RE: Traditional vs Contemproary Domination (Full Version)

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



Message

scottjk -> RE: Traditional vs Contemproary Domination (1/2/2008 2:38:17 PM)

quote:

We should let adults take care of themselves.

 
That's not my point, Shawn, and it wasn't the OP's point either. Thankfully, there's a difference in rules between discussion and debate as well, so I get to follow the rules of discussion. ;)
 
See how it all works out? :)
 
As for my dislike for SSC? I said nothing of the kind.
 
'nuff said.
 



LotusSong -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 2:55:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Ds does not have to include BDSM.  For some Ds relationships, BDSM is an absolute.  For some it is not.
 
I do not have rules.  Darcy does.  Those are what are submitted to, not convention.
Everyone has rules and their own structure.  Not everyone is conventional.
Your retort makes no sense.

And you still have not defined the programme so I will assume this is because there is no definition.  That indicates that there is no specific rules or st
structure for a definition would exude these as a quality pertaining to this 'programme'.  If there was - surely you would be able to define them.
 
the.dark.

 
When I came to this all... the rules (unspoken as they were..well, some were posted)
 
Discretion.. the whole world doesn't need to know your "business".  What happens in the dungeon, stays in the dungeon. 
 
Privacy
 
Simple manners
 
Be prepared to "write the check" if you fuck up.
 
You have a right to be selective of those you wish to interact with.
 
Mind your own business,
 


I remembered a few more:
 
No booze or drugs
 
No one under 21.



SeeksOnlyOne -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 2:55:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong

Thank god for TNG :)  They took the initiative and created their own situation.  While they thought the older group was blocking them out..they understood the situation. They didn't keep going to the older groups and crying that there wasn't anything there for them.  They saw a need for their own and filled it.
 
You will never understand this situation until time has passed and you look back on it all.  Try not to be TOO embarrassed :)  It happens to us all.


so TNG groups never discuss the following in their meetings and relationships?

bdsm
d/s
m/s
s&m


as for not being embarrassed, i hope you can not be too embarrassed when you finally see how much more utterly condescending and holier than thou you get with each item you add to this thread.....

imho, you made some really good points totally worthless by the way you chose to add your own "i am right and the rest are wrong" attitude.

rules schmules.......keep the ones you want to and allow others to do the same

i wanna sing "youre not the boss of me" now for some reason....probably my basic lack of maturity and dislike of someone trying to exert ungiven authority on me.





LotusSong -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 2:59:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: catize

quote:

 Mind your own business,  


 
Now that is irony at its finest.



Obviously, you're still working on that one?  You are trying way too hard to find fault, sweety.  LOL!
 
Let's get back to the original gist of the post..  the need for and lack of a structure that defines wiitwd. 



camille65 -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 3:00:27 PM)

What precisely, are the structures that you feel are so lacking?



Jeffff -> RE: Traditional vs Contemproary Domination (1/2/2008 3:02:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Was there any other school to go to?

You a Harvard man or something?

Wm. F. Buckley


I met a German girl in England who was goin to school in France
and we did the mississippi at an alpa kappa dance!

Geroge Thorogood



RCdc -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 3:05:16 PM)

But Lotus, those do not only define BDSM - nor Ds - they simply define a relationship set within the confines of legal morality.  Nothing more than that.  I could take those and place them on anything.  It doesn;t define whatever it is you are trying to define - my question to you is what makes it what it is?
I presumed that you had the definition for the 'programme' as you indicated such.  However I cannot see any clear definition that defines whatever the 'programme' is.
 
the.dark.



camille65 -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 3:07:18 PM)

Nor do I see that laid out. 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

I presumed that you had the definition for the 'programme' as you indicated such.  However I cannot see any clear definition that defines whatever the 'programme' is.
 
the.dark.




Jeffff -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 3:10:04 PM)

Some people crave structure.some don't. I have no objections  to those that do, just don't tell me how I should behave.

Jeff



Decimus -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 3:14:32 PM)

quote:


Face it.. we have stolen and bastardized this "lifestyle" from the gay male community  .. it was theirs to begin with.


This is a fast response having only gotten to page two, I just couldn't stop laughing at this.

Sorry Lotus, but I'm going to have to agree with all the rest of the people :) I don't know what "lifestyle" you are referring to but I gaurentee it was around before the gay male leather community....ever hear of a group called the Greeks and later the Romans? I know it was a while ago but they had a thing called power dynamic back then much with the varying "lifestyles" now..both gay and non..I seem to remember in history there was also a group of women that were at war with the Greeks(slightly north and to the west of Athens along the coast, however it was a VERY LONG journey back then :) ). They had a female dominated society, as the Roman Catholic church had not attempted to completely obliterate it yet....that got turned into the storybook modern day vision of the "Amazons" which of course is nothing like they lived, lol. Oh the wonders of history and interpetation.



LotusSong -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 3:14:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeeksOnlyOne



so TNG groups never discuss the following in their meetings and relationships?

bdsm
d/s
m/s
s&m


<snarkiness deleted>




I would hope so! .. and enjoy it in their OWN world.



Decimus -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 3:17:55 PM)

Now back to the "needing" of structure itself, some people need it and others do not. Same reason that people look for structure in life in the form of religon or not. Some need it some don't. Everyone is different. The only universal rule in a domination based relationship is, "At some point in time one person is in charge and another is not. It may not even be the same person continuously however one person gives up control either willingly or unwillingly and one person has control."



SeeksOnlyOne -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 3:21:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeeksOnlyOne



so TNG groups never discuss the following in their meetings and relationships?

bdsm
d/s
m/s
s&m


<snarkiness deleted>




I would hope so! .. and enjoy it in their OWN world.


not to appear snarky, but if they can enjoy it in their own world, then why cant you? and why cant everyone else?

what is this almighty glob of rules you are speaking of and who do you want them to apply to?

if its the rule everyone is entitled to enjoy their own relationships,  in their own world, wiht their own definitions of what titles and labels mean,  without interferance from others-then we agree 100%.

so i dont understand the point of this thread even more now



MadRabbit -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 3:25:51 PM)

ROFL. I gave up after the first three pages.

I can only take so many innaccurate and abstract BDSM projections from the worldly "elder" wisdon of a narrow minded elitist. I was really impressed how the age card was once again twisted into this. I was almost afraid I would miss out on yet another even more narrow-minded conscending patronization.

Clearly my relationships that are constructed according to my personal preferences has nothing to do with...I don't know...personal fulfillment and is just me in my youthful naivity rebeling against the great law and order set forthy by the Kansas Leather Munch group one night at Starbucks.

So...anyone care to explain to me what a bunch of gay men having sex back in the 50's has to do with my own personal sexual and relationship desires that were discovered prior to me ever hearing the phrase "Old Guard"?



camille65 -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 3:26:32 PM)

I for one am giving up on receiving an actual response to the question 'What rules, exactly are you speaking of?' and am going to go eat my icky ramen noodle thingie. That seems less tangled than this!



MadRabbit -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 3:30:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: camille65

I for one am giving up on receiving an actual response to the question 'What rules, exactly are you speaking of?' and am going to go eat my icky ramen noodle thingie. That seems less tangled than this!


Well, you will just have to wait until you grow up and become all wise and special and elderly like LotusSong and learn for yourself. She simply can't tell you, silly child! It would add some actual creditibility to her metaphysical garbage.



Jeffff -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 3:31:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

ROFL. I gave up after the first three pages.

I can only take so many innaccurate and abstract BDSM projections from the worldly "elder" wisdon of a narrow minded elitist. I was really impressed how the age card was once again twisted into this. I was almost afraid I would miss out on yet another even more narrow-minded conscending patronization.

Clearly my relationships that are constructed according to my personal preferences has nothing to do with...I don't know...personal fulfillment and is just me in my youthful naivity rebeling against the great law and order set forthy by the Kansas Leather Munch group one night at Starbucks.

So...anyone care to explain to me what a bunch of gay men having sex back in the 50's has to do with my own personal sexual and relationship desires that were discovered prior to me ever hearing the phrase "Old Guard"?



Clearly if it has to be explained.you wouldn't understand...........I think....

Jeff



camille65 -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 3:33:01 PM)

Now now, she did compliment the 'kids'. She gave approval over them staying in their place and not bothering the grown ups.I think I'm older than her, so if I haven't reached adulthood by now I probably never will [:D].



MadRabbit -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 3:34:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

Clearly if it has to be explained.you wouldn't understand...........I think....

Jeff


That phenomena seems to happen quite a lot on these boards



Jeffff -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 3:39:04 PM)

Only if you pay carefull attention.........I try not to let that ruin a good time

Jeff



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875