RE: Doctrine and the d/s m/s relationship (Full Version)

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



Message

KatyLied -> RE: Doctrine and the d/s m/s relationship (12/28/2009 8:29:37 AM)

quote:

The purpose of this thread is to share and contribute ideas about doctrine and how it affects your relationships or relationships you hope to establish.


I do not use a doctrine to guide my intimate relationships,  I allow them to develop, organically.  I do like some rules, but only if they are simple and easily understood.  The "lifestyle" is only one component of a life that should have many and varied components.



Jeffff -> RE: Doctrine and the d/s m/s relationship (12/28/2009 8:30:22 AM)

Thank God!

Ron? I have been much to serious.


Help me!


DennisMillerDom



LadyAngelika -> RE: Doctrine and the d/s m/s relationship (12/28/2009 8:35:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: osf


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika


quote:

ORIGINAL: osf

and here i thought people like to think about and understand what they do but i was wrong again apparently


No, you got honest answers. What most answered you is that contrary to popular belief, most of us don't work with a script.

Of course there are groups and societies such a Other World Kingdom or Old Guard and others with their set of rules. What you'll realise however is that they represent a smaller percentage of the kink population, at least it is here.

- LA


doctrine isn't a script, it's a structure, in this case it defines the d/s structure

it's a simple concept, you make rules you're making doctrine, you're in charge, she isn't, thats doctrine and so on and so on


Script, structure, let's not get caught up in semantics. It's basically all about rules. Someone else's rules.

It's not so simple a concept as you can see. But in my case, SHE/ME is in charge of my own personal doctrine.

You came looking for answers. You got answers, real, honest ones. Don't be upset if they aren't the answers you were looking for.

- LA



mnottertail -> RE: Doctrine and the d/s m/s relationship (12/28/2009 8:40:17 AM)

Hey, there are analyzers and worriers but for the most part there is no monroe doctrine of ds...

Close as I can come would be:

Suck my dick, stfu, be obedient and obeisant, and be a wanton feral female....enjoy.

Yanno, it is bigger than that, but it is real personal, and theres as many recipies out there as there are chinese people having sex, and austrailians, and latvians and............well.

Not big on introspection, I leave that to the slavegirls.

Ron



osf -> RE: Doctrine and the d/s m/s relationship (12/28/2009 8:41:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika


quote:

ORIGINAL: osf


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika


quote:

ORIGINAL: osf

and here i thought people like to think about and understand what they do but i was wrong again apparently


No, you got honest answers. What most answered you is that contrary to popular belief, most of us don't work with a script.

Of course there are groups and societies such a Other World Kingdom or Old Guard and others with their set of rules. What you'll realise however is that they represent a smaller percentage of the kink population, at least it is here.

- LA


doctrine isn't a script, it's a structure, in this case it defines the d/s structure

it's a simple concept, you make rules you're making doctrine, you're in charge, she isn't, thats doctrine and so on and so on


Script, structure, let's not get caught up in semantics. It's basically all about rules. Someone else's rules.

It's not so simple a concept as you can see. But in my case, SHE/ME is in charge of my own personal doctrine.

You came looking for answers. You got answers, real, honest ones. Don't be upset if they aren't the answers you were looking for.

- LA


we have fundamentally different approaches

i'm the type that likes constancy and clarity
so i have a tendency to spell out and write my concepts down so there are no misunderstandings, i hate misunderstandings

and i always want her to know what is expected

and no , not all were answers or contributions to anything here



crazyml -> RE: Doctrine and the d/s m/s relationship (12/28/2009 8:47:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: osf

and here i thought people like to think about and understand what they do but i was wrong again apparently


Dude, your OP is utter gibberish, please don't blame people for taking the piss out of your nonsense!





lally2 -> RE: Doctrine and the d/s m/s relationship (12/28/2009 8:48:03 AM)



to follow a doctrine you have to become (speaking as a sub) indoctrinated and i dont believe i have ever become indoctrinated. i have submitted to the needs of the M but that has never ever stopped me from remaining myself

bending to the ebb and flow of whats required does not mean that you assume a doctrine. i have aspired to alter some perspectives and change facets of myself but i have never lost the free spirit part of me that makes me, me.

i can follow rules and protocol, kneel in certain positions but i have to admit, much of the time im thinking 'darn the carpet needs a hoover' or 'does my arse look fat stuck up in the air'.



osf -> RE: Doctrine and the d/s m/s relationship (12/28/2009 8:54:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lally2



to follow a doctrine you have to become (speaking as a sub) indoctrinated and i dont believe i have ever become indoctrinated. i have submitted to the needs of the M but that has never ever stopped me from remaining myself

bending to the ebb and flow of whats required does not mean that you assume a doctrine. i have aspired to alter some perspectives and change facets of myself but i have never lost the free spirit part of me that makes me, me.

i can follow rules and protocol, kneel in certain positions but i have to admit, much of the time im thinking 'darn the carpet needs a hoover' or 'does my arse look fat stuck up in the air'.


doctrine is not indoctrination, when you go to work for a company are you indoctrinated, when you exercise your rights under the law are you indoctrinated?

we have a problem in that the word doctrine is not understood and sounds unappealing



RedMagic1 -> RE: Doctrine and the d/s m/s relationship (12/28/2009 8:56:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: osf
i'm the type that likes constancy and clarity

Such as being consistently and constantly alone?  I doubt LadyAngelika will ever lack the company of men, unless she chooses to.

You might test whose philosophy is better using actual results, not using what you "like" or dislike.  Or not.  There are certainly people who would rather make love to their own minds, instead of someone else's body.



Jeffff -> RE: Doctrine and the d/s m/s relationship (12/28/2009 8:58:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1

There are certainly people who would rather make love to their own minds, instead of someone else's body.



The same goes for beating.....:)


Jeff



osf -> RE: Doctrine and the d/s m/s relationship (12/28/2009 8:59:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1

quote:

ORIGINAL: osf
i'm the type that likes constancy and clarity

Such as being consistently and constantly alone?  I doubt LadyAngelika will ever lack the company of men, unless she chooses to.

You might test whose philosophy is better using actual results, not using what you "like" or dislike.  Or not.  There are certainly people who would rather make love to their own minds, instead of someone else's body.



and whose sex alone will attract will attract any number of the opposite sex



Dominasola -> RE: Doctrine and the d/s m/s relationship (12/28/2009 9:11:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: osf

we have fundamentally different approaches



If you have fundamentally different approaches, then there's no such thing as a D/s or M/s doctrine. [;)]

doctrine /doktrin/   • noun a set of beliefs or principles held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.   — DERIVATIVES doctrinal /doktrin’l, doktrin’l/ adjective doctrinally adverb. 
— ORIGIN Latin doctrina ‘teaching, learning’.
(from the Oxford Concise Dictionary)

Although I wouldn't deny that many people in the D/s world hold similar views on how their power dynamic works,  I think the key word here is taught.  Everyone here stresses the importance of finding one's own rhythm when it comes to assuming a dominant or submissive role; although teaching may be involved in the growth of an individual, it is not the teaching of "how to live in a D/s relationship," rather, it is teaching how to discover what is right for the individual.  If the D/s world was truly one ruled by doctrine, there would be little flexibility in "discovering who you are," and much more emphasis on "this is how it is done; you must conform to these parameters."

And while individuals may have personal "doctrines" on how relationships with them work, this is no different than any other person in the world who has certain beliefs and rules when xhe is in a relationship, whether they are ultimately derived from overarching religious or political doctrines or not.



WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Doctrine and the d/s m/s relationship (12/28/2009 9:14:39 AM)

I kind of like the anagram - centroid.  It seems appropriate to me, because it seems that Osf keeps trying to get his bearing - something to set his compass by, and he seems to have latched on to the concept of doctrine, to do that.

Doctrine can be comforting, to some,  in that it can provide a set of rules that are acceptable to those who subscribe to that doctrine.  Doctrine, in its basic definition is all about teaching or principal taught or advocated etc.  For someone trying to get their bearing, to validate or justify their own choices, doctrine can do this.

The confusion, as I see it, comes with trying to turn the malleable, mercurial "concept" of wiitwd, into doctrine, or to find the centroid philosophy, since as the practice of much of wiitwd, does not have a fixed center, nor a measurable middle-ground.

For this reason, osf, you won't ever really be able to find the validation you seek - from any consensus of the meeting of the minds here on this board.  Especially when your own 'consistency' that you claim to need, is not reflected in how you present yourself while trying to communicate in this medium.

WinD





LadyAngelika -> RE: Doctrine and the d/s m/s relationship (12/28/2009 9:14:51 AM)

quote:

we have fundamentally different approaches

i'm the type that likes constancy and clarity
so i have a tendency to spell out and write my concepts down so there are no misunderstandings, i hate misunderstandings

and i always want her to know what is expected

and no , not all were answers or contributions to anything here


You are making a huge assumption that I don't do this. I am a huge communicator and I do set rules for my boy. As I said, I go by the Lady Angelika Doctrine. Only a boy (potentially) devoting himself to me needs to know what it means.

- LA



LadyAngelika -> RE: Doctrine and the d/s m/s relationship (12/28/2009 9:16:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dominasola

quote:

ORIGINAL: osf

we have fundamentally different approaches



If you have fundamentally different approaches, then there's no such thing as a D/s or M/s doctrine. [;)]


Damn I love smart people ;-)

- LA



osf -> RE: Doctrine and the d/s m/s relationship (12/28/2009 9:19:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dominasola

quote:

ORIGINAL: osf

we have fundamentally different approaches



If you have fundamentally different approaches, then there's no such thing as a D/s or M/s doctrine. [;)]

doctrine /doktrin/   • noun a set of beliefs or principles held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.   — DERIVATIVES doctrinal /doktrin’l, doktrin’l/ adjective doctrinally adverb. 
— ORIGIN Latin doctrina ‘teaching, learning’.
(from the Oxford Concise Dictionary)

Although I wouldn't deny that many people in the D/s world hold similar views on how their power dynamic works,  I think the key word here is taught.  Everyone here stresses the importance of finding one's own rhythm when it comes to assuming a dominant or submissive role; although teaching may be involved in the growth of an individual, it is not the teaching of "how to live in a D/s relationship," rather, it is teaching how to discover what is right for the individual.  If the D/s world was truly one ruled by doctrine, there would be little flexibility in "discovering who you are," and much more emphasis on "this is how it is done; you must conform to these parameters."

And while individuals may have personal "doctrines" on how relationships with them work, this is no different than any other person in the world who has certain beliefs and rules when xhe is in a relationship, whether they are ultimately derived from overarching religious or political doctrines or not.



doctrine is appropriate to the situation or it doesn't work, anyone in a structured relationship has a doctrine whether they realize it or not

i wanted a discussion about structured relationships using the concept of doctrine (sorta out of the box thinking)



LadyAngelika -> RE: Doctrine and the d/s m/s relationship (12/28/2009 9:20:47 AM)

quote:

i wanted a discussion about structured relationships using the concept of doctrine (sorta out of the box thinking)


You can't always get what you want (no) /
But if you try sometimes you just might find /
You get what you need /

- LA



osf -> RE: Doctrine and the d/s m/s relationship (12/28/2009 9:23:18 AM)

i think a d/s relationship that is allowed to happen has less of a chance than one that is directed



Dominasola -> RE: Doctrine and the d/s m/s relationship (12/28/2009 9:26:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dominasola

quote:

ORIGINAL: osf

we have fundamentally different approaches



If you have fundamentally different approaches, then there's no such thing as a D/s or M/s doctrine. [;)]


Damn I love smart people ;-)

- LA


[:)]



lally2 -> RE: Doctrine and the d/s m/s relationship (12/28/2009 9:33:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: osf

i think a d/s relationship that is allowed to happen has less of a chance than one that is directed


not so in my experience. a relationship that evolves according to the people involved is, in my experience far stronger than one tied up with rules and protocol - whilst they have their place the control and containment of a submissive is going to mean so much more to both when the personality of the sub and Dominant are allowed to evolve and grow specifically to them.

if what you mean is that you take a) a submissive and apply b) rules and protocols, you have c) a tight ship. the trouble with that is that youre not taking into account the personality of the submissive involved.

fine if youre not interested in the submissive submitting to you and rather submitting to youre rules and protocol. for myself i prefer to submit to the man and abide by his rules and protocol.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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