only having sex the way some old guys in Italy tell us to. After all, everything else is not normal.
I think these two criteria make objections to this very kind of behavior possible.
I certainly don’t pick my nose or scratch my ass and sniff my fingers at dinner parties, and see no reason why Doghood and his master should be given a pass just because their behavior falls under the umbrella of BDMS, which is something many people have great difficulty understanding, let alone tolerating.
Well, if you want the deep seated psychological mumbo jumbo answer, I’ve been told it dates back to caveman days when women were bartered and knocked around and dragged around by their hair like objects.
However, i just think it’s something I was born with. My sister is exactly the same. We have loving, non abusive, christian parents, great childhood, lots of fun…and we’re both very sexually submissive.
I just don’t respond to romance and roses and candlelight and such. I like rough, mean, angry sex and fear. I get off on fear. Men who are willing to USE me, just bend me over a table and fuck me are far more attractive than sappy guys who recite poetry.