|
MmeGigs -> RE: "true" BDSM (8/18/2008 7:54:46 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: leadership527
Sadly, if the BDSM community were not so intent on declaring how different it was from the rest of reality and therefor having to re-invent the wheel over and over, it probably would be possible to lay out some general characteristics of what it means to be a good dom or a good sub in general without reference to a specific relationship.
I don't think that it's possible to objectively quantify "good dom" or "good sub" without reference to a specific relationship. These things only exist in the context of a relationship. I can argue that I'm a dom whether or not I have a sub, but being a "good dom" is mostly about the way that I express my domliness in the context of my relationship(s), is it not? Any definition of "good dom" or "good sub" that folks could come up with that would get fairly broad agreement would have to be so general and non-specific or so full of disclaimers that it would be pretty much meaningless. It's like trying to define "good employee" without reference to a specific job. Doesn't steal from the company, is decent to coworkers/clients/customers, performs tasks to the employer's satisfaction... when you start getting more specific that this, you start having a lot of exceptions. Same-same with kink.
quote:
But such discussions are boundary triggers in the BDSM world and the BDSM safe-word gets trotted out.. don't judge my kink.
I've seen a lot of these discussions and declarations over the years - both the "We need common definitions" and "Don't judge my kink" stuff. They're common as dandelions. Attempts to objectively define kinky roles and come up with commonly accepted definitions do annoy me, but I'm pretty sure I don't fall into the "intent on declaring how different" camp.
I feel blessed that my first forays into the world of BDSM philosophy were in a venue where YKIOK (Your Kink Is OK) was the prevailing culture - SSBB on usenet, for those of you who've been there (and I know some of you were). Many of the folks there 10+ years ago are the folks whose books are nearly required reading in the kinky world these days. While there was some disagreement on really edgy things like breathplay and guns, for the most part the culture was very intolerant of intolerance. I learned a lot from participating in that venue that shaped a kink/life philosophy that I feel very comfortable with:
- If you and your partner(s) are happy, it's none of anyone's business what you're doing unless you ask for their opinion or invite them to join you.
- My squicks do not define everyone else's limits. Unless I'm ready to call the authorities or personally intervene to stop folks from doing something, it's not my place to tell them they shouldn't be doing it.
- Kinks are neither OK nor Not OK - it's all in the way you act them out. I can kiss someone in a Not OK way (I have freinds who are rather kiss-phobic), and could kill someone in an OK way (imagine beloved spouse or partner in final, painful stages of terminal disease who wanted to go out with a bang). We're all very different and want very different things, and consent is the only more or less objective delimiter we have between OK and Not OK.
- Anyone who claims to know the One True Way, to be a "true", "natural" or "real" sub/dom/top/bottom/whatever, or to have a precise definition for the labels we use is probably full of shit and should be ignored, giggled at, or strongly encouraged to adopt a more inclusive worldview.
quote:
I absolutely could lay down some fundamentals for what a "true leader" looked like in any other context.
Would those things be more than broad generalizations? The qualities needed in a "true leader" depend on the context - the relationship the leader has with those they are leading. The requirements for a fast food shift manager would be very different from those for a volunteer coordinator or high-school teacher or parent or elected official, but all of these folks are leaders.
What benefit is there in objectively defining "good dom" or "good sub" when the only judgments of domliness or subliness that are the least bit important are those subjective judgments made in the context of a relationship?
|
|
|
|
