AMATEUR BONDAGE  

Posted in


AMATEUR BONDAGE
Bondage, as a sexual game or foreplay is used by people that trust each other, and it is valid as long as it is healthy, safe and agreed by consenting adults. However, in spite of the precautions that the participants could take, there are always risks that can even lead to death.
Compared to BDSM business, amateur bondage is fundamentally consensual, on the other hand, in bondage business; the victim is deceived with the promise of a juicy payment and an erotic modeling job. Let’s remember that BDSM as a business, it tortures in unimaginable ways to the victim only to film her physical and mental suffering in order to sell videos at very expensive prices. Only those who are naive can believe that a woman would relinquish her will voluntarily to this masochistic humiliation.
Amateur bondage fanatics promote this type of foreplay by saying that it’s safe, sane and consensual, but in reality it’s more dangerous than professional bondage or BDSM and it causes more deaths than in BDSM business because the amateurs ignore the limits and the precautions they should take care of. In addition, a person who is tied up remains completely defenseless, and this circumstance, can create unpredictable psychological an emotional engrams, even if it’s consensual.
The only safe bondage that can be recommended to those who want to practice it as a sexual game, is the simulated bondage that is to say, the bondage in which the ropes are imaginary.

SESSION 21/MAR/07
Medium: Jorge Raul Olguin.

Entity that came to dialogue: Master Ruanel.
Interlocutor: The topic I’d like to ask you about is related to bondage, I’m not talking about professional bondage or BDSM* business, but to Amateur bondage and the first question is: What’s happened to the Webpage we have published on BDSM business? Except for one or two people nobody has replied us. And I ask this because I sent several emails revealing that the business of bondage is in fact a disguised torture. I clarify that those e-mails were sent to private and governmental organizations that are in charge of violence against women.
Ruanel: In many cases, they have received the information as though it was very important and they validated them directly.
Interlocutor: But why don't they do something about it?
Ruanel: They don’t make any comment because all what you have sent them explains everything. They received it, they validated it and they filed it.
Interlocutor: Do they take care about the matter?
Ruanel: No, they don’t care about it.
Interlocutor: But haven’t they even said "we will publish it to warn people" or something like that?
Ruanel: There is something that bad Psychology, which is almost all of it, has explained since the beginning of the XX century saying that the man; I mean the incarnated human being is curious by nature. I’m categorically against to that approach because I believe that man is indifferent by nature as for topics that he doesn't end up to understand completely. I notice a tremendous indifference in most of the places where you have sent the information.
Interlocutor: Not even the governmental organizations?
Ruanel: Obviously the authorities keep in mind everything, and it is extremely valuable for them, but they don't give importance to the source. Directly they say "Oh! It’s good that we received this information!" and they file it away.
Interlocutor: Are you telling me that in spite of the huge accusation, they file it away and they do nothing about it?
Ruanel: No, they don't leave it like that; they keep it there, awaiting new evidence that could appear on the subject. You have to keep in mind that the general information about bondage that you sent to these governmental authorities or police is too ample and they cannot use it as clues.
Interlocutor: What other proof do they need if they have the videos exposed on the Internet where evidently these models are being tortured?
Ruanel: What I mean is that your information doesn't say for example: "in such street, such address, in such town, there is a house where illegal bondage is practiced. In that case the authorities would execute search warrants at that place finding subjected women to cruel practices and implements of torture.
Interlocutor: I understand, they need something more specific in order to do something.
Ruanel: Correct. What you have sent them is useful only as information, and even as an accusation, but it doesn't help them to act immediately. On the other hand, if you ended up having the precise facts, some addresses, where those bondage sessions are performed, then you could make the accusation to the pertinent authorities, but without publishing it on the Web, in order to not warn those who are involved in these criminal acts.
Interlocutor: What you say is clear. In a court of law that would be called a "gagging order"
Ruanel: Correct.
Interlocutor: Another thing, have the emails I sent helped Grupo Elron to be known?
Ruanel: Yes, of course that it helps.
Interlocutor: Would I continue sending mails?
Ruanel: Yes, that would be good. Besides, it is an article that is taken seriously by the addressees.
Interlocutor: Sincerely I thought that it would provoke something like a revolution.
Ruanel: In many places they take it with indifference, in others, they keep it, and the authorities simply take it as an accusation because it doesn’t have names or addresses, they simply take it as an accusation and nothing else. It is as though you went to a police station and you would say that in such neighborhood there is a rapist, but without giving any other detail.
Interlocutor: I understand, the police don’t do anything because they don't have enough information. What about the mobsters that control BDSM business? Have they known something about our accusation?
Ruanel: Most of them have been informed because they communicate with each other, and they even took it as if it’s were good advertising for them.
Interlocutor: I cannot believe it! And don't they speculate how we have found it out?
Ruanel: No, because all the images that appear on the web related to bondage are already there. This means that you have only collected them.
Interlocutor: But what about the explanation of the trick and how they do it? I mean, they make people believe that the models have undergone those tortures voluntarily.
Ruanel: I already tell you that most of them do not believe in channelings, and for that reason they think that you have guessed about what happens in those bondage sessions or directly they think that you have an infiltrated person who has told you everything. This is what the 99% of the people in this BDSM business believe about your accusation.
Interlocutor: Aren’t they worried that we could have an infiltrated informant?
Ruanel: No, not at all.
Interlocutor: If you had to make a projection in the future, Would you see that our accusation finally will have some result so that these spurious practices end?
Ruanel: No, I don't see it. Let’s say that all the people who have received the information have taken it as interesting and they respected it, as for authorities they have no more evidence, they don’t have any clue and they say "Well, let’s see if more information appears in the future"
Interlocutor: Master, I already understood perfectly the situation. Now, if you agree I’d like to ask you about amateur bondage.
Ruanel: Go ahead.
Interlocutor: Well. We know that regarding to sex, a woman wants to be penetrated and a man wants to penetrate. These are factors that are inherent of human sexuality.
Ruanel: Error.
Interlocutor: Error?
Ruanel: A man wants to penetrate, it’s true, but a woman doesn't always want to be penetrated. In 50% of the cases women want to be penetrated and the other 50% of the cases, women want to reach an orgasm through foreplay and other means.
Interlocutor: In short, What is the essence? The spirit is created neutral. I don’t know if this will be related to this topic. A spirit embodies as a man or a woman, what is the inherent nature? Heterosexual?
Ruanel: Correct.
Interlocutor: Now, you say that a woman doesn't want to be penetrated in all the cases.
Ruanel: Correct.
Interlocutor: But, Is it an inherent nature that some women don't want to be penetrated? or Is it a later modification for pleasure or other reasons of that sort?
Ruanel: Let’s say that in the last years women have acquired a bigger sexual freedom in almost all the countries, women are more interested in foreplay and erotic games than in sexual penetration.
Interlocutor: Okay that’s clear, but what is actually the essence? I mean if a woman, by nature, wants to be penetrated inherently. Another story would be if later on due to customs or engrams that natural need is modified.
Ruanel: Performing foreplay is not engramic. Now, if you mean that due to genetics, a woman wants to be penetrated by the fact that genetically she has implanted the genetic order of having children, the answer is affirmative. There is no doubt about it.
What happens is that the human being is one of the few mammals - I don't say the only one - that takes sex as pleasure.
Interlocutor: Okay. Now, in the same way that a woman wants to be penetrated inherently, and a man also wants to penetrate, Is there an inherent submission in a woman and an inherent dominance in a man? I mean if a woman is genetically submissive and a man dominant as well.
I am speaking in terms of sexuality in order to know if this behavior gives origin to bondage. Perhaps that behavior or attitude or genetic impulse is modified by personal sexual tastes, but that is another issue. What I mean is if a woman from wanting to be penetrated passes to wanting to penetrate, and a man, from wanting to penetrate passes to wanting to be penetrated.
Ruanel: There is one thing that was badly learned in this society. Since the fact that the male has external genitalia and the female has internal genitalia, then, young people are taught: "You have done such thing with Elizabeth"; they will never say: "Elizabeth, you have done such thing with Peter"
Or suddenly they say: "You, Peter, do such thing with Mary"; they will never say: "Mary, do such thing with Peter" They take a woman like passive and a man like active. That is genetic nature.
Interlocutor: Concretely, Is it genetic or is it learned?
Ruanel: It is genetic because you see it in mammals. For instance, if you see dogs copulating, it is the dog the one that moves and the female dog doesn’t move. Even the dog, after reaching the orgasm ejaculates slowly until the tip of its penis is deflated and somehow it can be separated from the female dog. However, a female dog gives the impression that she doesn’t even notice anything.
Notice also that the smaller feline, the cat, the female cat is somehow bothered before the penetration, and even after the penetration, she can end up attacking the male cat.
Interlocutor: Yes, I have seen that many times.
Ruanel: And the cat that is penetrating doesn't even stay two seconds inside the female cat.
Interlocutor: But Isn’t the female cat in heat?
Ruanel: Yes, but in spite of the estrus, the female cat feels like she’s attacked.
Interlocutor: Transferring all this to bondage, Would it be indicating that a woman is submissive by nature and a man is dominant by nature as well?
Ruanel: Genetically they are, but if you notice the current sexual intercourse, the woman is on top of the man and she is the one who is moving.
Interlocutor: I agree, but I was mainly referring to the essence of a man and a woman, not to acquired customs by the modification of that essence or for engramic behaviors.
Concretely, Is there an original need in the woman to be submissive and a need in a man to be dominator that would give origin to bondage? In other words I want to know if a woman wants to be tied up and a man wants to tie her up.
Ruanel: Yes, at first it is like that, but the word "dominate" sounds a little bit strong for the woman because except for those episodes you mention, sex is consensual.
Interlocutor: Well, but a man penetrates and a woman is penetrated, we cannot deny that.
Ruanel: Yes, but it’s a matter of sexual organs, a man has external genitalia and a woman has internal genitalia.
Interlocutor: Let’s see if I understood this matter: If a woman doesn't like to be tied up, Can she acquire this habit if her nature deep inside wants to be tied up? I don’t know how to explain it better… How would react a clear, one who doesn't have engrams?
Ruanel: She may not have engrams, but she can have fantasies. Just like the man. Let’s start form the base that the spirit when embodying, either as man or a woman, is playing a role. Let’s forget for a moment the “neutral spirit”
Interlocutor: Okay.
Ruanel: Well, a man's fantasy is to have sex with two or more women.
Interlocutor: I agree!
Ruanel: A man’s fantasy is to make anal penetration!
Interlocutor: I totally agree!
Ruanel: And according to the Freudian nonsense, he wants to make anal penetration because he is homosexual deep inside.
Interlocutor: what Nonsense!!
Ruanel: It is nonsense. In many Psychology centers, many women say that anal penetration should be in equality of conditions and the man should let himself be penetrated. But there is a difference, if a man let himself be penetrated, he will allow that a woman penetrates him with an external accessory, and on the other hand, if a woman is penetrated, she will be penetrated by the male's penis. That is the difference.
Recapitulating, then, the male fantasy is to have sex with two women, although, and I speak ironically, he may not be with one… one of the woman's fantasies is to be tied-up and dominated. And I am not speaking of a woman with engrams. I am speaking of a woman without engrams. It is an erotic fantasy where she feels pleasure when being dominated.
Interlocutor: All of this, obviously, has to do with a woman’s essence.
Ruanel: Of course. But there are also men who want to be tied up and be dominated by a woman.
Interlocutor: But that would be an alteration of the male's essence. Aren’t we speaking of homosexuality?
Ruanel: No, but there are many men who have homosexual fantasies, and since they don't dare to have sexual relations with another man because unconsciously they would feel "uncomfortable"- they can have homosexual fantasies with their own wives, to the point of making them introduce their fingers until the second phalange, or performing oral sex or anal sex.
Interlocutor: That is to say, a kind of cunnilingus, but in a man's anus.
Ruanel: Or that she directly plays with sex toys with the man.
Interlocutor: Summing up, and leaving aside the acquired behaviors or customs, the inherent essence in a woman is submission and a man’s essence is dominance. Then, there are the fantasies of each other that modify that essence or inherent nature. Is it correct?
Ruanel: Correct.
Interlocutor: Well, as you know, I have a special fascination for tied-up women, immobilized; as far as I see for all that you said, it’s something inherent in me as a man. Is that so?
Ruanel: Correct.
Interlocutor: This inherent nature as a man can be expanded or reduced by the fantasies later on.
Ruanel: Correct.
Interlocutor: And also by engrams.
Ruanel: Of course.
Interlocutor: And by roles of ego.
Ruanel: Mainly.
Interlocutor: My doubt is already perfectly clear. Now, why a tortured and tied-up woman, in amateur bondage, gets a more intense orgasm than in a common way? Concretely, I’d like to know what causes in a woman that orgasmic intensity when she is immobilized or dominated in bondage.
Ruanel: I want to clarify that that doesn’t happen in all the cases. There are special women that end up more excited in a situation of "helplessness". But this doesn’t happen in all the cases.
Interlocutor: Would that be caused by engrams and roles of ego?
Ruanel: Correct.
Interlocutor: Let’s start first analyzing women who are eroticized by the fact of being tied up.
Ruanel: First, these women take it as foreplay, but that game is: "And what if it was real? Let’s suppose that I’m dominated, tied up and I was kidnapped in the old Ages, what would the person that dominate me do to me?"
Interlocutor: That’s the intrigue…
Ruanel: Sure, this is the intrigue. In a relation of common people, where there are no bondage games or something like that, the situation is more monotonous. Although there are kisses, hugs, caresses, in those who like to play it, generally they reach the consummation and that’s all.
In a relationship where one of the parts is tied up, the immobilized person has more fantasies; she doesn't know what her dominator will do. Then she will say: Will he slap me? Will he strangle me? Will he bite me? Will he penetrate me? Will he hurt me?" And that makes her excite.
Interlocutor: In short, not knowing is an important factor that promotes excitement.
Ruanel: Exactly.
Interlocutor: Could we say what works in the tied-up woman’s mind is fundamentally her imagination? That is to say, her imagination would potentiate sex. Is it correct?
Ruanel: Imagination boosts eroticism, the libido.
Interlocutor: I understand. What chemistry takes place under a situation like bondage? I refer to pulse, etc.
Ruanel: the Heartbeat is accelerated, the endorphins work, the adrenaline works. And the "dominator" also has the obligation to try something too because he will say: "This person expects something different from me, what will I do to her?"
Interlocutor: In short, if they didn't have that dominator-submissive game the thing would be more customary and the orgasm possibly tasteless.
Ruanel: Correct. Foreplay wakes the fantasy up in the submissive person and arouses the creativity in the person that dominates. That is a booster of the libido in both.
Interlocutor: In conclusion, the sexual game of submissive-dominator stimulates the fantasy and this in turn accelerates the pulse, increases the endorphins and the adrenaline, which gives the result of an increase of sexual pleasure.
Ruanel: Correct.
Interlocutor: And even that submissive-dominator sexual game cannot conclude in an orgasm. Foreplay is independent from orgasm.
Ruanel: That is in precisely what I said at the beginning. Not all sex has to conclude in penetration.
Interlocutor: Since we have approached this topic, I want to ask you about the way that the human beings can increase the sexual pleasure, without considering Tantra, which is a different thing… With the creation of foreplay?
Ruanel: With the creation of foreplay mainly.
Interlocutor: Although it has already been said, it is worth to repeat that foreplay is fine from the spiritual world’s point of view.
Ruanel: Yes, of course.
Interlocutor: The key question now is: How many people have died with these sexual games?
Ruanel: We are speaking of different sexual games.
Interlocutor: Harmless foreplay?
Ruanel: Sure, harmless. I am speaking of sexual games with kisses, hugs, caresses, fantasies, places. A couple not necessarily have to have sex in the bedroom, they can have it in the kitchen, in the bathroom…
Interlocutor: I rather emphasize the matter of bondage, where a woman is tied up. If a man exceeds the foreplay, he can end up even making a hostile act against the woman involved.
Ruanel: But not all sexual game, where a woman is tied up, is related to bondage.
Interlocutor: I don’t understand.
Ruanel: Sure, there are imaginary ropes. For example, You, incarnated, have a couple relationship, you make your wife put her hands on the bed headboard and you tell her: "pretend that you are tied up, and no matter what I do to you, you cannot be freed" and the foreplay is that your wife, although her desire to set her hands free is almost irresistible, her hands are tied up with imaginary ropes.
Interlocutor: What you say is clear.
Ruanel: And that is not real bondage. It is harmless foreplay.
Interlocutor: But what about real bondage, where a woman is really tied up.
Ruanel: That bondage you call amateur bondage is more dangerous than professional bondage or BDSM.
Interlocutor: When you speak of "professional bondage" are you referring to the BDSM business?
Ruanel: Correct. You will ask me now, how can amateur bondage be more dangerous if in professional bondage there are more implements of torture, subtle or not, and they get almost everything.
Interlocutor: I believe that I know where you are pointing at.
Ruanel: Exactly, in amateur bondage, the participants ignore the limits they can reach, its practice can provoke many more accidents than professional bondage can cause.
And the reason is that bondage professionals, like in Chinese torture, they are experts in what they do and they know the limits their victims can suffer without harming them.
Interlocutor: Do you perceive clearly if there are deaths in both types of bondage?
Ruanel: Yes, but there are more deaths in non-professional bondage, the one you call "amateur bondage"
Interlocutor: Let’s leave the issue of deaths aside and let’s talk exclusively about the engramic issue. I want to approach this topic in order to determine if we can advise the practice of amateur bondage or not. For example, saying something like:"Look! this type of bondage, where a woman is really tied up, is unadvisable because it creates engrams"
Ruanel: I would never advise it. I would never advise any kind of sexual game that ends up creating engrams. We are speaking of an erotic common foreplay, a simple game, where it doesn't exceeds a game, a foreplay that gives pleasure, moves the adrenaline and it doesn't cause any kind of engram because it is a couple's game. It is a submissive-dominator game, where the roles can be switched immediately. But it doesn't exceed from being a game. In bondage, sometimes, the submissive person is really defenseless.
Interlocutor: As a matter of fact, she is really defenseless because that is the idea.
Ruanel: Sure, and for that reason, I would never advise it.
Interlocutor: Not even smoothly?
Ruanel: No, because amateur bondage doesn't know limits. The person that practices this type of bondage is generally ignorant of the topic. Maybe he or she read something or he or she watched some video and he or she wants to imitate it, but since they don't have the knowledge that bondage professionals have, they can cause some tragedy.
Interlocutor: Does a tied-up woman record engrams only for the fact of being tied up?
Ruanel: While her fantasy works, she doesn’t receive engrams because it doesn't stop from being a fantasy. Let’s remember that sex is pleasure, not pain. Although there are women who want to be slightly bitten, who want to be spanked slightly; that doesn't provoke pain, it produces pleasure.
Now, if there are women that request more intense pain in order to have orgasms, like very strong spanks, or bites until they begin to bleed; that is engramic, the order is already engramic.
Interlocutor: I understand what you mean, if somebody requests more pain, that request comes from previous engrams related to suffering.
Ruanel: Correct.
Interlocutor: But I consider that that request and its execution by the dominator, adds another similar engram to those that she already has in that engram chain.
Ruanel: Of course that everything adds. Keep in mind that from a tickle when touching with the fingernails to a scratch in the skin, which is a nail scratch, there is one step only. The nail scratch provokes bloody wounds, as if a cat scratches your skin. And the tickle produces pleasure. If a person passes from the tickle to a nail scratch is because she already has an engram that impels her to it.
Interlocutor: what you say is clear.
Ruanel: There are women who want to be burned in the skin with cigarettes butts during sex.
Interlocutor: That is obviously engramic.
Ruanel: Absolutely engramic. They are people destabilized in their mental decoders.
Interlocutor: In short, Would it be valid to say that those who want to get pleasure by means of pain have an engram which is ordering that behavior?
Ruanel: Of course. A case like that is always engramic, without exceptions. For that reason I say that there must be a difference between the harmless foreplay we talked about and the other sexual game which is plainly physical torture.
Interlocutor: In conclusion, the real bondage, (not the imaginary one), is unadvisable due to the ignorance of its limits. Is it correct?
Ruanel: It is unadvisable for the risks that ignorance provokes, for my part, I don't approve it, first because it creates engrams, and second because it is a corporal and emotional damage.
It doesn’t have anything to do with the erotic games we spoke about at the beginning. They are absolutely different things. In the erotic normal foreplay, in a certain moment, the submissive part, male or female, can say "enough" and the safeword of the other is respected because ‘Love is respect’
When the submissive part says "enough" and the dominator continues the torture, there is no respect. Then, we are saying that there is no love, like in most of the cases of bondage in which they don't care about the other part.
Interlocutor: The risk of amateur bondage, then, is always the abuse, something that happens in 99% of the cases. Is it correct?
Ruanel: Correct.
Interlocutor: To conclude with the topic I want to ask you if the woman is inherently multiorgasmic, although she can ignore it.
Ruanel: Women are naturally multiorgasmic, although not all the women are multiorgasminc in reality because there are always exceptions to the rule.
Interlocutor: Do you mean that in essence, although all women are multiorgasmic, there are women, who due to frigidity, don’t end up reaching an orgasm?
Ruanel: Correct, there are men who don't have an erection or they cannot ejaculate due to engrams too.
Interlocutor: The point is perfectly clear.
(*) BDSM: is derived from the terms bondage & discipline (B/D), dominance and submission (D/S), sadism and masochism (S/M)

This entry was posted at Saturday, April 17, 2010 and is filed under . You can follow any responses to this entry through the .

0 comentarios

Related Posts with Thumbnails