quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

If I heard someone say that they lived the bdsm lifestyle....I would know that I have little in common with them...If BDSM is at the pinnacle of their existance I don't know which would be worse...Them, Trekkies....Or that other group that dwells on these forums.   My God, how could I forget to mention the Druids or the Wiccans?

quote:

ORIGINAL: xoxi

LOL

You forgot furries, vampyres-with-a-y, and people who have been playing dungeons and drageons so long that they truly believe they are a mythological creature.  But only in the 'astral realm.'

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

If you define the word lifestyle, that would basically come down to living in a certain style.
Like 50's Lifestyle.
Biker Lifestyle.
Etc...
 
However, seeing as BDSM is an acronym that is for Bondage,Discipline,(Domination/submission)Sadism and Masochism, that basically means that as long as that is all involved(or one of), that is what the Lifestyle is.  Not munches, or groups, or play parties, or online yahoo groups or websites or bookwriting.
 
However people do not refere to it in that way.  They use it to convey that they have some sort of social network, which is not what the word means, even if they want it to imply it.  If people meant the words as they stand, I could see it working.  But they don't - so it doesn't rock for me.
 
Peace
the.dark.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xoxi

I don't think that definitions should be changed just to make people feel better though....if anything I think that they should be secure enough with their sense of self to be proud of the category that they fall into.  It's like when 'working class' people demand that they be considered middle class, or when middle class people demand to be considered upper class...why stretch the definition to include them simply because they want to be included in what THEY think is better? Why not just be proud of who they are?

1. The way of living of a group or individual.
2. A fashionable way of living

My own words again:  Given these definitions, the first would seem to preclude that living a BDSM lifestyle necessarily includes socializing with anyone other than their partner(s), if that is what the two (or more) of them choose.  If two or more people engage in Bondage, Discipline, Sadism, and or Masochism with each other, then according to the first definition, they are living a BDSM lifestyle. 

Now, if they choose to go to munches and play parties and/or fetish fairs while still engaging in Bondage, Discipline, Sadism and Masochism alone or in public ( I would think it would have to be at least occasionally public), then they are engaging in the second definition, at least when it comes to the "fashionable" part.

I've known couples who never go and play, who do not wear fetish wear in public at the fairs or at play parties but who engage in BDSM at home.  These people were also usually engaged in a D/s or M/s relationship with each other and had no desire to engage in much of the social interaction except as they felt prudent and necessary to further enhance their own BSM "lifestyle".

Personally, it is not a word I have ever cared for that much.  I don't necessarily dig being fashionable or cool as defined by others.  I was in the military at a time when it wasn't cool to be in the military...it wasn't the "correct" lifestyle...but it was what I wanted, needed, and felt internally right about at the time.  It would have been 10 times easier to have kept living the "lifestyle" I was living before my divorce but it wasn't right to me any longer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofMists

quote:

ORIGINAL: xoxi

I don't think that definitions should be changed just to make people feel better though....if anything I think that they should be secure enough with their sense of self to be proud of the category that they fall into.  It's like when 'working class' people demand that they be considered middle class, or when middle class people demand to be considered upper class...why stretch the definition to include them simply because they want to be included in what THEY think is better? Why not just be proud of who they are?

one thing about a person's definition is the message it send about themselves.

IE... A racist would define any non-white as less intelligent etc etc.

Well.... I don't have to be insecure or weak to find the defintion offense and derogatory.  But the defintion this person gives does reflect their principles and values.  Principles and values that I can judge to be not suited to myself and even see the person negatively.  So... I can be proud of who I am and still see another person's definitions to be lacking in my personal view.  Just because I see the definition as offense and derogatory doesn't mean that I am myself am insulted or feel slighted.  But it does say that... this is one person I see as lacking.. and depending on the degree would depend on the sort of involve I would consider with the person.  A racist for example would not get my acknowledgement.. others may get alittle more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xoxi
Well yeah a racist would say a non white is less intelligent.  Others would disagree.

But that doesn't mean the term 'non white' is derogatory.

Just like some people see the term 'non-bdsm-lifestyler' as less important.  Others would disagree.

It doesn't mean the term 'non-bdsm-lifestyler' is derogatory.