Paysites aren’t often worth commending and fetish sites are typically more poorly put together than those is the mainstream (Ooh! Look at our scary black background!) which makes ‘Two Big Meanies‘ particularly worth a mention. They’ve got almost everything right.
They blog, so you can read about and understand the content they have without being forced to decipher a tour that’s probably an optimistic lie. They post large format video clips, saving you from having to pay to discover that no one in their employ knows how to hold a camera and, best of all, they make BDSM (more SM than BD in this case which is how I like it) seem sexy.
Rarely has a site featured so many smiling submissives clearly enjoying being ever so slightly wrong in the head*. Though the Meanies themselves look like Right Said Fred they’re more attractive and less creepy than the smoking-fat-dude-in-leather-chaps type prevalent elsewhere, and their clear ability to get turned on and desire their models makes for genuine chemistry. It’s refreshing to see BDSM presented as something sexy and loving, not tortured and degrading.
Unusually, and brilliantly, the Meanies sell everything in pieces. If you like the look of a posting you can pay for that download without having to spring for a subscription. Yes, it is ludicrously expensive if you are a more than occasional shopper, but that’s probably due to the billing methods they employ as much as them knowing people will happily pay through the nose for specialist jollies (which is the first rule of porn by the way).
Sites this good make the future of porn seem a little brighter, if you’re into kink you owe it to yourself to take a look - if only for the abundant freebies.
*I welcome your annoyed comments but wanting to get punched is mental, however arousing you find it. I’m kinky as you are, but if you want to stay on the right side of Virginia Tech you need to accept that being okay with being weird doesn’t make it any less… weird. Just my opinion.
(thanks Jill)
The dialog at the sites says it all:
The dialog:
(*whack*whack*whack*)
Me: Say ‘thank you’.
Emily: Thank you.
(*whack*whack*whack*)
Me: ‘Thank you’ again…
Emily: Thank you again.
(*WHACK*)
Me: Say ‘thank you’ and mean it!
Emily: Thank you and mean it!
(*WHACK*WHACK*WHACK*… )
Thanks for the realistic appraisal of S&M. Industry attitudes and pretending that soemhow it’s healthy and good for you get annoying. Let’s keep it a guilty pleasure!
Sam: I’m not annoyed… I just think you’re stretching it.
You can’t throw a rock in an American high school or frat house without hitting a pair of dudes getting off on trading punches or some other silly shit.
So if enjoying a punch makes you weird, weird is virtually a mainstream thing. At which point, is it really even weird anymore?
Marcus - I’m all for pleasure…
Roger - Pain is a side-effect of rough-housing, not the reason for doing it.
Weird (”Definition - very strange, bizarre”) and commonplace aren’t mutually exclusive. Causing or receiving pain is a very subjective pleasure whereas orgasm, and some other forms of tenderness and arousal, are objectively pleasurable. BDSM because it’s relies on a subjective interpretation of an objectively unpleasant experience to create pleasure - is bizarre - by definition.
I’ve yet to be convinced there’s as logical a connection between pain and pleasure and pleasure and pleasure. That’s why I use the term weird and weird isn’t bad in my view.
I’m all for weird, but even if the connection between pain and pleasure isn’t logical it’s certainly a natural physical process.
Runner’s high anyone?
Sabrina - I’m impressed
(that’s the kind of reach Mr. Fantastic would think twice about.)
Sam - I figured I’d reached far enough to meet you halfway…
“Weird (”Definition - very strange, bizarre”) and commonplace aren’t mutually exclusive.” Technically and logically something can’t be strange and commonplace in the same cultural context at the same time. I realize you mean strange in the sense of “logically does not compute” but illogical and unusual, or bizarre as you intended the word weird to mean, are different concepts.
I’m not sure how the body responding to pain by producing painkillers is illogical. Positively reinforcing the wrong stimuli, perhaps…
Seems as though the BDSM: sick or sane? debate is a SugarBank wardrobe classic. Masochism is the new black?
Sabrina - The key here is realizing I’m not arguing against BDSM, but find it very hard to place it on the same line as other more logical stimuli.
I disagree - commonplace and strange can happily coexist. Mass delusion and psychosis are locally common, aberrant behavior. You needn’t be confused by things to label them strange, only aware they’re not logically consistent. BDSM isn’t strange because pain and pleasure are equated, it’s strange because only some pain and pleasure are equated, and the same stimulus means different things in different contexts. That’s weird.
I.e. If I get an anonymous hand-job from Jessica Biel I get errect. Same thing if I get it from a tranny with soft hands. Perfectly logical - the stimuli match, as does my response. However a submissive might react totally differently to being punched by their master, or another person they don’t know. even when the stimuli match perfectly, the stimulus and the response aren’t directly linked. There’s a matter of interpretation which they must consciously engage one step removed from a direct visceral response. Essentially the stimulus is irrelevant (thus we open the door to all fetishism). It’s nothing to do with sickness or sanity (though it can be) - it’s just weird. As it’s conscious it different than being gay or straight. I just don’t buy the advantage of being militant about kink when to my eyes it’s clearly something we are complicit in, not helpless before.
Call me and we’ll explore my fetishes in detail…
Claiming helplessness before any flavor of sexuality is a cop-out for weak-willed hedonists. Regardless of one’s level of control over an arousal reaction, one can choose how to respond.
As for matching vanilla stimuli and arousal response, your hand job’s a poor analogy. I react differently to a kiss - or even a backrub - from someone I know and am fond of (the master, in your analogy) than from another person I don’t know *regardless of the skill involved.* The source of the stimulus is relevant. I’ll also react differently to the same technique (even from the same individual) if I’m tired, depressed, or pissed off.
Is that weird, by your definition? Yes - but by your definition of weird, both vanilla arousal and masochistic arousal are weird for the same reason.
A smack out of context is about as erotic as a grope out of context - it might trigger arousal but the odds are higher it’ll just offend and annoy.
Your analogy only works if you bypass mental and emotional responses that feed into, and influence, physical responses. For a lot of us it just doesn’t work that way.
The same stimulus also means different things in different contexts when it comes to completely vanilla sex. Context (particularly headspace) matters. What generates an arousal response without fail in a normal situation can completely fail to work - even turn off - if a participant’s mood isn’t right. Even when the stimuli match perfectly, the stimulus and the response aren’t directly linked.
In this light I’m doubtful that “standard” sexual stimuli are any more logical than BDSM.
Wow- well thought and nicely put, Sabrina. I’ll add that I don’t know of any masochists who come when they stub their toes. In my experience, arousal is almost entirely about context and headspace.
I like the thrill of the forbidden in BDSM, love the labels that go along with that, but I think trying to label something that ~10% of people do as ‘ever so slightly wrong in the head’ and ‘weird’ is, well, a little weird. ^-^
(thanks for the review, btw…)
Sabrina - My point about context relies on exactly what you’re pointing out. I’m talking about ’single blind’ stimulation in which the person being stimulated is unaware of the context. The need for context is one of the things that make fetish unusual.
We all react the same way. Some of us choose to fetishise and a fetish isn’t just a preference. Classically a fetish is described as something required for a person to experience sexual pleasure, not just something they like to play with. Given how few people that truly applies to weird seems fair especially given how mush there’s still to learn about that aspect of sexuality.
There’s nothing wrong with weird, I just believe it’s out there. If I said fetishes were special would you still think I was being pejorative?
Russell - Your toe stubbing comment is exactly my point. There’s nothing wrong with weird in my view. I’m just alone (?) in believing weird exists.
Russell - Thanks for the kind words, and for chiming in. I really enjoy your blog and the dynamic energy you show in your scenes.
Sam - Aha! And now the analogy makes sense.
But now you’re substituting fetish for kink which blurs the whole thing… Masochism isn’t considered a fetish using either the traditional psychological or looser modern pornhound definition.
Fetishes definitely fall under the category of irrational sexual turn-ons precisely because they sexualize unusual things, or (in the case of clothing and materials fetishes) sexualize already sensual/sexual things well past the normal level. Of course it’s weird to get turned on looking at socks without any feet in them. They’re an everyday object. So we can definitely agree that a) weird exists, and b) fetishes are weird (though I don’t know about masochism
).
Actually if we were talking about fetish rather than kink your analogy would apply perfectly. An angora sweater out of context, to a fur fetishist, is still as sexy because the sexualization is so dependent on texture and feel rather than mood or scene…
Sabrina - You’re so stubborn and I find that very endearing. Your argument essentially hinges on pain being a sensation without special value, my position on the fact I believe we’re programmed to avoid it as it has an essential protective act. Weird, to me, happens when a programmed instinct is subverted for sexual pleasure.
We’re also programmed to avoid places where small objects traveling at exceptionally high velocity can konk us on the head. Do you think golfing is weird?
We’re also programmed to avoid getting into a thin box and moving at speeds faster than the fastest animal can run, all the while knowing that the slightest miscalculation can cause the death of us, anyone else in our box, and anyone else in the immediate vicinity with poor reflexes. Do you think driving is weird?
There are any number of contexts in which we do potentially really, really stupidly dangerous things because we’re able to manage the risk and the likely benefit is worth the unlikely risk. It’s worth it to me to have food and shelter; thus I risk my life on the roads every day, knowing that there is a non-zero but very managed chance that it may well be the last thing I ever do. I’d say a BDSM fan is simply applying the same calculus of risk management to the process of releasing endorphins - with which there is a well established, logical connection to pleasure.
Rich - Golfing isn’t about getting hit in the head and SM is about pain. Same for travel, the potential damage from an accident is an unwanted risk, not the intent. In neither example is pain the intent and nothing being subverted.
If you got in a car with the intention of crashing (didn’t they make a movie…) it would be weird. A better example in support of your view would be a roller-coaster. There an endorphin rush is the intent and that’s based on fear. Far closer to SM with the difference being the fear is entirely mitigated by obvious safety precautions. BD is pretty much identical but SM, especially when the pain is real, goes beyond the excitement caused by the thrill of danger and actually requires participants to experience what they fear.
Of course, golf’s strictly for freaks.
granted that i’ve only met two self-confessed pain sluts personally, so my dataset is at best radically unscientific. that said, both of them described their particular kink as being about the endorphins, not about the pain - the pain was simply the means to the end, and as such there was a decided difference between good pain (that which was within their threshhold and lead to the desired endorphin release) and bad pain (that which simply hurt like a bitch). so i’m not entirely certain that i accept your view that SM is “about pain,” which may be the root of our difference of viewpoint here.
and yeah, planet terror was the better movie by far. i give tarentino credit for championing the genre but i didn’t need to seem him masturbate on film for 90 minutes.
Rich - I think that’s true for a lot of people but not all. There are other paths to endorphins so the means of delivery has to be considered. It seems like a very low tech way to get a thrill and, on top of that, normally the pain which comes with the endorphin release cancel each other out.
i concede your “some but not all” point, but I’d submit that it applies to your argument as equally as to mine.
As to low-tech - yes, decidedly, but simpler solutions to any given problem are also more universally accessible than complex and/or high tech ones, which may explain their prevalence. Electrostim devices are expensive, and chemicals can be maddeningly difficult to obtain legally and safely. On the other hand, if your partner has to own a leather belt as part of their office attire anyway…mother of invention and all that.
Physiologists note that the body becomes used to any stimulus that is applied locally and repeatedly - stroking your lover’s arm may feel great for a few minutes, but keep it up long enough and eventually she literally won’t feel it. The aforementioned pain sluts described something similar - smacks applied lightly at first had an initial shock of reaction, but eventually (quickly, for one of them) the body became used to it, and the pain faded to a background sensation as stimulus increased in intensity and the corresponding endorphins did their thing. Never tried it myself, largely because I have an alarmingly low pain threshhold, but it makes sense.
Granted, this isn’t what you see on Hardtied.com, but I suspect that’s more about the fantasies of the clients than the models.
(Which actually leads to a different, related point - what does it say about us as a species that enough people whose fantasies of torture and degradation are so prevalent and so requiring of direct sensory input that there are that many women willing to put themselves through an experience that clearly isn’t pleasant for some payment that we know, given the production values of the material, can’t be appreciably higher than vanilla porn?)