Double standard

Double standard (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Dnomyar -> Double standard (10/11/2006 5:51:05 AM)
As usual this question is from reading another post. The woman stated that she did'nt want a commitment and just wanted to play. The problem I have with this is that everyone seemed ok with it. Now if it was a man had posted that he would have been burnt to a crisp by the flames. My question is why the double standard?

darkinshadows -> RE: Double standard (10/11/2006 5:54:48 AM)
No - you assume that it would exist. Maybe if you asked the question would - is a male who isn't looking for 'the one' considered a fake? My answer would be the same, male or female - yes - to someone - but then, that's a person not worth your time. To me, its called being honest. Peace and Rapture

justheather -> RE: Double standard (10/11/2006 5:55:56 AM)
I disagree with your prediction. Ive been here over a year now and I don't recall seeing anyone who sincerely and respectfully expressed "This is who I am and this is what I want" get flamed. The people who get flamed are the ones who pretend to be somethning they are not, looking for something they are not. They are the people who start threads with thinly veiled ulterior motives or who are clearly living in a fantasy world, perpetuating their fantasy/drama at the expense of those who are here looking for something beyond fantasy.

Jasmyn -> RE: Double standard (10/11/2006 5:56:14 AM)
You assume there would be a double standard ? Why?

MsKatHouston -> RE: Double standard (10/11/2006 6:12:11 AM)
I agree that there is no doubl standard. A man or woman looking for that would not be for me but I am certain there are others who would love that. As long as a person is up front in their preferences and expectations, I am fine with whatever it is they are seeking regardless of gender or Dom/sub. What irks me is the person who comes across as wanting the whole package but with time, they balk at it and are only interested in occasional play. We could have saved a lot of time if the person were honest from the get-go.

LadyEllen -> RE: Double standard (10/11/2006 6:12:48 AM)
If someone wants a casual fling, then as long as they are'nt messing their own LTR or someone else's LTR, then I dont think its a problem whatever/whoever they are. I dont understand anyone wanting a casual fling as opposed to a LTR, but then thats just me. To be honest, I'd be rather grateful to know if someone was just looking for a casual fling - saves me time and trouble. A lot of the difficulties in this game (for me anyway) are that so many people claim to be looking for a LTR, when actually all they want is a casual fling. E

toservez -> RE: Double standard (10/11/2006 6:29:03 AM)
I do not think there would be a double standard at all in terms of respecting what either is looking for because of gender. After all if a woman wants to play casually with a male, it takes a male to wants to play casually as well. Personally although not for me, I find when people are honest in this nature it is quite refreshing. I think most of the time a male might get ripped like the OP thinks not for something like that but almost always how they phrase it. If it is done in a childish immature cyber dreamer like statement or some perceived superior dominant chest thumping tone. I think most people often react to perceived tones more so then the actual substance.

MysticFireTopaz -> RE: Double standard (10/11/2006 6:30:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dnomyar As usual this question is from reading another post. The woman stated that she did'nt want a commitment and just wanted to play. The problem I have with this is that everyone seemed ok with it. Now if it was a man had posted that he would have been burnt to a crisp by the flames. My question is why the double standard? I have no problem with either men or women wanting a play-only situation. I can certainly understand it and it is the best choice for many people. It is not what I am seeking, and I clearly say so in my profile, for the purpose of letting these individuals know upfront that we are not a match and to look elsewhere for someone more compatible. The only thing I resent is when people who are seeking a casual, no-strings, play only situation are deceptive about what they are seeking and waste the time of those seeking something entirely different. Lady Topaz

DOM33416 -> RE: Double standard (10/11/2006 6:40:59 AM)
In my short time here I have never seem a double standard

Lashra -> RE: Double standard (10/11/2006 6:57:58 AM)
I personally don't care what other people do. If he/she wants to casually play without a committment that is their business. Unfortnately I myself do not understand why there is a a double standard, people are people and should be treated equally. ~Lashra

Dnomyar -> RE: Double standard (10/11/2006 6:58:03 AM)
Im not asumming anything. There are a lot of peole on here who would call a woman a slut or a whore because she didnt want a commitment . They would consider a man the same. As long as you dont see them as a threat to you I guess you would think it was ok. I know women get frustrated when they cant get a man to commit. But your saying it is ok if a woman dosent want to. Dont start by saying not committing and playing around are different. Playing around is the reason some wont commit.

Dnomyar -> RE: Double standard (10/11/2006 7:06:03 AM)
Question? Does the term Player ring a bell.

MsKatHouston -> RE: Double standard (10/11/2006 7:15:28 AM)
For me a player is someone who tries to get what he or she wants in the short term by deception of some sort. I think of it like the charmer who woos a someone and seems to be the ideal mate, saying and doing all the right things, leading that person to believe he or she is in it for the long haul and as soon as that person gets their immediate goal, they are out. That is different then someone saying "I am not looking for a commitment, just want some fun". Being honest about it is fine. It is what they want, they will find others who are compatible. It is the deception I have a problem with not the act. So I still stick with there is not a prevalent double standard for men and women. I think most people are either ok with casual or not and they push those thoughts out to either gender, thus no double standard. But there is a difference between someone who wants to casually play with others and those who are deceptive in what they are looking for in order to get immediate gratification.

LaTigresse -> RE: Double standard (10/11/2006 7:32:16 AM)
I would only use the term player if someone was less than honest about what they want and what they are doing. Telling someone, "I want to screw you tonight. I screwed _____ last night, and who knows, tomorrow night." Not my style but I know where they are coming from. Telling someone (forgive me I suck at pickup lines) "you are so.....(whatever)...., I have been admiring you all night. would you like to come over to my place for coffee or a drink?" and actually MEAN the first, now THAT is a player.........in my eyes anyway.

darkinshadows -> RE: Double standard (10/11/2006 7:50:56 AM)
I know my defination of a player, but what is yours? Someone who likes no commited fuck partners and is open about that isn't a player. Someone who ins't looking for commitment apart from the occasional night or session and admits it, isn't a player. Someone who wants those things, but who pretends or says they want something else, isn't a player, they just lie. Male, Female does not come into it. Peace and Rapture

Rover -> RE: Double standard (10/11/2006 7:59:04 AM)
We have to be rather careful about the language we use to describe people for several reasons: 1. Many terms have different connotations to different lifestyles (ie: vanillas define a term one way, while it means something different to lifestylers). 2. Some terms have different meanings even amongst lifestylers (ie: ask ten lifestylers to define "slave"). As for the term "player", it has a rather negative connotation in the vanilla world, which tends to bleed over into our lifestyle vernacular. But is there something "wrong" (or negative) about being a "sensation player"? Or is it "wrong" to simply "play" (ie: scene) without commitment? Or is it simply a further example of your mother's vanilla exhortations that "nice girls don't do that sort of thing until they're married" and "nice boys respect girls too much to do that until they're married" (and certainly never, ever hit girls)? Alternatively, it may simply be that many people mistakenly equate "playing" (ie: scening") with sex... with literal sexual intercourse. Now I won't deny that playing/scening is frequently erotic (heck, I think it's erotic when my girl sits at my feet while I watch my beloved Buffalo Bills endure their weekly drubbing and that's about as non-sexual as it gets), but many times (particularly as it relates to "sensation players" who may be scening with acquaintances or even strangers, in public clubs or dungeons where penetration of any kind is generally forbidden) scenes are simply enjoyed for the sensation alone and who is at the other end of the flogger is not relevant to their enjoyment. In point of fact, although it does not reflect my own personal preference, it has been my observation and experience that "players" absent commitment comprise the vast majority of lifestylers (BDSM is a wide umbrella). And it has been my further observation that we have a tendency to "project" our personal motivations upon others (in this case, those who play exclusively in committed relationships and for whom play is a precursor for sexual intimacy can often assume that everyone has the same motivation or "end game"). Just some food for thought. John

Dnomyar -> RE: Double standard (10/11/2006 8:00:15 AM)
So a man who says he wants to get in your pants is not a player and that is ok. But a player who wants to get in your pants is not ok. Are they not both after the same thing? So why the Player label? They will both tell lies.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Double standard (10/11/2006 8:01:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dnomyar So a man who says he wants to get in your pants is not a player and that is ok. But a player who wants to get in your pants is not ok. Are they not both after the same thing? So why the Player label? They will both tell lies. The problem is that "they will both tell lies" Someone who says he wants to get in your pants is being completely honest. I've known and enjoyed many relationships with men who were completely honest about wanting nothing more than a casual play/sex thing with me.

LadyEllen -> RE: Double standard (10/11/2006 8:07:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dnomyar So a man who says he wants to get in your pants is not a player and that is ok. But a player who wants to get in your pants is not ok. Are they not both after the same thing? So why the Player label? They will both tell lies. Yes, they are both after the same thing - but one is honest about it and the other is not. The honest man may not succeed as often as he'd like, but at least he's honest. The dishonest man however, will likely succeed more often, through his deception. There is a qualitative difference in intent and method, as well as in effect. Most men I've come across will tell lies - but then again most women will too, if what it is they want, is something they want so much that lies are their only means to get it. E

darkinshadows -> RE: Double standard (10/11/2006 8:11:07 AM)
No - you are not reading what I said. I said I know my version of what a player is. But I never gave you the definition, only what a player is NOT to me - and I asked yours.(Which you have yet to respond to). I do not use the word 'player' in BDSM. It is a pointless description used by people to feel they are better than someone else - anyone else. A player plays games. Be that scrabble, tennis or whatever. You want to put that in BDSM terms, it still comes down to the same thing, so sometimes, a player can be a positive term if it is done with honesty. If a man wants to get in my pants and is a player and says, I am a complete cad and a player - it wouldn't bother me. If a man wants to get in my pants and is a player and tries to woo me with flowers when I know hes only after getting into my pants, I would just explain he would have more chance if he was honest about just wanting a one night shag.(God I am so british) Youre the one bringing the word 'player' into the conversation as if it is a negative thing, not I... so only you can answer 'why the player label' - like I said - it isnt really a term I use. Peace and Rapture

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875