Hey, what great timing! Just when I find I have the time to start posting again, someone (you) leaves me a message about something I posted over a month ago.

My cerebrum is always in motion, really, there's no need to arouse that beast any further . Here's what I think about your message.

Your distinction between S/M and D/S is one I have never seen before...and I thought I had seen 'em all. Because each person tends to make that distinction differently (and some, to thoroughly confuse the matter, have the nerve to throw B/D into the pot as well--g) I prefer to stir the terms together into a steaming semantic stew, and if someone happens to wander by and ask me what I am cooking, I just say, "Oh well you know...just more of that kinky stuff!" Seriously, the terms BD, SM, and DS do not mean significantly different things to me. Like the carrots and the potatoes and the beef in a five-day-old stew, they all kind of blend together holistically in my ancient five-yea-old life-style relationship. Call it sloppy thinking if you will; I call it a damn good recipie!

Question for you: when you are dominating an individual across a room, don't you get that certain thrill, that certain tingle that you associate with arousal? Sure, your cock might not stir, but don't you experience a certain excitement, and doesn't that excitement feel like sex to you? I mean, would you even bother dominating someone that way if you didn't get a certain kick from it? Doesn't it turn you on to see the sub responding to your dominance? Again, I'm not talking about a crude physical response necessarily, just a subtle arousal. I call the female-sub version of that subtle arousal "sex," and, for me, it is just as much sex as an orgasm. In fact, that's why I speculated that my definition of sex might be looser than Cassiopia's, because it lumps all these little feelings and behaviors under the rubric of sex.

'Nother Question for you: If you're at work and you're a manager and you have to order around and chew out an employee who is not doing his job and this employee is not someone you would ever in a zillion years be interested in sexually, is this domination of them, and their subsequent submission to you in the employer-employee context as rewarding or gratifying to you as the scenario you described where you might be dominating someone without physical touch in a roomful of others? Why or why not isn't this the same situation for you? I would speculate that it is the presence or absence of sexual feelings that makes all the difference. And my admittedly sloppy cerebrum equates the presence of those sexual feelings with sex. They are the same to me and boy, is it wonderful! Pass the stew, please!

What I _really_ wondered about with Cassiopia and Roy was whether when they said that D&S sometimes did not invlove sex for them they meant that they did not feel any of those little sensations of arousal or excitement during D&S activities which, when I feel them in myself, I say "Aha! SEX!" And if they didn't feel those things during a whipping or a spanking or whatever, what did they feel and why did they engage in the activity? You've given me a hint as to what this might be when you talk about the "emotional satisfaction claimed when having dominated a partner in any exchange" but (naturally--g) I want to know more. If this emotional satisfaction is not composed of sexual feelings, what is it composed of? Is it pleasure at a job well done, at having taken your sub to heaven (or to hades) (or to both) and back?

>>> My dear, you have never experienced any relationship that did not involve sexual feelings. That makes you a very special little minority as well. <<<

Now wait just one cotton pickin' minute! As much as I would like to let that statement lay as it stands , as it only serves to enhance my reputation (Rosie--the girl who has a sexual relationship with EVERYONE), I must in the interests of truth, pop the bubble. I don't think I said, much as I would have liked to, that every relationship I have ever had involved sexual feelings--in fact, my relationship with not-so-dear-old-Mom is a case in point: I felt nothing sexual there (although Dad was an entirely different matter--wink). I think what I said was that I couldn't imagine having an SM relationship or engaging in SM acts without feeling hot and bothered between the legs. Even the cuddling, even the daddy-girl aspects or the sense of security that I sometimes feel have elements of eroticism about them. I don't crave someone to make all my decisions for me just for the sake of the decisions being made, I crave it because the abject lack of power this implies turns me on immensely. Sex is mixed into all of it for me, and I can't separate it from the other aspects of a D/S relationship, just as I can't separate the squashed potatoes from the smashed peas from the mushy carrots in a five-day-old stew.