This dailydot article entitled ‘What is BDSM‘ will probably not contain anything particularly new or interesting to regular readers. However, one part did catch my eye…
In The New Topping Book, co-author Janet W. Hardy describes BDSM as “an activity in which the participants eroticize sensations or emotions that would be unpleasant in a non-erotic context.”
I’ve never seen that definition before, and my first instinct was to say that it couldn’t possibly be true. BDSM is packed with sexy fun, so surely that must include activities that are pleasant in a non-erotic context. But the more I thought about it, the more I struggled to come up with some good examples to invalidate the definition.
Certainly, the kinky things I enjoy wouldn’t be fun in a non-erotic context. If I’m being whipped, pierced, bound, beaten, suffocated, bitten or burnt then it’s either a great play session or I’ve been kidnapped by a serial killer. There’s not a lot of room in between. Even for non-masochistic stuff, it’s hard to think of a good example that contradicts the definition. Things like foot worship, humiliation, CFNM, blackmail and service are no fun without an erotic context. And things like fetishistic outfits, anal penetration, chastity play and tease and denial are inherently inseparable from eroticism. So what’s left?
The only thing I can suggest are splooshing and looning. They seem like they could be both non-sexual fun for some people and hot sexy times for others. But while they’re definitely kinks, I’m not sure they count as BDSM. So I think that means the definition stands. Unless anyone out there can come up with an activity that breaks it?
Here’s a lady enjoying both a cake and anilingus. That’s definitely kinky, but is it BDSM? And while cake can be non-erotic, can the same be said for eating it while getting your bottom polished?