Another question if you please...

Another question if you please... (Full Version)

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

Message

jaxnsax -> Another question if you please... (9/15/2007 9:24:31 AM)
I had someone ask me the other day about why I was interested in a M/s dynamic if BDSM was not my main focal point. The conversation became quite intense when it became obvious that neither of us was going to be able to explain fully our point of view on this. When I tried to explain that BDSM was not something that I felt was necessary for my own relationships; and that the dynamic does not need it to be sustained; they responded that without that aspect, a Dominant partner could not maintain total control within the relationship. Now, I know this comment to be incorrect; not only from my interactions in real life; but also from what one can understand from forum boards online. Yet, when I posed this question to another person who I am acquainted with in real life, her answer was much the same as that of the first. That without some aspect of BDSM, a dominant could not maintain total control within a relationship. The lady who I asked this of, she has one of the most beautiful relationships with her slave; and it is extremely rare for her to participate in BDSM activities at all. So now, I am wondering. What am I not understanding when they try to explain this to me. I guess my question is this: for the dominants Do you feel that some aspect of BDSM must be present in your relationship for you ( the dominant ) to maintain total control? Or is it of little to no importance? And why? jaxon

mistoferin -> RE: Another question if you please... (9/15/2007 9:28:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jaxnsax So now, I am wondering. What am I not understanding when they try to explain this to me. Probably because while it may be necessary for them, it's not necessary for you. I know plenty of folks that have long term, successful D/s and M/s relationships who do not include any bdsm aspects in them. It's not a requirement.

jaxnsax -> RE: Another question if you please... (9/15/2007 9:30:46 AM)
Greetings mistoferin I understand that; that not everything works for everyone. Yet, even those who I thought would agree partly with my thoughts on this, are telling me differently lol. So I am just kind of wondering if I am maybe, missing something in their explanations. jaxon

mistoferin -> RE: Another question if you please... (9/15/2007 9:32:22 AM)
Consider this.....maybe it is they who are missing something in yours.....

SolarAndViolet -> RE: Another question if you please... (9/15/2007 9:37:25 AM)
I suppose I'd like a little clarity on the topic. Is it that your comment that B/D/S/M (be it rough sex, bondage, pain/impact play, etc) isn't necessary to enjoy the M/s aspect, and you're focusing instead on mostly D/s and day-to-day interactions that reinforce the desire to serve? And the other person's comment is that as nice as D/s is, in order to make it happen and then retain that 'total control' aspect, the only way it can be successfully done is to include that abbreviated list I indicated above, relating to B/D/S/M? If that's a correct summary, however brief, then I'd say I can agree with you, that the physical aspects of B/D/S/M need not be present for a wholly gratifying D/s relationship between Master and slave.. assuming (ah, yes, the caveat) that this is what all parties involve want, and how they feel about it. If you, on any side of the equation, feel it isn't necessary, and your partner does feel it necessary, then that may be a point to work on for the relationship, be it compromise or want person simply accepting the other person's desire for it or lack thereof. If both people think that hard physical aspect is necessary, then that's what works for them (and, really, isn't it nice that such worked out? Heh). I really cannot understand the need to identify any aspect of any of this in absolutes unless it involves harming someone (at least, that's not consenting). No one way must exist for all people at all times. I was tempted to add "unless it breaks laws" but there are still so many US States that have sodomy laws on the books.. yeah, what a waste of breath. -Solar

jaxnsax -> RE: Another question if you please... (9/15/2007 10:00:04 AM)
Greetings SolarAndViolet You are correct with your first statement J Thank you jaxon

jaxnsax -> RE: Another question if you please... (9/15/2007 10:02:07 AM)
Greetings mistoferin Lol, yes, I did think that maybe I was in some way not explaining myself correctly. In all honesty though, I have searched for ways to better express what I was trying to say and could not find any. [:(] jaxon

TreasureKY -> RE: Another question if you please... (9/15/2007 10:07:14 AM)
While I agree that D/s or M/s relationships need not have any sadistic or masochistic behaviors, or involve any bondage, I suspect that what your conversational partners were thinking of was the discipline portion of BDSM. Not everyone believes that actual physical punishment is necessary, but a dominant having some method of correction available to him (even if it's only causing the submissive to be sad because he is upset with her) is usually seen as a way of maintaining control. I'm not sure how I view that as FirmhandKY doesn't really "control" me... rather he has authority over me. Of course, that doesn't mean he wouldn't pull me over his knee if he thought I needed it. [;)]

jaxnsax -> RE: Another question if you please... (9/15/2007 10:10:55 AM)
Greetings TreasureKY That is a possibility. When I think of the authority/control aspects, I never really stop to take into account discipline. LOL. Can I say ooppss to that? Perhaps that is what I was missing from their explanations. Hmmm… more to think on J jaxon

iammachine -> RE: Another question if you please... (9/15/2007 12:34:34 PM)
quote: Do you feel that some aspect of BDSM must be present in your relationship for you ( the dominant ) to maintain total control? Maybe a better question would be to first ask how the person interprets BDSM, cause it's a handy catch all acronym to me. Bondage, Discipline, Domination/Submission, Sadism/Masochism and if you wanna get real fancy you can transpose the M and the S for Master/Mistress/Slave. I am under the impression that you are maybe relating BDSM more to B&D and S&M, while seperating out D/s from your intepretation of the acronym. That may be where the confusion is coming from. So, given the above definition, no, you cannot be in control without an element of BDSM, because power exchange is an element of BDSM. [:)] That doesn't mean that the other aspects necessarily are engaged, however. At least, not to me.

teamnoir -> RE: Another question if you please... (9/15/2007 12:40:06 PM)
Your question doesn't really make sense. I suspect that you're abusing some of the phrases here. BDSM refers to the superset of behaviors that we all explore. This includes SM, d/s, m/s, age play, genderfuck, fisting, bondage, and many others. To say that an m/s relationship exists without bdsm, that is, that an m/s relationship exists without m/s doesn't really make sense. While the relationship might continue to exist, in the absence of m/s, it wouldn't really be an m/s relationship. If you're trying to ask whether an m/s relationship could exist without SM, then my answer is that yes, it can. It's all about how the participants set up the relationship initially. Modern parenting fashion has punishment out of vogue. The idea is that talk to your kid, to offer distractions, and to offer positive encouragement and positive reinforcement instead. I believe that the same techniques could be used to "train" a slave even without punishment. Of course, it's also an open question of whether "training" would even be a part of an m/s relationship. It might. It might not. It all depends on what you negotiate.

thetammyjo -> RE: Another question if you please... (9/15/2007 2:39:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jaxnsax I guess my question is this: for the dominants Do you feel that some aspect of BDSM must be present in your relationship for you ( the dominant ) to maintain total control? Or is it of little to no importance? And why? jaxon I see DS as part of BDSM -- so since I see it as such, of course my DS will involve BDSM. I'm confused. How do you define BDSM if it does not include DS? Are you asking about particular activities? Philosophical underpinnings? Ethical or moral issues?

arayofsunshine55 -> RE: Another question if you please... (9/15/2007 3:10:59 PM)
BDSM makes me wet. It does not reinforce who we are. The strength of my own will does that. Very well.

MadRabbit -> RE: Another question if you please... (9/15/2007 3:28:14 PM)
A lot of people, including myself, consider BDSM and M/S to be two seperate schools of thought. To me, BDSM revolves around primarily sexuality while M/S is a type of relationship. The notion that BDSM is in the sense of toys, spankings, and scenes has to be part of an M/S relationship so the Master can maintain control is a juvenile understanding of M/S relationships nor does it pan out logically. I consider to be juvenile solely because of the statement of "maintain control". This implys that somehow the relationship is a power struggle or a battle or a fight. I find that to be wrong and I dont want a power struggle or a fight or a battle to maintain control in my relationships. I want someone who desires to please and to serve because this is her core purpose and is finding fulfillment by obeying and making things go smootly as opposed to being a pain in my ass. At best, I would say that without an interest in BDSM, a Master is going to have a much smaller pool of partners to select from, given the large number of slaves/submissives who are also bottoms. Personally, I am not looking for someone who's obedience is depedant on how many spankings I give her a week. Finnally... Can I tell you what to do and then you do it without ever once tieing each other to our chairs?

TNstepsout -> RE: Another question if you please... (9/15/2007 3:34:11 PM)
I don't think you need to have BDSM (what I always thought was Bondage/Discipline/Sado/Masochism) to have a D/s relationship. It's actually the other way around. Although not 100% true, BDSM usually needs a D/s dynamic to work, even if it's only for the period of a scene. After all, if both are equal and the one says "get on your knees" and the other says "Why do I have to be the one to get on my knees?" it just doesn't quite work.

devotedsylph -> RE: Another question if you please... (9/15/2007 3:43:01 PM)
To throw in a girl's perspective. . . I am the female slave of a M/s relationship. We do not engage in any BDSM activities at all. By BDSM activities, I mean things like bondage, fisting, sadistic, masochistic, needle play, etc. behaviors. simply, sylph

celticlord2112 -> RE: Another question if you please... (9/15/2007 3:49:52 PM)
quote: Do you feel that some aspect of BDSM must be present in your relationship for you ( the dominant ) to maintain total control? Or is it of little to no importance? And why? "Total control" is to my mind itself an aspect of BDSM (the "DS" in BDSM). Outward kink is fun, but not required to sustain the TPE dynamic.

jaxnsax -> RE: Another question if you please... (9/15/2007 4:31:01 PM)
Greetings I realized something after TreasureKY made her remark about discipline; I had never even stopped to think about discipline and punishment when taking into account BDSM ( and for the record, because it was asked at one point… I do tend to think of BDSM more in terms of scenes and playing; though I am aware that others define it differently ) Also, like a few others, I do tend to totally separate BDSM from M/s or D/s ( which I tend to see more in a dynamic sense than anything else ) With that said, Teamnoir said something that really touched on what I was asking. He said I believe that the same techniques could be used to "train" a slave even without punishment Even though I do not like the word ‘train’, this is where my actual curiosity over the question came from. My confusion came from forgetting to include ‘discipline’ in my thinking though; even though I am still curious as to how one would do this without ‘physical’ discipline. Someone on the other side partially answered this for me; he said something that struck a chord submission exists only when it is freely given without the fear of reprisal. It is the outward manifestation of the submissives respect for the dominant. I actually found this to be close to what I was asking; though I admit, the “how’ is still present in my mind. Thank you all for your input J I am sort of coming to the conclusion that I ask wayyyyyyyyy too many questions lol J jaxon

ThinkingKitten -> RE: Another question if you please... (9/15/2007 6:40:07 PM)
I understood the acronym BDSM to incorporate the D and the S as also meaning the D/s dyamic (D=Discipline and Domination, S=Sadism and Submission). You could strip away ALL the physical trappings of such a relationship and the D/s dynamic can still exist as a state of mind between the individuals involved.

RRafe -> RE: Another question if you please... (9/15/2007 6:42:29 PM)
Doesn't need to be-but I'm a fetishist. But I'm not going to sweat things that should happen organically. If it's not in a girl-no manner of me jumping through hoops is likely to bring it out. Learned that the hard way.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125