The De-Demonization Thread (Full Version)

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



Message

NihilusZero -> The De-Demonization Thread (12/9/2009 12:30:49 PM)

One of the recurring habits I see of people here and elsewhere is the predisposition to see an unattractive hypothetical in theory and permanently stick that label on it across the board. Obviously we all are free to choose the things we like and want to do in a relationship, but we are also able to have our views morph over time or under certain circumstances. We just typically react defensively when it comes up as a topic in debate/conversation, at which point a default skepticism that someone is attempting to 'convert' us takes over.

This also goes back to my concerns with how liberally the YKINMKBYKIOK (YourKinkIsNotMyKinkButYourKinkIsOKay) adage really gets applied...because there always seems to be a threshold beyond which we individually do not openly accept or respect the choices of others' relationships (I try to avoid using "kink" specifically because this isn't just about kink to many).

With that in mind, it occurred to me that there is one nearly universal means by which a certain enlightenment about the 'okayness' of other things comes about without much resistance: exposure to a positive real case of the thing you think is always bad.

So, my intent with this thread involves the introduction of two roles:

  • 1) To welcome people to come in here and propose certain things/facets about WIITWD they see as 'bad' (even the more extreme or taboo ones) and to feel free to express why they view that specific thing as negative (either to themselves or to others).
  • 2) To welcome people who read the posts of people doing #1 to share their personal positive experiences if they happen to be in a relationship that engages in the very thing the other poster views negatively.

That's it in a nutshell.

Now, while I know it's not possible to actually create thread-related rules and enforce them, I would like to lay some ground-etiquette that I hope posters will follow in order for this to actually be a beneficial experience and not an argument-fest:

1 - No debating someone's views. The whole point here is to accept that the people writing #1s honestly feel negatively (or are confused) about the thing they are writing. No deconstructing their reasons. No showing why the logic is faulty. No demeaning them for having it (even if it's blatant...e.g. "I don't understand how men can submit and still be men!"). Also, no debating the personal sharing of the people who write #2s. No arguing the veracity or sensibility of their stories or their relationships. No reducing their comments to "unhealthy" status because you still cannot comprehend how they can be happy in that situation.

2 - Work under the presumption that people actually taking the time to contribute to this thread are being honest. The idea, hopefully, is that honest expression of thinking something is negative when replied to by another's expression of how that very thing is a positive in their life may help everyone strip away stereotypical veils of bias. At very least, it means we get to further understand how not everyone marches to the same drum and yet can still be happy in their lives.

3 - It would probably streamline the thread more if people writing both #1s and #2s started each post with the title of the topic they are concerned/curious about (e.g. a post that starts with: "Sharing your s-type sexually with others", followed by a break and a new paragraph then going into the specifics of why they cannot wrap their understanding around it.). This way, people can wander in here and see if a certain topic has been tossed into the arena that they happen to be living.

In the end, the underlying thought is that sometimes all it takes is to be able to see someone else happily living with something you find abhorrent to stop and wonder if maybe it isn't as abhorrent as you thought. Not that such would mean you have to incorporate it into your life at all...but just that when you hear or read about that topic in the future, you'll remember that it isn't "all bad all the time"; a worldview that, I think, would benefit us all.

So...off you go! [:D]



allthatjaz -> RE: The De-Demonization Thread (12/9/2009 1:18:13 PM)

Debating society rules would be great but I suspect its going to be near on impossible on a site like this ?!?!

Unnecessary talk about juvenile years.
My absolute hate is a certain chat room banter that funnily enough so many people find ok. That particular banter goes like this...
Someone asks the room who was spanked as a kid. Suddenly all these women are giving their story. The initial questioner and other guys want more details often intimate details and at this point I step in and say 'what the fuck' at which point I am ejected from the room. I find this sort of talk not only unacceptable but really disturbing. If my guy ever wanted to go into detail about the punishment I had as a kid I would be running for the hills and not looking back






Justme696 -> RE: The De-Demonization Thread (12/9/2009 1:25:28 PM)

Etiquette is a good thing, but depends on people behaviour. And there is the problem.
But I like the idea.

Better would be rules and enforce them.....we need mods!! lots of them.



breatheasone -> RE: The De-Demonization Thread (12/9/2009 1:31:09 PM)

VERY good idea that will never work.



MasterSlaveLA -> RE: The De-Demonization Thread (12/9/2009 2:27:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero


So, my intent with this thread involves the introduction of two roles:
  • 1) To welcome people to come in here and propose certain things/facets about WIITWD they see as 'bad' (even the more extreme or taboo ones) and to feel free to express why they view that specific thing as negative (either to themselves or to others).

  • 2) To welcome people who read the posts of people doing #1 to share their personal positive experiences if they happen to be in a relationship that engages in the very thing the other poster views negatively.


That's it in a nutshell.



These aren't things that I view as "bad", per se... just a bit silly, and smacks of internet fantasy BDSM:

1)  The "Under Consideration" thing
2)  The "Under Protection" thing




Elisabella -> Saying "He can kill me if he wants to" (12/9/2009 3:12:14 PM)

#1

Extreme "internal slavery" that tends to come around to the idea that the Dom/Master can kill the slave if he wants to and the slave is okay with that.

Why do I think it's bad? I have mixed feelings on this...I think that anyone who thinks this way is likely too stupid to live, so in theory I should probably be okay with it, but at the same time it utterly disgusts me that someone can think this way.

Related corollaries tend to be things like "he can break my bones if he wants" or "he can whore me out if he wants" (assuming that the s-type doesn't actually get off on being shared, that they'd 'suffer through it' because the master wanted) or any other form of "he can do things that will damage my body or mind but it's okay because I am his slave and as a slave I have no rights."

I guess that's what it boils down to - the "I have no rights" thing. How can someone so utterly lack self-preservation? IMO "I have no rights" is fine if you're saying, oh I don't know, I can't have coffee without permission or I have to sit where he tells me...but "I have no right to protect myself from serious bodily harm" takes it too far.

I'm guessing from the OP that if you have separate things you want to post about they should be done in separate posts to facilitate responses so I'll brb and do that [8D]



DomImus -> RE: The De-Demonization Thread (12/9/2009 3:18:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
In the end, the underlying thought is that sometimes all it takes is to be able to see someone else happily living with something you find abhorrent to stop and wonder if maybe it isn't as abhorrent as you thought. Not that such would mean you have to incorporate it into your life at all...but just that when you hear or read about that topic in the future, you'll remember that it isn't "all bad all the time"; a worldview that, I think, would benefit us all.


I don't see how accepting the fact that something different works for someone else and stating your views on the case are mutually exclusive. There are many things that I would never incorporate into my life that I have no problem with other people's incorporation of same in their lives. As long as it does not include me it does not affect me. I fail to see how expressing my opinion on the matter (particularly if they brought up the subject) precludes them from being able to pursue that activity.

This is a public forum. Yeah, it gets dirty sometimes but I hardly think it requires the level of sanitation that you suggest.

Just my two cents.




Elisabella -> Animal play and Daddy play (12/9/2009 3:21:44 PM)

#1
"Daddy" and animal play as sexualized roles

These two have a bit in common for me, because they are sexualizing things that IMO shouldn't be sexualized (ie father figures and animals) and it just kind of squicks me. Like "oh hai I'm pretending to be a dog and you're a person so lets go have sex now" or "you're like a father to me, can I go suck your cock now Daddy"

I don't understand what's so sexual about these roles, I mean I can kinda get it if *both* people were pretending to be a puppy, but if one's pretending to be the owner, and the other is the dog, and they have sex...well...wtf.

The "Daddy" thing I often hear explained in the context of "a paternal like father figure" but even if the dominant takes a paternal role in a relationship you don't have to actually call him "Daddy" - it's not the role itself that confuses me on this one, simply the name. I can get if you identify them as "paternal" or even "fatherlike" but to call him "Daddy" is saying he is in the father role. Not in a role like it, but actually in that role, which means you're basically roleplaying having sex with your surrogate father.



Aileen1968 -> Re The De-Demonization Thread (12/9/2009 3:24:59 PM)

People who keep changing the name of the thread...



Hierodule -> RE: The De-Demonization Thread (12/9/2009 3:33:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: allthatjaz
If my guy ever wanted to go into detail about the punishment I had as a kid I would be running for the hills and not looking back


Positive: I'm not sure if this counts but I was the victim of sexual abuse as a child. Not only do I talk about it with my current partner I have discussed it with every serious sexual partner i have ever had. Its part of who I am. I feel it is something that anyone i am intimate with needs to know

I was never punished as a child EVER and I have discussed that with my Master. I think it is a big reason that I seek discipline and corporal punishment now. I think that is contrary to the popular opinion that children who were spanked seek sexual spankings as adults. I have never been in a chat room of any sort and I doubt i would share this in that situation. I wouldn't share it with a stranger period.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella
Extreme "internal slavery" that tends to come around to the idea that the Dom/Master can kill the slave if he wants to and the slave is okay with that.


When I first started reading posts here I noticed this and had a similar WTF reaction. But as my "slavehood" has progressed and under certian conditons of my "training" I begin to understand it. Because he owns me he can do what he wants. The thing is he would never kill me. I know that. I am functioning under the assumption that he would never do that, therefore it is easy for me to say he could if he wanted to. I am sure that I would attempt escape if I ever thought he was seriously considering taking my life. But I have only been owned for 6 months. I have already surrendered to him way more than I thought I would and have done things that I would have flat out refused to do  months ago. So in ten years who knows? I might let him take my life. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he would never do it. So again, I am functioning under the assumption of saftey. Not sure if any of that makes sense.




allthatjaz -> RE: The De-Demonization Thread (12/9/2009 3:44:49 PM)

Hierodole... positive

I think sharing abuse issues with a partner you trust is a very healthy thing to do. The experiences in your formative years can become easier to live with once shared with the right person.

Negative

I know why some strange men in chat rooms want to know such information but I am bewildered as to why some women will openly give that information up.



wisdomtogive -> RE: The De-Demonization Thread (12/9/2009 4:44:14 PM)

1. The under consideration worked well for David Sir and me. It never was intended for Him to look for other s-types. It was for us both to consider several major factors. Mostly it was me doing the considering, because it meant commiting to Him, and relocating.

Now i am taken and getting ready for him to drive me to NJ. We are happy, and after knowing each other for two and half years, i am finally ready to become committed again, after late hubby.



wisdomtogive -> RE: The De-Demonization Thread (12/9/2009 4:49:21 PM)

1. There is only one aspect of this life style that is not in me and would not fathom trying it-Daddy/lg relationship. Even reading up on it for understanding, i could not find a speck of that within me. I do appreciate the idea of many variety of different relationships here. It is good to also know what you can be and not be.



MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Animal play and Daddy play (12/9/2009 4:50:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

#1
"Daddy"

The "Daddy" thing I often hear explained in the context of "a paternal like father figure" but even if the dominant takes a paternal role in a relationship you don't have to actually call him "Daddy" - it's not the role itself that confuses me on this one, simply the name. I can get if you identify them as "paternal" or even "fatherlike" but to call him "Daddy" is saying he is in the father role. Not in a role like it, but actually in that role, which means you're basically roleplaying having sex with your surrogate father.



Not discounting anything you've stated above, just thought I'd post the below, as some have found this info helpful in understanding that dynamic.

What Is A Daddy Dom?
http://www.domsubfriends.com/voye/articles/110/




Drifa -> RE: The De-Demonization Thread (12/9/2009 4:56:36 PM)

After carefully reading the OP twice, all I can say is, what ARE you asking? You spent a lot of words to say nothing clearly.

What is it you want to know, and why is it worth discussing is what I want to know!



yummee -> RE: The De-Demonization Thread (12/9/2009 5:05:41 PM)

Labels

Positive:  I love labels.  I'm a structured, organized individual who loves numbers, patterns and neat little boxes that are categorized and ordered in some way.  I love the wide range of labels:  Masters, Daddies, Doms, Tops, Switches, etc. that abound here so that I (think I) understand where people are coming from and what they are referring to.

Negative:  Labels that can mean anything at all.  What's the point of the category if all these people who clearly (to me) should be labeled and filed into a different box insist that they are "X" label.  I don't know where to file them. =(





NihilusZero -> RE: The De-Demonization Thread (12/9/2009 5:06:28 PM)

Dealing with side topics quickly here in order to let people get back to the point of the thread:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Justme696

Etiquette is a good thing, but depends on people behaviour. And there is the problem.
But I like the idea.

Better would be rules and enforce them.....we need mods!! lots of them.

From what I can see so far, people are self-regulating just fine in here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: breatheasone

VERY good idea that will never work.

allthatjazz, Elisabella and Hierodule have made it work quite well so far. It work so long as people (if they're interested) contribute instead of mentioning the ways in which contribution will not happen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drifa

After carefully reading the OP twice, all I can say is, what ARE you asking? You spent a lot of words to say nothing clearly.

What is it you want to know, and why is it worth discussing is what I want to know!

I'm not asking anything specific. I'm providing a loosely structured space where people express their dislike of something WIITWD related to which, ideally, someone who is lives a relationship where that thing is incorporated positively can tell of their situation and why it works out well.



persephonee -> RE: Saying "He can kill me if he wants to" (12/9/2009 5:06:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

#1

Extreme "internal slavery" that tends to come around to the idea that the Dom/Master can kill the slave if he wants to and the slave is okay with that.

Why do I think it's bad? I have mixed feelings on this...I think that anyone who thinks this way is likely too stupid to live, so in theory I should probably be okay with it, but at the same time it utterly disgusts me that someone can think this way.

Related corollaries tend to be things like "he can break my bones if he wants" or "he can whore me out if he wants" (assuming that the s-type doesn't actually get off on being shared, that they'd 'suffer through it' because the master wanted) or any other form of "he can do things that will damage my body or mind but it's okay because I am his slave and as a slave I have no rights."

I guess that's what it boils down to - the "I have no rights" thing. How can someone so utterly lack self-preservation? IMO "I have no rights" is fine if you're saying, oh I don't know, I can't have coffee without permission or I have to sit where he tells me...but "I have no right to protect myself from serious bodily harm" takes it too far.

I'm guessing from the OP that if you have separate things you want to post about they should be done in separate posts to facilitate responses so I'll brb and do that [8D]


2.) IE is said to be the end result in my development within this relationship. In my understanding of it, its more about sublimating my will into that of his...(still fuzzy on the whole deal, but just sayin).
Its not so much about the shock statements such as "he can kill me if he wants to" or "they are his bones to break" as its about me....feeling at peace with the way the scales have tipped.

NZ said something about a slaves internal struggle with what she perceives "should" be done/and how...vs the way he wants and expects things to be done within his dynamic. (in some other thread)

i belong to a couple IE discussion boards, but cant really participate actively at this point. From what ive seen so far there is a kind of flowery speech pattern that accompanies it that i cant quite get behind. im more geared toward O/p and less toward the poetry of things. Maybe one day something will click. Meanwhile, i simply obey, regardless of what internal struggle i might have...and i have many. Heres hoping that at some point, i can obey and not be conflicted....would be sooo much easier on the inside.

As for the stupidity factor...i have had remarkable luck in the past few years doing what i do...i have really only met the best people. Some i am compatible with, and some i am not...but a clear cut psychopath, i have yet to see with my own eyes. i tend to perceive a red flag and act on that as opposed to letting all the flags come together and smother me. So, odds are, Master isnt the type of guy to break my arm because hes able.




NihilusZero -> RE: The De-Demonization Thread (12/9/2009 5:07:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: allthatjaz

Unnecessary talk about juvenile years.
My absolute hate is a certain chat room banter that funnily enough so many people find ok. That particular banter goes like this...
Someone asks the room who was spanked as a kid. Suddenly all these women are giving their story. The initial questioner and other guys want more details often intimate details and at this point I step in and say 'what the fuck' at which point I am ejected from the room. I find this sort of talk not only unacceptable but really disturbing. If my guy ever wanted to go into detail about the punishment I had as a kid I would be running for the hills and not looking back


Just wanted to add that this is exactly the type of layout I had foreseen. The topic in bold to start so that new viewers can easily skim through the thread to find a topic that applies to them if they were not submitting a concern. [:)]



NihilusZero -> RE: The De-Demonization Thread (12/9/2009 5:16:30 PM)

Side note: I notice some people adding their own pros and cons to a topic. Interesting. If you have them, I certainly think it's fine to share...particularly if you are starting to consider pros because of the story of another.

Since it seems some people are still a bit confused, I'll give a more thorough example of the way I saw this going:

(Note: The below example is hypothetical and doesn't necessarily reflect my views.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Person A

Sexually using a sub/slave to please others at the D's discretion
I don't see how wanting to use your sub to sexually satisfy other people you're not even in a relationship with is at all comfroting to the intimacy of the D/s relationship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Person B

Sexually using a sub/slave to please others at the D's discretion
It took M and I a number of months of getting comfortable until we discovered that the sharing was a mutually enjoyed kink. M is always careful about the types of people he choose to have me please and I enjoy it as an exhibitionist and he is pleased both as a voyeur and as the owner of a rather competent and enticing s.

I think keeping titles/topics in bold to start a post keeps the cohesion of the topic since this thread is built in a way that multiple issues may be getting discussed at one time.




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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