Toxic Treat: Abuse by Proxy volunteers

[SophiaStafford]

As the appointed time approach, you sit nervously with a pit in your stomach, wondering what will happen next.

Your musings are interrupted by a sharp knock on your door. Outside stands a woman you've never met. As you ask her to please, come in, your mind races at the nearly infinite possibilities-- what happens next?

Once inside, she motions for you to hand her your papers. You comply. As expected, you show her where your computer is, and you sit in front of it, patiently waiting. You are unable to see her, but you hear her, and you eagerly await her, as you drown in anticipation and fear over what will happen next.


At her signal, you begin recording a video. She approaches you and then…

Well, what happens next isn't really up to you. Nor is it up to her.

What happens next???
Basically, whatever I want.
----
Would you like a 30 minute vacation into a world you've dreamt of your whole life?

Do you have the skills to find a partner (of either gender)? More importantly, do you have the courage to both obey? Would you let someone tie you up, if you knew that very someone was acting out elaborate instructions from me?

It is an extremely addictive game. And the possibility are limitless. Because, excluding actual sex or actual permanent damage, who knows what I might decide to do to you.

Sophia
[email protected]

[zadig]

Ahh, Lovely. Just lovely!

This seems a delicate thing to pull off, but if/when it does the emotional payoff for all involved (and particularly for Sophia *grin*) seems huge.

zadig

[demosthenes]

Very nicely written. That actually made my heart race!

Ohhh if only I had those skills.

I hope something comes of this, though. Very interesting idea.

[SophiaStafford]

I hope something comes of this, though. Very interesting idea.

Oh, something certainly will come of it. No question.

The only fudging that may be necessary is the dominant partner.

Ideally I'd like the partner to be doing it out of their own desire, but I'm going to allow people to cut corners and use literally any partner they can get. We have 10.4 % unemployment in the US right now-- there is no shortage of people, male and female, who would be willing to treat another person like trash for a relatively small fee.
S

[demosthenes]

I look forward to (ducking out of this and then readng about) it very much

[CheerfullyInsane]

We have 10.4 % unemployment in the US right now-- there is no shortage of people, male and female, who would be willing to treat another person like trash for a relatively small fee.
S

So.......
Find a complete stranger, pay him/her to tie you up, and then have him/her act out orders from yet another stranger on camera, the only limit being permanent harm.

Just out of curiousity, this is your interpretation of "safe, sane and consensual"?

CheerfullyInsane

[SophiaStafford]

So.......
Find a complete stranger, pay him/her to tie you up, and then have him/her act out orders from yet another stranger on camera, the only limit being permanent harm.

Just out of curiousity, this is your interpretation of "safe, sane and consensual"?

CheerfullyInsane

First, you assume that tying up WILL be on the agenda, but that's not a guarantee, just one of many potentialities that a participant should be prepared for.

Secondly, I'm not the one pushing for the other participant to be a stranger-- I'd rather see wives, girlfriends, friends, or prodommes. Upon reflection, the best pairing I could imagine would be, say, two heterosexual frat brothers-- one having paid the other to participate. I'd love to capture that awkwardness and "freak show" quality of a normal person interacting with one of you. A total stranger, say someone who normally works in the sex industry, would probably be the most boring partner imaginable for this project, from my vantage point.

So, this PARTICULAR project actually is, I think, fairly safe and sane and consensual.

Not that I am unwilling to explore the blurry, darker regions of power interactions. Safety is lovely, but I expect some people to be genuinely willing to risk the things they love most, if taking that risk makes me happy.

The fact is all guys risk their health and happiness to try to amuse women. They ride motorcycles, they do tricks on skateboards or bicycles. They play football, they box, they fight, they go to war. Risking your safety for a chance to be with the right woman isn't just a part of relationships involving power interaction-- it's a part of flirtation in all cultures.

Sane is a nice, but remember sanity isn't rationality. I would like to think that I drive people insane with conflicting desires.

The fact is-- desires are so overwhelming, no one is really "sane" when it comes to love and sex. A "sane" man at the height of his success will risk _everything_ he has for the right woman. He will risk his life, his family, his career, his kids, his past, his future, his money, his reputation-- ALL that he is, he will risk for the right woman. And Clinton and John Edwards haven't been given straight-jackets because we understand that sane men are simply wired up to risk it all for a chance to be near the right woman.

Consensual is essential. Obedience that isn't given freely isn't really obedience. If they can't say no, it's not hot when they say yes.

And yet, I love it when desires have so overwhelmed fears that consent is instant and automatic. When no matter what horrible thing I have in store for them, no matter how bad it's going to hurt, they still say yes. They always have the choice to say no-- but when they want me as badly as they do, sometimes they find that having the option to say no is a very different thing than having the self-control to say no.

When someone tells me "I would do ANYTHING for a chance to be near you", I don't want to see "(* Some Exceptions May Apply)" appended to the end of their heartfelt confession. It's a high standard, no shame to those who can't meet it, but it is the standard I hold people in my personal life to.
---
But I'm not holding these participants to that level. This isn't really "me being me", this is a more rational, conscious event that will appeal to a (slightly) larger audience who aren't realistically capable of that level of total obedience. For example I've already given the "No Actual Sex Required" guarantee, there will be others I'm sure.

S

[Incubo]

The fact is all guys risk their health and happiness to try to amuse women. They ride motorcycles, they do tricks on skateboards or bicycles. They play football, they box, they fight, they go to war. Risking your safety for a chance to be with the right woman isn't just a part of relationships involving power interaction-- it's a part of flirtation in all cultures.

The fact is-- desires are so overwhelming, no one is really "sane" when it comes to love and sex. A "sane" man at the height of his success will risk _everything_ he has for the right woman. He will risk his life, his family, his career, his kids, his past, his future, his money, his reputation-- ALL that he is, he will risk for the right woman. And Clinton and John Edwards haven't been given straight-jackets because we understand that sane men are simply wired up to risk it all for a chance to be near the right woman.

S

It must be wonderful to live in a world where you can base your entire outlook on wild assumptions, broad generalizations, and still have the audacity to assume they're facts.

For a girl who claims to be so intellectually superior...you sure don't act like it.

[CheerfullyInsane]

As for assuming the subject would be tied up.
True, that was an assumption, but given the subject matter I thought it safe to imagine restraints of some kind would be involved.

Be that as it may, once you involve a proxy, you as a domme lose control of the situation.
You even said it yourself,

"The fact is-- desires are so overwhelming, no one is really "sane" when it comes to love and sex."

I'm not even going to comment on the fact that the above statement must also mean that you can't promise that you won't get carried away, which is scary enough.
But the really terrifying part is that you can't guarantee that the proxy won't get out of hand while you're half a continent away watching the live feed.
So it is nowhere in the neighbourhood of safe.

Now, very few things in life are perfectly safe. Hell, getting up in the morning can theoretically kill you.
But anyone who acknowledges that a situation contains risks, without doing what one can to eliminate or at least reduce those risks is just asking for trouble.

Sane is a nice, but remember sanity isn't rationality. I would like to think that I drive people insane with conflicting desires.

Actually, that's exactly what it is.
Being able to make rational decisions is the very definition of sanity.
It's not the definition of clinical sanity, since no-one is 100% rational all the time.
Women, for example, have those delightful few days each lunar cycle where sanity can go hang for all they care.
But consent requires the ability to think through the ramifications of ones actions, otherwise it ceases to be consent.

However, I'm all for this project.
If you can find someone moronic enough to go through with this, I will quite happily be cheering them on from the sideline, encouraging their latest attempt to eliminate themselves from the human gene-pool.

Finally, I'd second Incubos statement.
When it comes to commenting on men and their actions, and the reasons behind them, you're making assumptions on such a grand scale that it is laughable.

CheerfullyInsane

[demosthenes]

Finally, I'd second Incubos statement.
When it comes to commenting on men and their actions, and the reasons behind them, you're making assumptions on such a grand scale that it is laughable.

CheerfullyInsane

Even I have to agree there. Sophia, your argument and sweeping, I-know-all attitude here makes you sound pretty damn silly.

[SophiaStafford]

Even I have to agree there. Sophia, your argument and sweeping, I-know-all attitude here makes you sound pretty damn silly.

Such insolence, Demosthenes!

Well, it's only a sweeping stereotype if you really think I literally apply it to every guy. Which as was discussed somewhere else around here, I don't actually.

But say what you will, I know more people who have gotten injured by doing something stupid to impress someone they were interested in. What percentage of un-premeditated crimes of passion do you think are the result of love gone bad? Why could I rattle off a thousand film where the plot involves a hero risking his life for a chance to get the woman of his dreams? It's a very basic narrative structure, and danger is the central element of it.

Some people want to baby-proof the world, ensuring no one ever gets hurt by their own stupidity-- but people crave a little danger. Not everyone, but enough.

S

[Timshel]

Interestingly enough to me I find I agree with Sofia's grand sweeping statement. At least within the context it is presented.

The fact is-- desires are so overwhelming, no one is really "sane" when it comes to love and sex

When you apply this to men who have and will chase after a woman such as Sofia I think it holds true. How many times has the act of eating cum been discussed on this forum and it is often pointed out that people are willing to do so while they are in a state of arosal, but when out of such state are no longer willing to. It's the case of your desires melting away your dislike of an act, and making it a tolerable action. Perhaps even a desired one if it brings you to or that much closer to your desires.

I think you have to mix state of arousal with your desires in order to loose control...

[Human]

I ride a motorcycle, and I can assure you, I don't do it to impress women. I do it as a recreational activity, that helps me calm down during times of stress, amongst other reasons.

And statistically speaking, aren't most of the wars that have been fought in the history of our world been fought over religious beliefs?

Biologists/sociologists would tend to agree with Sophia. Men may not conciously realise why they do the things they do, but it is claimed the drive to reproduce motivates a whole lot of actions. The official reason for a war may be religious, but unofficially, its the drive for power. And more power = more women.

In the natural drive for things, there are more women than men (just a little bit more). When this balance is disturbed, violence and wars happens till the excess men are killled off. Some schools of thought are hence claiming than China is headed for civil war with near certainty (their one child policy has lead to there being more males than females).

Ask youself, why do you enjoy riding motorcylces ? Is it the breeze (probably not) ? The fact that you are travelling (probablly not) ? Or the fact that you subconciously feel power, control & danger when riding ?

[Makarov]

This kind of topic is interesting; that is the separation of reality and fantasy. The picture that Sophia painted at the beginning of her first post is, in the sense of a fantasy, erotic. It would make an excellent basis for a webtease, and in fact there have been a few webteases about mysterious strangers arriving to tease and torment. Secretoktober's Working From Home series involves just that...with some artistic license. The stranger might be a hallucination and proving her nonexistance might make her disappear, but fundamentally there is a stranger that appears in your house with the desire to tease you.

Breaking and entering, however, is a bit of a light crime in comparison to others being broken in webteases. Blackmail is very popular, along with physical abuse for shits and giggles. There was one tease in which the protagonist is cast as a voyeuristic exhibitionist masturbating in public and caught by two ladies who blackmail him into busting his nuts. Imagine doing that in real life. First, if you weren't caught by two sexy ladies, is it safe, sane and consensual to be looking for girls to jerk off to in public, and then the girls that catch you start taking off their clothes?

Looking at the things Sophia mentioned, I wouldn't mind being tied to a bed, and if I got to know her better I wouldn't mind her being in charge of torment. The key to this is trust, both in the woman tying me to the bed and the woman ordering the punishment. There have been dozens of dominant women who've passed by this forum and forums like it, and there are quite a few I like but wouldn't want ordering me around. One because she wants to see guys dress up in girls clothes and have sex with each other. One because she's into cutting. I'd imagine if I let Little Miss Jay have free reign I'd end up with a whole bunch of clothespins on my ass (literally? figuratively? only she can tell!).

I've noticed Sophia posting various challenges for subs. Some are simple challenges, like why are you alone on Valentine's Day, others require photographs. The challenges seem to exist to push the sub, to see what he'd be willing to do, just for her attention, however brief. I wonder, about this challenge, whether she actually expects someone to go through with it or just wants to see if someone will.

[CheerfullyInsane]

Biologists/sociologists would tend to agree with Sophia. Men may not conciously realise why they do the things they do, but it is claimed the drive to reproduce motivates a whole lot of actions. The official reason for a war may be religious, but unofficially, its the drive for power. And more power = more women.

Slight problem with this whole line of reasoning.
If you reduce the male gender as a whole to some motley collection of knuckle-dragging, hairy-chested he-men with the intellectual capacity of a stunted duck, you also imply that the whole impressing-females-with-dangerous-idiotic-stunts technique actually works.
Why else would they do it?
Which in turn means you have to reduce the female gender to a stereotypical ditzy blonde bimbo with an IQ lower than her bra-size, who is actually impressed with moronic stunts.
Which is fine by me, but I suspect a few female members in here might have a handful of choice words on that subject.

In the natural drive for things, there are more women than men (just a little bit more). When this balance is disturbed, violence and wars happens till the excess men are killled off. Some schools of thought are hence claiming than China is headed for civil war with near certainty (their one child policy has lead to there being more males than females).

Wars exist because of a biological need to kill off the excess males?!?
You are kidding, right?
Follow that reasoning to its logical conclusion, and we could rid the world of every armed power-struggle merely by institutionalizing human trafficking.
Hell, the UN could be reduced to a couple of tour-buses filled with naked women.
Might cut down on the bureacracy though.

CheerfullyInsane