How I came to wiitwd by SD There was a passing comment in an email I received recently about how I came to S&M, which I'm altering to wiitwd for reasons that people may be sick of reading. It occurs to me that this may be something pertinent to a couple threads on ASB, and possibly helpful to some readers. We'll see. I've been extremely interested in restraining, frightening, humiliating, and inflicting severe pain and bodily harm on people, often onto death, for as long as I can remember, from earliest childhood. It long precedes an interest in sex, and was gender neutral before puberty. As an interest in sex developed it merged with the existing interest in controlling and hurting people, and females became the principle targets of interest. Part of me has always seen other people as prey, and fantasized about hunting them down to feed on their pain and terror. I say part of me because I've also always been a nice, quiet person (just like they so often say after someone is caught :-> ) who, while not adverse to fighting when provoked, wasn't at all aggressive. As a child, because I got my growth early (and children at that time in my neighborhood didn't carry weapons), and because I would hurt people who provoked me too much, I didn't get provoked a lot. As I got older I became pretty good about getting along with people despite, or, perhaps, because of, my preference for minimal human contact, and I haven't had cause to employ physical violence in nearly twenty years (nor have I done so without cause). Some people who know me find me to be a bit eccentric, but few know me well enough to know that much about me, and I'm only known as a pervert to SQO 200,000 plus people nearly all of whom are total strangers (an interesting way to keep one's confidences :->) and only two of whom have ever met me (so far as I know). But however harmless I may seem, and however safe I am, a part of me has always had predatory urges. I sometimes discuss this part of myself as a separate person ("S."), but those who worry about people who disassociate needn't fret. I'm quite aware that he's just a facet of my personality. But it makes it much simpler to speak of that aspect of myself by personifying it, and anyway, while I know we all have dark sides, if you had S. as a dark side, you'd disassociate too . Because S. doesn't just want to hurt people a little, or even a lot. And he's not really into killing, though cruel and unusual ways of making people die are frequent revelries (making people die cruelly is an excellent way to make those who love them suffer). No, ideally what he would like is to cause people to wish that they'd never had the misfortune to be born, as that experience started the process that lead them to S.'s tender mercilessness (once getting someone to that point, he might grant one of his rare kindnesses and rectify that error). Of course, the ideal is rarely achieved, and one must often settle for lesser pleasures. As a child, S. was mainly excited by pain and fear, but as he got older he added despair to the list, and despair became his principle lust (for some of us S&M *is* a spiritual experience), though pain and fear and helplessness and humiliation are all fun in themselves, as well as being tools that can be used to induce despair. S. has never had any interest in the victim's pleasure. Well, that isn't true. He's always wanted to be very certain sie didn't experience any. Long before we'd heard the old joke about the sadist and the masochist, S. knew that what he wanted to do to people, or to make them do, was whatever they most feared and/or could least bear. Whatever would harm them the most, whatever they wanted most to avoid, whatever pushed their hot buttons and exceeded their limits. Anything to make them suffer as much as they possibly could in ways that they most certainly did not want. Which is probably enough about S. I think by now it should be pretty clear that he's a serial killer of the sexual sadist variety (albeit an inactive one). One thing about S. that's different from most of that type is that he never had any interest in hurting animals. This may be partly because we both had a lot more fondness for animals than for people. But I think it's primarily because he instinctively knew that you don't seek power from the powerless. The prey must be an equal, or better, if taking hir down is to be a real pleasure. It's people who are strong, smart, and brave who make the best victims, whose despair is the sweetest for their having been so strong and brave (it was suggested once that some woman must have really angered me for me to imagine doing the kinds of things that I depicted in a piece of sicfic, which missed the mark entirely; the woman on whom that character was modeled was used because I liked and respected her - who better from whom to attract high quality despair, and anyway if one is going to be as initimate with another as one is when breaking hir body and soul under torture, who wouldn't prefer a person one liked and respected ?). As it happens, along with S. as a lifelong companion, I had the good fortune (also a piece of good fortune to the many people who have attracted S.'s interest) of somehow acquiring a conscience. Which is why S. (who most definitely does not have any conscience; the only things he'd ever be sorry for would be targets missed and aesthetic opportunities lost) is an involuntarily inactive serial killer, but I'm not. What S. wants is impossible for me to accomodate, because the principal ethical principle I follow - what is hateful unto another, do not unto hir; when one doesn't know what is hateful to another, do not unto hir what is hateful unto oneself - is exactly opposite to S.'s principal aesthetic principle (S. has no ethical principles). Which means that S. is forever confined to fiction and fantasy, and while far short of what he wants, for an active imagination that can be quite pleasurable. And anyway, it's all he's gonna get. So people are quite safe around me, though I can understand why the women of my acquaintance whose despair S. lusts for might not feel safe if they knew of his plans for them. But they are safe. S. is quite well under control, and I no longer worry about his emergence as I once did. Oh, I'm still afraid of him - and hope I always will be - but I'm certain that he won't break out. I do still worry that were I pitching someday - not the first time, or the first time with a new partner, or any time when I was watching carefully, but some time when things had become routine, that he might slip out when I knew my partner was at hir limits and say "*This* is when the real fun begins". Not for long - and certainly not past a safeword, which would trigger a dutiful reaction in me no matter what else might be going on - but long enough alter my judgement enough that some harm might occur. I don't think it likely, but the possibility is something to always guard against. Anyway, I don't think after reading the above it will surprise anyone if I say that I once held the opinion that becoming actively involved in what I then still called S&M was not something prudent. I'd found sources of fiction, photos and film to supplement my own active imagination (though I was always looking for other sources, as I so rarely found anything cruel enough for my tastes), but I'd never sought the RL scene. When I got access to the more interesting portions of the Net, I checked out ASB. I wasn't looking for people to meet (to be honest, only slightly because of any concerns I had about S.; primarily because meeting anyone meant venturing out of my safe, comfortable seclusion), but for fiction (or fact) that might match my interests and inspire my imagination, and for an outlet for my own fiction (while writing fiction is satisfying, the effort involved is much too great when one only has an audience of one). Of course, it was my good fortune, though perhaps not the net's, that ASB spends most of it's time discussing ethics, politics, and semantics, topics that require no particular knowledge to discuss and which were therefore always favorites of mine. What was also my extreme good fortune was that an inquiry I'd posted about people's reactions to records of real life violence was of interest to Wood Nymph, who'd also found one of my stories interesting. I said that I wasn't looking to meet people, and I wasn't, but I'd always been an odd combination of both somewhat antisocial and highly loquacious, and usenet and email were perfect for me, so we began a correspondence, in which I quickly recognized a kindred spirit (i.e. someone whose imagination was as evil as mine). We had extensive discussions, including some flirtations, and a jocular contest to see which of us would someday top the other, but I never expected to meet her, or for it to be anything more than an friendly exchange of mail. But as the months passed and email was supplemented by talking via computer and then speaking via telephone, things began to change. Wood Nymph says she could see my interest in submission for a long time. I wasn't aware of it. While I'd had occasional masochistic thoughts, I'd never felt any attraction to submission, and though I've never had a problem following the orders of those entitled to give me orders, I don't think that many people would have said that I was submissive; of course, at least among the ASB regulars, submissives seem to be a pretty combative bunch, so the contrast isn't as surprising as it once seemed. In any event, given my semi-reclusiveness, my hatred of being vulnerable, my lack of trust, and my need to maintain control, submission had never had any appeal to me, and I was quite surprised to find my interest in submitting to Wood Nymph developing. Almost as surprised as I was to be coming to love her (as I didn't think that self-absorbed reclusive paranoids were capable of love). I'm not sure which one I resisted more. More conscious effort, certainly, went into resisting submission, devising schemes in which I wasn't really submitting, I was doing "X" (while I've gotten to where I can accept "submissive", I still strongly reject "slave", and prefer a Liege-Vassal model (one in which autonomous parties are linked in a relationship of mutual obligations, which include the vassal's service, obedience and devotion to his Liege) for my submission instead of a master-slave, master-disciple, parent-child, or deity-maggot model). The love I just tried not to notice. When I decided to abandon our "contest" - which I was losing anyway - and surrender to her, it seemed to me to be a completely rational and pragmatic decision. She was an experienced switch, and would have a much better idea what to do with me than I would have of what to do with her (S. had - and has - plenty of ideas about what to do with my dear Liege, but they were of course out of the question; BTW, when one tends to imagine slowly and cruelly murdering every woman one likes, finding one who enjoys those fantasies is quite pleasant). Also, while I wasn't very worried that I might harm someone maliciously, I feared hurting anyone I might top - a possibility that had become more attractive by that time - through ignorance, and bottoming to an experienced top seemed a way to begin addressing that issue. There was a small geographic problem, namely being on opposite sides of North America, complicating this approach to the problem, but having always distrusted others even more than I distrusted myself, I wasn't interested in bottoming to anyone other than the one person I'd come to trust (quite irrationally, I know; I had myself told people prior to this how foolish it was to start relationships based only on mail and phone calls). As it was hard for me to trust, and as I was also a control freak in my fashion, submission seemed a logical way of working on both these issues. And I hoped that it would make Wood Nymph, who I'd come to care about a little, happy if I submitted to her. So, as anyone can plainly see, the decision to submit was an entirely logical and completely rational one, and was most certainly *not* one motivated by any of those unconscious desires we are always warned against. Well, there was perhaps one semiconscious desire. Though it might be some time before Wood Nymph will find it appropriate to bottom to me - if she ever does - when one is a sadist who has some concerns, however remote, about whether or not he can completely trust himself, and fears the possibility of harming one's partner, during a moment when cruelty overwhelms judgement, having a dom who's also a masochist is an ideal situation, as one can be as cruel as one wants, with confidence that she's both willing and able (if one takes one's vow of obedience seriously, as I do) to stop anything that she doesn't want. It's not a situation that would hold much appeal for S., but for Steve, who share's his Liege's principle of "do no harm" (but plenty of hurt, if that's what one's partner wants) it will suffice. Of course, that's if and when she decides bottoming to me is a good idea. Until then I'll have to settle for relaxing thuddy floggings, painplay that tests my capacity for both pain and trust, sensation play that strains my capacity for pleasure and explores the unknown land of "no control", and whatever else my loving Liege's wicked and inventive imagination can come up with. Oh, the horrors we submissives must endure (and the sooner, the better). One might wonder if it wouldn't be better if I could just be rid of S. Well, I can't, so it's a moot point. I could deny him, try not to think his thoughts, feel quilty when they break through, as they inevitably would. But I can't be rid of him, he's too much a part of me. And, frankly, he's a lot of fun - much more fun than Steve; as serious and dull as I am now, I dread to think how boring I'd be without him - so as long as I know he's contained, I wouldn't want to be without him. So I let him spin his plans, which are a lot of fun to hear, and sometimes I share his ideas with others who I believe will find them enjoyable, and a number of people do, including some people who have become close to me (emotionally, *not* geographically; whatever advantages there are to contact through the net, there is that drawback), but he doesn't get a chance to hurt anyone. It works out OK for all concerned. So I find myself having worked my way into actively, if much too infrequently, doing wiitwd. It isn't what has kept or will keep me out of trouble; wiitwd at it's most extreme is a poor substitute for what S. wants, and wouldn't stop him from doing what he wanted if he could get free, but he can't. But wiitwd, safe and consensual with plenty of safeguards (safewords, covenants, limits, etc) against abuse makes me happier than I was. Well, it alerts me to a happiness I wasn't previously aware of; there is, again, that little "North America" problem to deal with. ***************************************************************** Steven S. Davis (sd@magenta.com)