I'm glad my stupidity got your attention. But seriously, I think I finally figured something out.

As the "s" is any given D/s situation, I've often found myself trying to explain the nature of discipline. How can something be arousing if it is supposed to be unpleasant. Even if one says that the fact that it is unpleasant is arousing, it still makes little sense. Perhaps it can be that simple for the more extreme 'sl..." types, masochism, and all that, but for the su... types who like affection from their partners, it becoems rather confusing.

As a not as random as it seems side note, I myself am only willing to tolerate certian instances of this from anyone who has earned the title "sir" (not to be confused with the title, "Sir"). Each, however, must be earned repeatedly every instance in which it might be necessary. The first, comes and goes as I please, the second, once secured, lasts for an entire encounter. The inspiration for this rant has been readiyl accepted, because I don't want to mess something up before it starts, and because it is entirely called for. Two other titles, the same word, similarly differentiated in severity, will mean these instances need to be to readily accepted whenever they come up (which should be rare as possible). The first, beginning with a small letter, communicates respect, but nothing more, complete co-operation, no matter the current circumstances, comes with the big "M."

Anyway, back to making sense, I think discipline is representative of a larger scale emotional dynamic. Each instance simply re-enforces said dynamic, by establishing for both parties the strength of the connection which made it necessary in the first place. In other words, it reminds D of the affection he has towards his s, and s of her eagerness to comply to the D's wishes. This is best illustrated if one begins by saying that when the disciplined knows that discipline is necessary, she has disciplined enough. The mere knowledge of the necessity has already done more damage to the disciplined than any actual discipline could. Nonetheless, without the discipline, the disciplinarian cannot properly communicate the necessity of the discipline. If the discipline is forgone, then it becomes meaningless and makes the intent seem meaningless. Similarly, if the disciplinarian does not carry the discipline out, he immediately looses the respect of the disciplined and the dynamic crumbles.

So first of all, the act of discipline itself, is necessary, even though the need thereof has already communicated to the diciplined, that she has made a mistake which must be corrected, and not repeated. With that being established, the ACT of the dsicipline itself, simply becomes a continuation of that dynamic which gives both parties the enjoyment for which they entered therein in the first place, and with the need having been established, and the mistake corrected in theory, before practice was ever enacted, the practice can then be enjoyed by both parties as if it were simply any other interaction within said dynamic.

In short, once the gun is fired 9in this case) the race is already run and won, but the runners will still want to enjoy the run.

Cryptic enough? Yes I am crazy... and I'm going to sleep now.

Sir

Not Rush, Want You

Accepting Punishment.