xssve
Posts: 3589
Joined: 10/10/2009 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NuevaVida quote:
ORIGINAL: AquaticSub I think you are reading way to much into my post when you say a "bright line" distinction but it's cool. If my personal opinion that BDSM and 1950s household are two different things that aren't in a vs. match offends people, I can live with that. Can't please everyone. :-) That's because you & I see "BDSM" as the activities (bondage, etc...) within a relationship dynamic. 50's household, M/s, D/s, etc., are the actually lifestyle variations. "BDSM" can be incorporated into pretty much anything. I think a lot of people are thinking M/s, D/s (etc) lifestyle when referencing BDSM. So, I agree with you. I don't see a "vs", either. Perhaps 1950's lifestyle vs. D/s is what the OP meant. In my view and relationship, it means he runs the house and I submit to my man. Not all slaves are about taking care of the home and pleasing the master. In many O/p type relationships, this isn't the case at all. Some slaves are not naturally submissive, some are not about being pleasing. Doesn't mean they do not thrive while owned, or do not ultimately obey. But they're personal make-up isn't necessarily to be pleasing and submissive and domestic. True, domestic duties like housework, and traditional divisions of labor seem to be more implicit and incorporated in Fifties Household than in other forms of D/S, it's way of making a game of housework, which might otherwise just be mostly tedious, or punishment, etc.
|