Sunday, June 30, 2013

Interview with a seducee (part 3)

Then I just remember, what really sticks out is then at some point we were getting physical, I'm not sure, maybe it was on my bed or on my couch the first time, the second time it was on your bed. The second time was lot better. The first time you kept laughing it at me, well I interpreted it as laughing at me, which made me think I was bad, which is not something I normally think. That is not the way most people respond to me, otherwise that would have been enough to send me home crying for weeks. In retrospect it seemed like you were laughing at some situational awkwardness, I'm not sure entirely, but there was something that was worthy of a lot of laughter which also broke up an intensity, which made me realize how not gay you seem. With other people, kissing people seems to produce some sort of bodily physical chemistry reaction that makes it more intense over time, not more humorous over time, which led me to believe that we were in a sketch comedy, not a porno scene. The second time, I felt like things had massively improved, or that I was much more satisfied. There was a softer intimacy, this cute laying next to each other in bed holding your calloused hands as you ripped off pieces and chunks of dead skin that had started to peel away at the tips of your fingers.

Well before that there was some discussion about being punched or physical violence and strangulation. I don't know if it had segued from a conversation about different forms of bestiality or the control which partners have in sexual positions or just a conversation about physical violence. somehow we ended up on the topic of punching me, which you seemed to be all the more excited about doing, and I seemed to be all the more excited about having done to me. We were sitting in your car sitting behind another car waiting to exit to go back into your house. I think you slapped me first, and I think I was asking for it. I'm not sure. I mean, I know I asked for it. I'm not sure if you slapped me. And I'm pretty sure that whatever you did, it felt good, or good in a weird way, which made me think that it was quasi sexual in terms of relieving sexual tension, which was a relief to me that all of this build up could be relieved in this painful release, which made it seem appropriate. On the other hand, I didn't know you all that well, and we were in a dark car, and you're physically hurting me.

It was when you turned over and strangled me that I felt both that sensation of feeling out of control and feeling adored at the same time. I think I felt out of control because I knew that you were strong enough to really hurt me if you wanted to and I wondered if, how much, if I really tried I could stop you in that moment, but I also trusted that you wouldn't hurt me, and that made me feel adored. After which I felt physical pain, it had hurt my throat, whatever soft tissue we have around the delicate structure of our neck, and so I, obviously having never felt anything like that before, I felt very very small and I really wanted to be held and coddled in that moment, and that made me feel very distant from you because I felt like you wouldn't be able to give me that, emotionally or physically. Even if you would have been able to give me a hug, I felt like I needed to be held by someone who wanted to hold me and cared because I felt hurt. It was a physical hurt but there was definitely an emotional attachment to it, the same way that as a child you might want to look for your mom after getting hurt. That's when I realized that I was sitting in a dark car with a person who I had gone to a show with once, who I had dinner with twice, and who worked briefly in our office.


  1. beautiful story! in violent sexual relationships as such, do S.'s generally prefer to be dominated or dominating? or is this more of a personal preference?


  2. PostmodernSociopathJune 30, 2010 at 3:17 PM

    Why does everyone insist on abbreviating everything? I don't appreciate being minimized.

    As for domination... I would say that I am generally dominant, though I play it coy, drawing out their fantasies and their secrets. The more they think they're in control, the better. On the other hand...

    I have moments of weakness. Real, genuine weakness, where I want another to hold my life in their hands, or at least have the illusion that they do. That hungry look in their eyes when they feel that power that I hold everyday is... intoxicating. I give up control of myself for a moment to give them a taste of my world. But only a taste... once they try to do it of their own volition, it's time to move on.

    Though to be clear, I don't mix sex and violence to quite this degree. I'm more of the "nothing wrong with a little friendly knifeplay" school of thought.

  3. I kinda like this story ME but
    I find the "strangulation" quite odd.
    Personal preference.

  4. Interesting story, wondering if this will escalate into quasi 'Realm of the Senses'

  5. Anonymous said...
    I kinda like this story ME but
    I find the "strangulation" quite odd.
    Personal preference.

    i'm guessing fragile feminine hypersensitive seducee (and a tad neurotic) and/or M.E. with a dark side. the story style is very M.E. and at first i thought it was written from his perspective when i read the first two parts (it was late), which was confusing.

    the strangulation part reminded me of a massage session i had recently for back pain with a male therapist who put his hands on my throat at the very end, cutting off my breathing ever so slightly. an obvious domination move. dick. he also talked non-stop the whole time and would not shut up. that was more annoying. but the female therapist had little pokey hands. i either need to quit my stupid desk job which is ruining my back or get a boyfriend.. and free massages. :)

  6. WHY? Why strangle? Why slap? What is the reason behind it? To see how far you can go or to degrade?

  7. I'm asking you because I can't ask him.

  8. Wish, in the context of BDSM these things are done as Post wrote about. It's an exchange of reality, usually. Sometimes it helps one to feel more balanced as a person. A person who has little power IRL may benefit from a dominant role, and vice versa, a person who is in a power position IRL may round themselves out through submissive roles.

  9. Can't speak for all sociopaths, but domination is as fantastic as receiving it isn't.

  10. This is so familiar, but the person I'm thinking of is better at being the sociopath.
    I had wondered if he was sociopathic and just happened to be a dominant, but it seems that perhaps they're connected.

    Would anyone else put points up on this? Is sociopathy related to sexual dominance / sadism?

  11. my ex tried to force me to have sex w him w/out a condom and held me down, so i slapped him in the face. he was testing me. that's so fucked up. then i slapped him one other time out of frustration and he yelled at me "THATS THE SEcOND TIME YOU SLAPPED ME IN THE FACE.

  12. What's the point of recounting these morbid stories? For purient intrest?
    If I wanted to expose myself to pornography I've got most of the internet
    and then some.
    Why do people engage in such activities? Because it gives them a sense
    of life however brief, then it's business as usual. Wouldn't you like to
    break the never ending pattern and be FREE? There's a simple way to do this.
    1) Stay in the NOW. Don't pine over the past or worry about the future that
    may never come. If you have job skills and know where your next meal is
    coming from that's all you need. Forgive and Forget the past. You CAN do
    it if you REALLY know it's in your self interest.
    2) ALL negativity is counter productive. This includes and is not limited
    to anger, sadness, pessimism, hatred, self-pity, a desire for vengence etc. The only thing that ever gets hurt is your false (egoistic) picture
    of yourself. Your physical body can get hurt. It needs to be cared for
    but that's an entirely cataglory.
    3) When you find negative feelings araising in you, don't supress or
    fight them off. You would only be taxing yourself, because the feelings
    are eminating from YOU. You are the source of your OWN negative response.
    The REACTION is within YOU. That's why 10 different people will have 10
    different responses to the same event. "You" are an accquired construction. All that is required is that you simply drop the negativity
    and live in the moment.
    4)What if you find that there are overwhelming trials you simpilly can't
    deal with; that are beyond your prior experience? You call upon the name
    of Jesus. He said He would not subject us to more then we can handle.
    He can help in 3 possible ways:
    1) He removes the threatening event. This is what people usually refer to
    as a miracle. We don't have to do anything but our"prayers" are answered
    2) He allows the threatening event to occur, but He gives us the spiritual strength to deal with it. This is also a miracle, but of a
    different type because it requires a changed nature and only He can give
    it to us.
    3) He knows the event must occur so He spares us unbeareable pain by
    letting us die BEFORE the event occurs. Jackie Kenneady said to her son
    John,"Promise me that you'll never fly an airplane while I'm alive I
    could never take it if you died." God strikes Jackie with cancer in 1992,
    John dies in a plane crash 1998.

    1. Seriously? Do you know where you're posting this?

    2. one of my favorite things about SW is that people get to say what they want, and others can react the way they want. For all of my squeamishness about ME's dark side, I believe she has created something very powerful and good by consistently introducing thought provoking moral/psychological topics to a forum of diverse and (mostly) intelligent followers.

      While I don't think she would ever make a statement to this effect, I do see a pattern of different experiences and viewpoints being treated with respect.

      There's no "convention" about what gets said (ie- must be evil or twisted) because this forum is the ultimate exercise in free speech. That being said, the above poster should expect to have what they've written to be mercilessly picked apart and the flawed logic exposed. If they can handle that- game on! If not? If UKan and Khan and ME can discuss their homicidal impulses, I don't see why anyone should be threatened by someone talking about their personal faith.

    3. Oh *hides face* I was just exercising my desire to use sarcasm for amusement :)

  13. This strikes me as the other viewpoint in a story that ME described in her book.
    If she wrote this, then perhaps it is an attempt at empathy, to put herself in the role of the person that she hurt. I wonder if she has considered that both recountings of the story will likely make it back to the person she injured. Perhaps that is part of the thrill- I don't know.

    I do know that when I was assaulted by a man I had been dating it was not erotic at all. It was terrifying in the moment, but also gave me the clarity I needed to take strong measures to protect myself, including involving the police.

    If he were to write about what it was like to strangle me and I were to come across it, I with think that he was a self absorbed moron and think "good riddance".

    If this was an exercise in developing empathy, I think that posting an imaginary story from the victims viewpoint simply betrays the extreme narcissism of the writer. The reality of this event was: the person who strangled exploited the infatuation her crush had on her to do something very nasty. The woman who was strangled probably learned a very important lesson and is much more careful with her own heart these days.

    For the person (was it you, ME?) who did this, the aftermath is more complicated. It seems that you are trying to get positive feedback (I say that because this is one of the few forums where comments might be "that is so hot" or "she was asking for it" rather than the "shame on you" comments and radio silence that you'd encounter in other situations. My guess is that you really don't know how you feel about this, and you are looking for someone to help you resolve that ambivalence.

    The only real upside to this story is that you didn't permanently damage this woman physically. You may well have done serious psychological damage, however. I wonder sometimes if sociopaths would be affected if they realized how large a role they played in suicides of people who they didn't mean any real harm to. I don't write that to guilt you (you've had enough of that and I think guilt is a cheap shot, anyway) but simply to ask you to consider the ripple effect your life has on the world around you.

    1. You're conflating abuse with masochism and submission. M.E. probably indulges in all 3 of these things, but they are not the same thing. The situation she describes sounds emotionally abusive, because she faked "love," but not physically abusive. Unless you are somebody who thinks all forms of pain are abuse, even if all parties consent to it. It's like the difference between rape and sex: one is consensual and one isn't.

    2. I beg to differ. No matter how much of a crush you have on someone, nonconsensual strangling falls into the abuse category...

    3. Well from the story I got the impression that they discussed abuse beforehand, so it may have been consensual. The problem with M.E.'s stories, weather they are written by her or someone else, is they tend to be a little vague. I don't know for sure if what happened was consensual or not, and it's possible that the people involved didn't know that for sure either. However I know that she apparently asked M.E. to hit her, at least.

  14. You really should stop strangling people. It's only a matter of time before you accidentally kill someone.

    It's really weird how people talk about asphyxiation as if it's not really an extreme form of sadomasochism. It's one of the most dangerous things you could do.

    1. along the same lines- accidentally killing someone would be the biggest waste of 2 lives. This is where the sociopathic tendency to self sabotage gets ugly. Another concerning outcome- perhaps the person who was strangled is too gentle to fight back, but if she has read these things and tearfully confesses them to a loved one, you may find yourself on the other end of a scenario of an enraged brother/lover turning the tables on you, but taking it one step too far.
      For you, ME, posting stuff like this puts you in danger bc the argument is harder to make that you wrote the book for prosocial purposes. If someone decided to perform a little bit of Kundelega Texas style, the positive impact you've had on putting a human face on sociopathy would go to waste.

    2. I don't think people take choking seriously enough because it doesn't leave a visible mark, unlike beating somebody. It's like drowning, people don't realize how quickly and silently somebody can drown. It's not like the movies where the drowning victim kicks and screams. Someone drowning rarely has the strength to do that. Your body is pretty way weaker to being oxygen deprived than most seem to think.

      Anyway, back to the point, yeah, killing and/or abusing people is obviously not in M.E.'s best interests at all. She built her whole brand on being a successful non-criminal sociopath.

    3. From both this story and ME's book I get the sense that it definitely wasn't discussed ahead of time. My understanding was that was a big part of the thrill for ME. True terror rarely arises in situations where a "safe word' makes it all better.
      Though I am as big of a fan of thrills as the far side of the bell curve may be, I can't give this perpetrator an "all clear". What the victim might've been expecting was the tingle of an unexpected slap on the ass. A near death experience is a totally different ball game.

    4. If you're careful I don't see the harm in consensual strangulation. I cannot count the number of times I have strangled a partner, they always asked for it however. Extreme care is definitely required though, too much pressure and you could damage the windpipe, or create a bloodclot, too long and you could starve the brain of oxygen and damage it.

    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  15. I would like to say that "sociopath" is only a word and NOT a set-in
    concreat desscription. It IS good that people of ALL stripes can contribute
    to this blog, and that nothing is off limits except EXTREME vulgarity.
    I maintain, that in the spiritual realm there is no difference between
    myself and the other person.
    What I wish for the other, is what I wish for myself, wether or not I am
    consciously aware of it or not. There is no You and the World, You ARE
    the world.
    The reason why history repeats itself is because the same people make
    history. One of the greatest lines ever written comes from the play
    "Death of A Salesman." ATTENTION MUST BE PAYED. Another good line is:
    "Place a frog in a bucket of boiling water and the frog will jump out
    quickly. Raise the temperture gradually and the slowly boil.
    I think that's an apt description of what's happening in our personal
    lives and our nation as well. Pay attention! Don't act like an automom-
    ation. You can not exploit another person without harming yourself.
    In a letter to Casey Anthony on one her support sites, I recomended
    that she associate with "spirtually oriented" people who understand
    genuine love. I think it's fairly obvious that has soon as she's able
    she will leave this country and go to Latin America somewhere. That's
    what I glean from her Astrological chart. If by some chance someone on
    this web site should make her acquaintance I trust you will be kind
    enough to treat her with mercy. M.E. would be perfect to help her.

    1. Why are religious people so often more screwed up than people with terrible personality disorders?

    2. depends on what you mean by religious.
      I don't think any of the major religions (when I say that I mean- the philosophy or the actual words of the original holy men) is the source of evil.

      The problem lies in human nature, and a tendency to relinquish a sense of moral agency as the payment for a certain comforting religious experience.

      As Karl Marx said- "Religion is the opiate of the masses". Most people are wired to conform. The herd instinct that is strangely absent from sociopaths compels the majority of humanity to perpetually seek reassurance by looking at the reactions of others to tell them that they are ok.
      When you get a particularly charismatic individual who has a lust for power, you create weird groupthink situations and even if a religion (let's pick Christianity) has 2 main rules that are generally non- offensive- (Love God with your heart soul mind and strength and Love your neighbor as yourself), the original point of those teachings gets lost in the process of members of the herd trying to feel good. Suddenly, the "God" becomes the emotional experience and feeling good= being good. This usually happens when someone charismatic is talking fast about theological concepts you don't quite understand but feel really awesome experiencing a sense of being good because you belong to a group.

      Cue the sociopath (or malignant narcissist, or high functioning schizophrenic or anyone who is articulate but completely out of touch with reality as it applies to the common good). Once you have a herd of followers who are addicted to the religious experience (the emotional release that comes from a sense of belonging and finally feeling like a good boy or girl)- then you have your own mindfucked army that is prepared to do your bidding as long as it can be backed up by an obscure proof text of scripture. As long as the supply of positive emotion can be delivered on cue, then all manner of false messiahs can command followers to kill witches or say horrible things to confused gay teenagers or whatever floats their meglomaniacal (I hope that is a word) boat.

      The reason religious people suck is that generally they are hooked on the opiate part of the equation because they need it to medicate whatever pain has accumulated they can no longer deal with. The more addicted to the religious experience a person is, the more vulnerable they are to false prophets who deliver emotions on demand.

      That being said- if you can move past the addictive nature of religious experiences, the wisdom and communities of courageous individuals are often capable of remarkable acts of self transcendence that propel humanity forward. But sadly, these individuals are often a slim minority of the "big talkers" in the world of religion.

    3. You don't even always need a piece of scripture. Look at L. Ron Hubbard, he started an entire religion from scratch, a religion that doesn't even follow the old "do unto others" bit. Scientology actually goes so far as to preach condemnation of any who speak out against it, up to and including punishing those who do by killing them. I'm also fairly certain Hubbard was either a socio or a narcissist.

  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

  17. glad to see you are becoming official again. :)

    I left you a note at the end of our most recent conversation- you said something that haunted me...

  18. I didn't see. Which day was it? I will look. If I can't find it, i will come back and ask me to show you.


Comments on posts over 14 days are SPAM filtered and may not show up right away or at all.

Join Amazon Prime - Watch Over 40,000 Movies


Comments are unmoderated. Blog owner is not responsible for third party content. By leaving comments on the blog, commenters give license to the blog owner to reprint attributed comments in any form.