RE: "we" as an example

RE: "we" as an example (Full Version)

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

Message

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: "we" as an example (11/20/2007 8:51:39 PM)
Considered in that he definitely wanted it to happen at some point but simply didn't have the know how or appropriate context in which to do it but would at some point have done it. And trust me, it's fairly well known that I have no problems with all three of those "obvious limits" given the right context and in fact enjoy engaging in at least one quite a lot.

SimplyMichael -> RE: "we" as an example (11/20/2007 10:37:26 PM)
LA, You never cease to amaze and impress me. BSB and I have set meeting you as one of our goals.

ownedgirlie -> RE: "we" as an example (11/20/2007 11:28:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross And trust me, it's fairly well known that I have no problems with all three of those "obvious limits" given the right context and in fact enjoy engaging in at least one quite a lot. I'm almost right there with you, that I have no problem with 2 out of the 3. As for the list Michael posted, it's been my experience that most folks on these forums have a problem with all or most of those items, let alone the public at large.

BoiJen -> RE: "we" as an example (11/21/2007 6:14:14 AM)
personally..I only list "death, pink, men, and scat" as limits. Death is only because I can only do it once. I'ma freak. However, if I need to mention no UMs or animals...I don't wanna be playing with that person. I really don't want to even associate with that person at all. And I got money 90% of, if not more, the "general BDSM population" feels that way. I also think some people have a kink for the fantasy and will work that out in a consenting adult manner. I also believe some people who aren't educated see terms like "Daddy/lil girl" relationships and freak if UMs are anywhere near that relationship. No matter what is or is not happening. As far as animals...well they do consent mostly when they do stuff...they bite and kick and scratch when they don't consent. And that's an honest truth. Ever clicked on a freaky animal sex site and seen the animal growling and biting? Nope. And those are the biggest things I gotta say about it

mountainpet -> RE: "we" as an example (11/21/2007 7:48:47 AM)
I think, when people list these things as limits, they do so for the same purpose they list other limits- because they are things they don't do, don't want to be involved in, and don't condone. Why do we mention them? Because they do happen in the real world- they aren't made up- and they happen in the name of bdsm. Bdsm, by nature, does do some things that are reprehensible and beyond the pale to lots of people, and we do make up cutsie little deceptive names for some of the things we do, which imply that they are illegal- such as slavery. Hell, we even do some things that are illegal. Admittedly, the incidence of these "forbidden" topics is so rare that it's probably not necessary to list them as limits. Buy why wouldn't we? In vanilla correspondence, it isn't normally necessary for people to say they don't kill people, but if you are trying to hire a cop, enlist a soldier, or even a bodyguard, you might want to know if their limits include not killing people.

SimplyMichael -> RE: "we" as an example (11/21/2007 8:20:36 AM)
Listing only those three came out of idiotic chatrooms where much of the other stupidity comes from.

Jeffff -> RE: "we" as an example (11/21/2007 8:51:19 AM)
I agree, chat rooms dispense more nonsense than any form of media. If you have ever spent any time in one, and I have because I enjoy mocking, you will here the most ridiculous things said as gospel. Jeff

RCdc -> RE: "we" as an example (11/21/2007 9:46:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Synocense No, I (personally) do not and will not include these 'kinks' in bdsm - not mine and not yours. That is judgmental, I know and I will probably burn in collarme hell for it. If they choose to do anything illegal as stated, they can give themselves another name. What you have said is precisely what I want to see vanish -- any of those activities and the like, not associated with bdsm. Syn 'I do not and will not include these kinks in bdsm - not mine mine and not yours?' - It's not in anyway judgemental, but its messed up on consent. Do what you want in 'your' bdsm - but push your bdsm into others and that is fucked up. And illegal? There are any number of illegal activities in BDSM depending on what country or state you live in - some are listed on your profile, so really don't go bringing that into discussion. What you define as BDSM isn't necessarily what is BDSM - and in reverse. You do not own it - no one does. There is no god and goddess of BDSM - no divine entity leaving hints and clues and laws. Defining what goes into BDSM would be destroying its validity and it's strength and undermining every single uniqueness and person involved. This isn't a nazi controlled environment of so-called 'perfection' and if it ever came down to that, I would certainly show that nazi the door. the.dark.

YourhandMyAss -> RE: "we" as an example (11/21/2007 11:21:51 AM)
I think it's kind of ironic too. Given a choice I really doubt the animal on the plate would have jumped up from the heard volunteerd me me me take me, and happily gone to slaughter. quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael I get sick about people who list animals as a limit because they cannot consent and then EAT one for dinner, talk about hypocrisy!

LaTigresse -> RE: "we" as an example (11/21/2007 12:11:49 PM)
Personally, I see that thought process as, scrambling to find a way to justify a kink that many people find noxious. Pure silliness.

laurell3 -> RE: "we" as an example (11/21/2007 12:24:26 PM)
No offense LT, but the problem with this whole thread is that we don't have to justify our kink at all, none of us do. And we can put in our profiles whatever we want, all of us can. And there is not an ounce of merit to the idea that our profiles control how the outside world sees us. It's that simple.

LaTigresse -> RE: "we" as an example (11/21/2007 12:35:21 PM)
Oh laurell, I agree for the most part. Except, at some point, we will all have to justify our actions to someone, somewhere, somehow. It is inevitable. As for how the world in general sees me, simply because I don't view it as "outside world", that remains to be seen. I would like to think that those that matter to me see a combination of the whole. All the stuff they consider bad, and all the stuff they consider good. Obviously that will vary depending upon who is doing the viewing. But I really do think that for all of us, regardless of lifestyle, there is almost always a point of having to justify our personal actions. Even if it is years after the fact. Shit has a way of resurfacing when you least expect it. Ask any public figure.......or someone that's gone through a messy divorce.[:D] edited because mess is messier with a "y"

domiguy -> RE: "we" as an example (11/21/2007 1:17:23 PM)
I personally think it is sll a bunch of shit....Society hates itself ...There really is no cohesive society...."To catch a Predator" the guys who show up look normal, they are not leather folk or Trekkies or wearing John Norman t-shirts. They are a slice of everyday America. It's personal preference...I despise the word "community" in talking about wiitid....If the fact that I share a small aspect of my persona with some of you makes us a community....Well then I need to sell and move.....I read the posts I see the profiles....The majority of us have very little in common....I am as judgmental about the folks out here as I am about my next door "church going" neighbor....You know, the one with those fucking dogs that bark all night and the huge wife with the facial hair. There are people you get along with, that you seek out for their company...Just because we share a common kink or two does not mean that I would enjoy your company or that I want to acknowledge that I am part of any type of a larger kink based community.

BitaTruble -> RE: "we" as an example (11/21/2007 2:52:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Besides, I get sick about people who list animals as a limit because they cannot consent and then EAT one for dinner, talk about hypocrisy! [sm=applause.gif] Not just for dinner .. but turn them into floggers, belts, hats, shoes, jackets etc. So, to the humans in the forums.. which would 'you' choose. Wanna die and be turned into a next weeks pot roast .. or wanna have some crazy ass sex? Why does this seem like such a no brainer to me? ::chuckles:: Celeste

YourhandMyAss -> RE: "we" as an example (11/21/2007 3:56:53 PM)
I'll take weird sex please, as long as they prommise to spank me while I am being fucked[:D] quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Besides, I get sick about people who list animals as a limit because they cannot consent and then EAT one for dinner, talk about hypocrisy! [sm=applause.gif] Not just for dinner .. but turn them into floggers, belts, hats, shoes, jackets etc. So, to the humans in the forums.. which would 'you' choose. Wanna die and be turned into a next weeks pot roast .. or wanna have some crazy ass sex? Why does this seem like such a no brainer to me? ::chuckles:: Celeste

Synocense -> RE: "we" as an example (11/22/2007 8:55:15 AM)
"Do what you want in 'your' bdsm - but push your bdsm into others and that is fucked up. " That is what this thread is about - Removing the things I stated in my original post from the heading BDSM. As I have said, I know they exist and those who engage can and will do as they wish, but call it something else. Also, as a note, "the mainstream" "society" "vanillas" whatever you want to call them, do come and read our profiles and articles. They write essays for school, use the information for seminars and political rallies, moreso than we realize. And illegal? There are any number of illegal activities in BDSM depending on what country or state you live in - some are listed on your profile, so really don't go bringing that into discussion. I did write "illegal as stated" -- referring to the three things in my original post instead of renaming them and causing the mods discomfort. I am, admittingly, not a perfect law abiding citizen and am not claiming to be better. Defining what goes into BDSM would be destroying its validity and it's strength and undermining every single uniqueness and person involved. I disagree. When you see the arrest and conviction of a child molester on the news, do you say to yourself "oh man, he/she is just engaging in bdsm, wish they would just leave us alone." It is not about me defining your bdsm, it is my attempt at US defining bdsm as a whole. Thank you for your thoughts. Syn

RCdc -> RE: "we" as an example (11/22/2007 9:13:52 AM)
Again, I repeat - do what you want with your BDSM, but do not include everyone elses BDSM. You are forcing by trying to remove anything you don't like. As I said, when BDSM becomes a nazi society, I will close the door on the nazi. quote: When you see the arrest and conviction of a child molester on the news, do you say to yourself "oh man, he/she is just engaging in bdsm, wish they would just leave us alone." No I do not. But then, I wouldn't think the same of someone convicted of manslaughter after an accidental eroticasphyxiation accident. I don't 'do' -them-and-us- attitudes. It reeks of seperation and superiority. quote: It is not about me defining your bdsm, it is my attempt at US defining bdsm as a whole. And who made you god over the BDSM domain to be the one to define it? 'BDSM' is my BDSM. It is already defined. In the end - you're attempt simply draws attention to that which you are trying to deny and is self defeating. the.dark.

laurell3 -> RE: "we" as an example (11/22/2007 11:00:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Synocense That is what this thread is about - Removing the things I stated in my original post from the heading BDSM. As I have said, I know they exist and those who engage can and will do as they wish, but call it something else. Also, as a note, "the mainstream" "society" "vanillas" whatever you want to call them, do come and read our profiles and articles. They write essays for school, use the information for seminars and political rallies, moreso than we realize. Assuming that is even true, which I highly doubt would have any impact whatsoever on the general vanilla public, having profiles saying we DO NOT do those things in no way proves the opposite is true for the majority, in fact the opposite. There is no way in hell we are going to make wiitwd acceptable to them. If we say we only do a, b and c, they are still going to find fault with a, b, and c and assume we do d-z. It's the equivalent of asking us to accept a mass murderer. It just is not going to happen. Stop worrying about the anonymous "them" that doesn't accept the anonymous "us" and get on with life.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125