RE: Why identify? (Full Version)

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



Message

Missokyst -> RE: Why identify? (2/25/2011 5:48:37 PM)

Good answer!
From my pov, if there was a way for me to be not seen as kinky I would have tried that route. But I have worn the kinky label before I was in a sexual relationship. I had the label before the deed. I guess that is why I wonder why anyone who might be considered traditional, would choose to tag themselves otherwise. Just based on odds alone it might have been nice to had the majority to choose from.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

i don't know *why* they do. Maybe because it seems slightly rebellious and sexy to identify with a kind of subculture, and that turns them on. Maybe because they see Dominance and submission as something that they share with kinksters, and having that in common makes them part of the same group, with the slight variation in their case of there being no kink. Maybe it's not that they *identify* with the BDSM community per se, as much as no other label exists that describes them any *better*.

i don't think there's any better answer to your question than to say this: that people will identify with a group because they want to, and because they perceive themselves in a certain way. They will pick the label that most nearly fits who they think they are.

pam




62704 -> RE: Why identify? (2/25/2011 5:50:06 PM)

I'm not particularly kinky. I've a couple kinks, though the ones I have are on the tame end of the list. Probably stuff 'vanilla' sorts enjoy, or at least have tried. Most of my kink experience comes from the interests my subs have had that I chose to share with them.

So why am I here?

June might have given it up whenever Ward asked.
I don't ask.

June usually did as she was told or expected.
My girl obeys.

Ward was reliable, responsible, and arguably intelligent. June respects and heeds him for these and other traits.
I'm reliable, responsible, and arguably intelligent. My girl respects and heeds me because she can't bring herself not to. If that's not true, then I've got the wrong girl.

Ward was the provider, protector, leader, and thus easily recognized as the man of the house.
I'm the guy who makes the decisions. Sometimes it's because I have Ward-like qualities (or I'd like to think I do). And sometimes, it's because of other qualities. Usually that 'primal essence' thing they're talking about in the other thread.

But that's focusing on June.

Ward wears the proverbial 'good guy' hat.
I don't like hats.

Ward tries to be a role model to his sons.
I'm trying to live my life. I'm content with my future children living theirs.

Ward listens to June, but June is always wrong until and unless the end of the episode proves otherwise. Then he regrets his decision.
I'm sometimes wrong, and no episode is required. But I don't regret my decision. Someone was going to make the decisions, and they're going to botch it sometimes. That's my job.


And if that doesn't work, replace 'Ward' with 'Dad' and 'June' with 'Mom'. That's about how it was for them. I'm like them, but after the apple fell from the tree, it rolled a bit.



Missokyst -> RE: Why identify? (2/25/2011 5:52:47 PM)

I have seen a few families when I was growing up where it was evident the woman was in charge, but for the most part at least in my area, it was more "wait till your father gets home"
My dad did not decide on menu's, nor was he a major control oriented man, but my mom had no control over his actions in any way.
She didn't even know how much money he made until his death. What a shock that was! I never saw anyone go out on a whole house shopping spree before that.


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

My mother was an at home wife, which does not at all mean that my father had command over the household. He didn't. It was her arena entirely. She didn't do what he said, she did not submit to his commands, he wasn't dominant over her. They divided their responsibilities, each in charge of their own area. This is how a traditional Jewish household works, the male had his power outside the home, the woman was responsible for the home. This is how most of our friends and family operated.

And this is why I do consider us d/s even though we don't have a lot of play. Because he does have the right to order me about and ride roughshod over my wishes when he thinks it's necessary. It isn't about the kink, it's about the authority.

My father never put in a request for a specific meal, The Man only tonight announced that all he wanted was soup and a sandwich.





Prinsexx -> RE: Why identify? (2/25/2011 5:53:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missokyst

The day I stop researching is the day I wish to die, thats why.
lol another thing I cannot understand is why people choose to not look into why people do the things they do.
But I recognise I am anal that way.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Prinsexx
The answer is simply becasue you don't understand.
I mean why would you ID as a lesbian if you were not or even feel the need to question someone's resons for the way they ID?
I understand why I ID as I do and that's because it empowers other people to understand me a little better.

Prin: bdsmlgbtia



Please doon't read me wrongly. I wasn't being accusative and suggesting that you were unread or ignorant in anyway. What I was saying, about not being able to understand, is true for all of us i believe. I understand why, how and what I ID. It functions as an introduction to the way I define myself. That ID, those definitions do not define me.
Wearing a name tag at a venue for example with an ID is just a starting point, an opening to a conversation or not.
I've put work also into why and how I ID myself. Insight is sometimes misty. Retrospective vision is always 50-50. I don't like boxes. I don't like ID's. I don't like labels. They are structures. They are fixed. Whilst all of us are processes, constantly evolving.
I mean I am not just Prinsexx. Are you just Missokyst or is there a closet somewhere where you go back to and are also noy kinky?
The tick box for equality as well as diversity will some day grow so long as to  make the list unworkable. I wish that day would arrive sooner rather than later.
With an open mind does it really matter why the hell what, how and why someone ID's? If someone wants to ID as linky then so be it.




0ldhen -> RE: Why identify? (2/25/2011 6:43:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Missokyst

If you have little to no kink in your relationship and what you have is a more traditional dynamic, ie, husband as head of household, why do you identify with domination/submission?

I don't understand why anyone would identify with bdsm (d/s) if kink was not a major part of the component.
So, why do you choose to identify?
I am genuinely curious here.



Was their kink? Sometimes.

Do I need kink? No, it is fun but not a must have for me.

Why do I identify with BDSM?

1st I think you are confusing BDSM and D/s, with can be combined but are often seperate as well.

2nd, I identify most with the D/s which is a kink. After all you do not see that power exchange, that primal force flowing between most "normal" married couples now do you?



Missokyst -> RE: Why identify? (2/25/2011 8:17:18 PM)

One thing I do not do is identify D/s with BDSM, or even d/s with kink. BDSM for me is just bondage, discipline, sadism, masochism, period. D/s is just personal dynamics to me, not kinky in the least, just practical. Things must work and I find that having one person in charge helps keep down the too many cooks syndrome.


quote:

ORIGINAL: 0ldhen


1st I think you are confusing BDSM and D/s, with can be combined but are often seperate as well.

2nd, I identify most with the D/s which is a kink. After all you do not see that power exchange, that primal force flowing between most "normal" married couples now do you?




NihilusZero -> RE: Why identify? (2/25/2011 9:37:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missokyst

If you have little to no kink in your relationship and what you have is a more traditional dynamic, ie, husband as head of household, why do you identify with domination/submission?

Because those words actually describe authority roles, not who's on what end of a toy during sex play.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missokyst

If the man works and the woman stays home, that is how I grew up.

Who is/isn't employed makes no difference in who is wielding the authority.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missokyst

If I were a housewife I would say I was a housewife and not be concerned about people who assumed I was being stiffled in some way. If I were a housewife and occasionally indulged in kinky play I would think I was just like any other couple who need some excitement in their sex lives. I can't tell you how many "toys" I found in my parents drawers <<shudder>> but they were just ordinary people. My friends used to tell me they found similar items while exploring.
I don't understand why anyone would identify with bdsm (d/s) if kink was not a major part of the component.

This is why BDSM is a poorer initialism than WIITWD to describe the gamut of people who are involved in it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missokyst

So, why do you choose to identify?
I am genuinely curious here.

Because I seek to wield control in relationships. What I do with that control, be it working towards a feta, mushroom, and spinach omelette or binding a partner in shibari and whipping her thighs till the knees near buckle, makes no difference.

Unless people are deceiving themselves, isn't this why more people define themselves as "dominant" or "submissive" than "top" or "bottom"?



Missokyst -> RE: Why identify? (2/25/2011 10:21:01 PM)

damn it, now I am hungry

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
Because I seek to wield control in relationships. What I do with that control, be it working towards a feta, mushroom, and spinach omelette




lally2 -> RE: Why identify? (2/26/2011 3:13:52 AM)

If you have little to no kink in your relationship and what you have is a more traditional dynamic, ie, husband as head of household, why do you identify with domination/submission?

i often wonder why people identify with Ds when all theyve really got is a kink thing going on.  id call that more top/bottoming.

there are so many differences to Ds and Ms compared to the old fashioned household of squashed wife and domineering man.



BitaTruble -> RE: Why identify? (2/26/2011 3:27:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Missokyst


So, why do you choose to identify?




I thought a lot about your question. When I am standing beside my husband my view is not blocked so I have 360 degree vision. I can hold him, touch his head if I want (and I do have a thing for brains!), wrap my arms around him or put my ear to his chest to hear his heart beat.

When I am on my knees though, my field of vision is reduced. He blocks my view and looking up at him, my perception seems to change.. he is larger and I can't reach all of him so I feel more vulnerable and sometimes it's only by looking down at his feet that I don't get overwhelmed by it. I don't spend a lot of my time, literally, on my knees.. but figuratively, I live life mostly on my knees. The easiest way to say all of that is to just identify myself a certain way and most folks will understand what is meant at least as a conversation starter anyway.



DesFIP -> RE: Why identify? (2/26/2011 5:33:44 AM)

I was an at home housewife with the ex. But I wasn't submissive to him because he didn't want the responsibilities of making decisions. I am submissive to The Man because he wants those responsibilities even more than he wants the rights that come with them and because he makes good decisions.

I was still submissive when with my ex, just not with him because he didn't want it. It came out in inappropriate ways and I needed to learn how to put up boundaries to control it. But I was unhappy because I had to take charge and resented it. I'm happier with a man who wants both the rights and the responsibilities and who respects the fact that I prefer to defer to him instead of thinking less of me for wanting to do so.

The last I think is the crux of it. A man without this knowledge tends not to appreciate what his woman does for him, he takes advantage of her, uses her up but doesn't value and appreciate her, and it is that specific appreciation of her that allows her to refill her love bank, if you will. The ex enjoyed taking advantage of my nature but looked down on me for being who I am.

The Man appreciates being in a relationship with someone who prefers not to argue with him, someone who prefers to turn things over to him, and enjoys being ridden roughshod over when he thinks it is necessary. The difference here is that he thinks about the effect his decisions will have on me, I'm important to him in all ways. The ex figured it was my job to take care of myself and didn't concern himself with how I responded to what he did.



catize -> RE: Why identify? (2/26/2011 6:25:21 AM)

With d/s or m/s, it becomes a matter of choice. In the “traditional” marriage, there was no discussion ahead of time. The 'authority' of the husband was based on his gender, not on his ability to lead.
Few people had the happy lives portrayed by television. Many “traditional” marriages were filled with arguments and acrimony.
I identify as submissive in a d/s relationship because I have given up the authority to those I trust. That identity leaves no room for dissent. I choose to have peace in my life. The clear delineation of 'who' is in charge, my determination to abide by my agreement to be the submissive and Not in charge, allows me that peace.



TreasureKY -> RE: Why identify? (2/26/2011 7:08:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

I was an at home housewife with the ex. But I wasn't submissive to him because he didn't want the responsibilities of making decisions. I am submissive to The Man because he wants those responsibilities even more than he wants the rights that come with them and because he makes good decisions.

I was still submissive when with my ex, just not with him because he didn't want it. It came out in inappropriate ways and I needed to learn how to put up boundaries to control it. But I was unhappy because I had to take charge and resented it. I'm happier with a man who wants both the rights and the responsibilities and who respects the fact that I prefer to defer to him instead of thinking less of me for wanting to do so.

The last I think is the crux of it. A man without this knowledge tends not to appreciate what his woman does for him, he takes advantage of her, uses her up but doesn't value and appreciate her, and it is that specific appreciation of her that allows her to refill her love bank, if you will. The ex enjoyed taking advantage of my nature but looked down on me for being who I am.

The Man appreciates being in a relationship with someone who prefers not to argue with him, someone who prefers to turn things over to him, and enjoys being ridden roughshod over when he thinks it is necessary. The difference here is that he thinks about the effect his decisions will have on me, I'm important to him in all ways. The ex figured it was my job to take care of myself and didn't concern himself with how I responded to what he did.


^

This.



strangedesire -> RE: Why identify? (2/26/2011 8:44:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

when you look at what "traditional marriage" REALLY means, it's more like "non-consensual slavery" than anything Carol and I are doing. I do not identify one little iota with "traditional marriage". I am repulsed by it.



This makes me happy.

In my mind, D/s ought to be a consensual division of power that makes the relationship stronger and more fulfilling for everyone. "Traditional marriage," on the other hand, was an uneven distribution of power based on the idea that one party was inferior and deserved fewer rights. It may look similar from the outside, but I think it's a very different type of thing.

D/s doesn't imply kink to me, but it does imply a kind of careful, negotiated consent that people without exposure to kink have historically been very bad at. (I'm taking a long view of history, with kink as a fairly new development.) If I run into a hetero couple that say they have a "very traditional marriage," I'm going to assume that there's a decent possibility that they want to take women like me out of the workforce and into the kitchen. (This might be a bias of mine, but it will also increase the chances that I'll read them as fundamentalist Christians.) If they say that they're a strict D/s couple, I'll assume that they think my relationship style is valid unless I see evidence to the contrary.



Missokyst -> RE: Why identify? (2/26/2011 8:45:30 AM)

I agree with this too. Tops/bottoms often have little to do with ds. This is one thing we discuss at length in my group. Fortunately many around these parts are fairly aware on which end of the scale they sit.
I am fully aware I am masochistic with some sadism and that my personality is submissive when in a relationship. I can do a relationship just being my submissive me because that is my relationship dynamic. I lean also toward slavery, but I keep that stomped down well and have managed to stay out of relationships where that might happen (ie:marriage)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lally2

If you have little to no kink in your relationship and what you have is a more traditional dynamic, ie, husband as head of household, why do you identify with domination/submission?

i often wonder why people identify with Ds when all theyve really got is a kink thing going on.  id call that more top/bottoming.

there are so many differences to Ds and Ms compared to the old fashioned household of squashed wife and domineering man.





Missokyst -> RE: Why identify? (2/26/2011 8:52:19 AM)

This is interesting.
My sister is not kinky. Conversations with her have shown me she views bdsm as repellent. She is however subservient to her mate. Not submissive, subservient. He demands it as part of his religion. She complies because she has always put a mans needs above her own, or above her children. In fact, one of the reasons I run from marriage has a lot to do with the women in my life, who all tend to have that same mentality. I can see that for him, her obedience is just the way it is. And yeah, I see very little appreciation (at least on the outside).

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP
A man without this knowledge tends not to appreciate what his woman does for him, he takes advantage of her, uses her up but doesn't value and appreciate her, and it is that specific appreciation of her that allows her to refill her love bank, if you will. The ex enjoyed taking advantage of my nature but looked down on me for being who I am.




0ldhen -> RE: Why identify? (2/26/2011 10:01:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Missokyst

D/s is just personal dynamics to me, not kinky in the least, just practical. Things must work and I find that having one person in charge helps keep down the too many cooks syndrome.


Trust me on this one, a lot of folks find or think of D/s as a kink.

As for the part I bolded, this does not describe D/s to me at all. More like a vanilla marriage where one agrees "honey you do the checkbook and I'll burn the dinner" type of arrangement.




Missokyst -> RE: Why identify? (2/26/2011 10:06:31 AM)

Exactly my point. I don't see it as kink.
Tie me up and torture me.. THAT is kink. Beat me until I am begging you to stop or for pete's sake, fuck me.. that is kink.
Dealing with house issues.. just doesn't feel kink to me.
But, it appears it is kinky at least in terms of ds to many people.



leadership527 -> RE: Why identify? (2/26/2011 11:48:07 AM)

Yeah, what Missokyst said.

If you perceive D/s as a kink thing, then what she and I both do isn't D/s. If, on the other hand, you see it more as a natural part of being human then all that matters is the authority dynamic itself and even then, largely for pragmatic reasons.



Prinsexx -> RE: Why identify? (2/26/2011 11:52:57 AM)

Yes but conformity is the new vanilla.




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

Valid CSS!




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