RE: BDSM out of necessity?

RE: BDSM out of necessity? (Full Version)

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

Message

outhere69 -> RE: BDSM out of necessity? (1/16/2012 3:45:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dscouple7383 I think the people who agree with me just don't like to be called fascists for disagreeing with them, or have their significant others be called assholes. Hey, for fascists you have to try the Politics & Religion forum. Hey RS, I need a mop over here!

lthrpup -> RE: BDSM out of necessity? (1/16/2012 3:49:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP quote: ORIGINAL: lthrpup When I watch movies from the 1950s (North by Northwest, for example) I marvel at the street scenes in NY where it is as clean as Tokyo is today, where the men wore hats, the ladies gloves. The reality was quite different. Most tenement housing in NY in the 50's were still cold water flats. Where people had to boil water on a stove and fill a tub in the kitchen before pouring it out, bucket by bucket. Most people then wore patched clothing, bathed once a week, and so on. And were lucky to get picked up as day laborers, standing each day in gangs hoping to get chosen and having to kick back part of their pay in order to ever get another day's work. Movies then didn't show the truth. Most people were not day laborers, and when they left their homes--no matter how modest--and walked along the avenues, they were well dressed. Stock footage street scenes (often used for rear projection back at the studio) and newsreels were not staged. Repaired clothing (most of which was much more durable than today's clothing was common when wardrobes were smaller could be quite presentable.

outhere69 -> RE: BDSM out of necessity? (1/16/2012 4:08:07 PM)
Ugly places and unattractive people were common then, you just don't see a whole lot of movie footage with them.

Firebirdseeking -> RE: BDSM out of necessity? (1/16/2012 4:16:55 PM)
That is a very sad story, with many good points. What I wonder about this couple is why they feel it is Ok for them to be critical of others' appearances, and then have a profile stating "We" are very good looking and attract attention everywhere we go". Hmm - maybe this is why no one wants to be friends with them. Its the old saying that I can see the mote in your eye but not the boulder in mine.

kalikshama -> RE: BDSM out of necessity? (1/16/2012 4:52:26 PM)
quote: When I watch movies from the 1950s http://www.amazon.com/Crazyladies-Pearl-Street-Novel/dp/1400080371/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326761378&sr=8-1 Six-year-old Jean-Luc LaPointe, his little sister, and his spirited but vulnerable young mother have been abandoned—again—by his father, a charming con artist. With no money and nowhere else to go, the LaPointes create a fragile nest in a tenement building at 238 North Pearl Street in Albany, New York. For the next eight years, through the Great Depression and Second World War, they live in the heart of the Irish slum, surrounded by ward heelers, unemployment, and grinding poverty. Pearl Street is also home to a variety of “crazyladies”: Miss Cox, the feared and ridiculed teacher who ignites Jean-Luc’s imagination; Mrs. Kane, who runs a beauty parlor/ fortune-telling salon in the back of her husband’s grocery store; Mrs. Meehan, the desperate, harried matriarch of a thuggish family across the street; lonely Mrs. McGivney, who spends every day tending to her catatonic husband, a veteran of the Great War; and Jean-Luc’s own unconventional, vivacious mother. Colorful though it is, Jean-Luc never stops dreaming of a way out of the slum, and his mother’s impossible expectations are both his driving force and his burden. As legendary writer Trevanian lovingly re-creates the neighborhood of his youth in this funny, deeply moving coming-of-age novel, he also paints a vivid portrait of a neighborhood, a city, a nation in turmoil, and the people waiting for a better life to begin. “Literary time travel, meticulously remembered and set down. . . . This book is in some ways a key to our country; America was made by people like this.” —Washington Post TREVANIAN is the author of Shibumi, The Eiger Sanction, The Loo Sanction, The Main, The Summer of Katya, Incident at Twenty-Mile, and Hot Night in the City.

Awareness -> RE: BDSM out of necessity? (1/16/2012 8:59:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dscouple7383 What is the percentage of people (on this site in particular) are into bdsm out of necessity? What I mean by that, is I wonder how many people on here have discovered that the ONLY way to be with someone is through d/s? I think most male subs are into it out of desperation. They don't have what it takes to conquer women in the vanilla world and they perceive worshipping a woman as their ticket to pussy. Which works about as well here as it does in the vanilla world, ironically enough. Female subs, I think drift into it, either through meeting a guy who's into it or because they become aware of how much stronger their response is to dominant men - even if those men are abusive. Those women can often do quite well with D/s as an option, but it's highly dependent upon whether they're just into the dominant/submissive head-space, or if they have a strong masochistic need which must be satisfied. The masochists often can't find what they want in vanilla space. The Dom sadists are basically without options. If they need the sadistic thrill, then they're fucked in the vanilla world unless they can turn vanilla chicks into sub masochists. Turning a vanilla into a sub is easy - turning one into a sub who craves pain is not quite as easy. Pure power exchange Doms usually have options if - and this is a big if - they're psychologically healthy. There's no great need for D/s since vanilla women are often subs without knowing it and turning them is often pretty straightforward. They don't tend to get as much play as the sadists since newbie subs deep in the grip of sub-frenzy tend to be drawn to extreme limit-pushing behaviour, but the subs they do get tend to have a much better idea of what they want and are more likely to be stable.

xxblushesxx -> RE: BDSM out of necessity? (1/16/2012 9:02:32 PM)
So nobody has options except for you, huh awareness? Of course. [8\|]

Awareness -> RE: BDSM out of necessity? (1/16/2012 9:03:15 PM)
Oh, btw, just took a look at your profile. You guys are alright, but the part of your profile where you're saying that you're a "VERY attractive couple" is really overstating the case. You're in shape, but your looks are by no means exceptional.

Awareness -> RE: BDSM out of necessity? (1/16/2012 9:04:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx So nobody has options except for you, huh awareness? Of course. [8\|] Actually I made it quite clear that female subs have options, but I guess you were too busy counting the money from your financial domination scam to pay much attention to trivial things such as words and sentences.

Hillwilliam -> RE: BDSM out of necessity? (1/16/2012 9:08:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lthrpup quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP quote: ORIGINAL: lthrpup When I watch movies from the 1950s (North by Northwest, for example) I marvel at the street scenes in NY where it is as clean as Tokyo is today, where the men wore hats, the ladies gloves. The reality was quite different. Most tenement housing in NY in the 50's were still cold water flats. Where people had to boil water on a stove and fill a tub in the kitchen before pouring it out, bucket by bucket. Most people then wore patched clothing, bathed once a week, and so on. And were lucky to get picked up as day laborers, standing each day in gangs hoping to get chosen and having to kick back part of their pay in order to ever get another day's work. Movies then didn't show the truth. Most people were not day laborers, and when they left their homes--no matter how modest--and walked along the avenues, they were well dressed. Stock footage street scenes (often used for rear projection back at the studio) and newsreels were not staged. Repaired clothing (most of which was much more durable than today's clothing was common when wardrobes were smaller could be quite presentable. You were born in the late 60's and yet you are an expert on day to day life in the 50's. Nice trick.

xxblushesxx -> RE: BDSM out of necessity? (1/16/2012 9:54:33 PM)
So only true male dominants and female subs have options? Well, guess the rest are just gonna have to pray that someone gives them the attention they desire.

Awareness -> RE: BDSM out of necessity? (1/16/2012 10:03:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx So only true male dominants and female subs have options? Well, guess the rest are just gonna have to pray that someone gives them the attention they desire. Actually, it was a fairly reasoned post which essentially pointed out that adding sadism or masochism into the mix makes life slightly more difficult. Simple D/s as a power trip is easier because it resembles traditional masculine feminine interactions and a lot of women are into that despite decades of feminism. Tossing pain, knives and whatnot into the mix lowers your options for fairly obvious reasons. Of course, you're free to see what you want to see, but you strike me as immature and weak for someone who claims to be dominant. A simple word of advice: Grow the fuck up. It's a task that no-one else will do for you.

slaverachel2Him -> RE: BDSM out of necessity? (1/16/2012 11:34:58 PM)
God forbid someone doesn't wear make up and people know what they REALLY look like!

NuevaVida -> RE: BDSM out of necessity? (1/17/2012 6:56:20 AM)
~ Fast Reply ~ Well I'm late to this festive little party but here goes. No, I'm not into BDSM out of necessity but the style of relationship I am in - which is M/s in nature - is a necessity. It's the only way I can be in a relationship. It's out I relate to my partner. BDSM is just an activity we enjoy in the relationship. It is not necessary, but it's included because it's important to us both. What is being portrayed to me through the OP and his fiance/wife's posts, as well as their profile is they place a high priority on outward appearances. This is neither good nor bad, it's simply their priority. Where I believe they're going off course is that they are projecting their priority on others. To say that less put-together folks aren't trying is ignorant. First, how do you know they're not trying? Second, maybe you're right and they're not trying, for reasons that are entirely valid to them. Maybe they have a different set of priorities. I know for myself, personally, when I was digging myself out of an emotional hell and trying to find my way back to some semblance of normalcy, my outward appearance was the last thing on my mind. I had to deal with the shit inside, first. I knew I was the target of judgments like the OP, but had I done the "outside" work before I did the "inside" work, I may have never made it to the inside stuff. And to me, the inside stuff is a much higher priority than the outside. I think where the OP and his partner went wrong is to hold such a high priority on appearances that it actually affects them that others do not. Stating they are frustrated and upset because of this is strange to me. I can't imagine being so affected by others who have a different value system toward appearances than I do. If I did, I'd have to really look internally to see what the hell was missing, that I didn't have a strong enough self-foundation to keep me fulfilled and happy despite the person next to me having messy hair. I don't say that to imply a slam against the OP, it really is what I'd do. Be happy within, accept that those around you are on a different life path and still have something to contribute, and life will be much more peaceful. Only then can you see the beauty each person has to offer. Just to add something else for consideration - - I'm coming from a place where I get my hair done, do my nails, wear designer clothes, and drive a nice car. I wasn't always in this place, however. When I met the Mister I was largely overweight, yet already beginning my descend down the scale. Now I'm single digits away from my goal weight and having fun decorating my body with nice clothes, etc. I asked him just a couple of weeks ago, "Why in the world did you go out with me at that weight?" Knowing his ex wife and having seen pictures of his ex submissive - Christ Almighty they were beautiful, modelesque, women. He said he had come to be so attracted to the woman I was (attitude, outlook on life, humor, passion, etc) that the physical was just an aside to him. You see, his priority was somewhere different than yours is. And it worked for him. Yours is apparently not working for you, else you would not be so negatively affected by it. Just something to think about, if you're so inclined.

xssve -> RE: BDSM out of necessity? (1/17/2012 7:13:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder I admit I'm kinda in agreement with the op somewhat. Most people, not just in bdsm but everyday people, don't seem to take much effort these days. I know when I go out amongst people I see most people just don't care. They look as if they just woke up and walked out of their houses. Master and I usually try to look pretty decent when we go out and there are times we've actually felt overdressed for a lot of places we've gone (except the time we went hiking and were hungry afterwards and we found a nice restaurant. We were in hiking clothes and everyone else was dressed up in their Sunday best lol). So yeah, I do think a lot of people get into bdsm for the reasons the op stated but I also think there are some people who get into it for entirely different reasons. There's both and it's hard to find attractive people for the exact reason Master (Kana) stated. There's just really not that many attractive people to go around. I don't know about munches, but I do dress up for weddings and funerals at least, something about showing up for a wedding in jeans and flannel just isn't right, and I've had a many a bride thank me for showing the courtesy of at least wearing slacks and a jacket.

xssve -> RE: BDSM out of necessity? (1/17/2012 7:32:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lthrpup quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP quote: ORIGINAL: lthrpup When I watch movies from the 1950s (North by Northwest, for example) I marvel at the street scenes in NY where it is as clean as Tokyo is today, where the men wore hats, the ladies gloves. The reality was quite different. Most tenement housing in NY in the 50's were still cold water flats. Where people had to boil water on a stove and fill a tub in the kitchen before pouring it out, bucket by bucket. Most people then wore patched clothing, bathed once a week, and so on. And were lucky to get picked up as day laborers, standing each day in gangs hoping to get chosen and having to kick back part of their pay in order to ever get another day's work. Movies then didn't show the truth. Most people were not day laborers, and when they left their homes--no matter how modest--and walked along the avenues, they were well dressed. Stock footage street scenes (often used for rear projection back at the studio) and newsreels were not staged. Repaired clothing (most of which was much more durable than today's clothing was common when wardrobes were smaller could be quite presentable. Uh, only half the country had running water in 1950. I mean, are these people dressed in rags or what? Or just not pimped to the 9's? Standard local costume here is jeans, t-shirt and ball cap, even the chicks. [:D] Been the same pretty much everywhere I've been in this great country of ours, in the working class neighborhoods at least, with minor variations, flannel instead of T shirts, ball cap optional etc. Dressing up is a pair of designer jeans and a blouse instead of Levis and a T. The WWII generation did have a higher standard of dress, thank god, because the shit I pick up at thrift stores is stuff you can't even find anywhere else, and these days, unless you're associated with the jet set or the fashion industry, wash and wear is the norm - even the Fashion stores are full of oversized designer "Street fashion", loose jeans and hoodies, skatepunk, surfwear, etc. dressing up in the classical sense is pure fetish, unless you're a pharmaceutical salesgirl.

xssve -> RE: BDSM out of necessity? (1/17/2012 7:38:14 AM)
For example, a pair of OP golf shorts, a high thread count, EC, PC T, and Teva sandals is on the verge of overdressed the places I go.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: BDSM out of necessity? (1/17/2012 9:08:27 AM)
Yes, OP, everyone else in the lifestyle is fat and ugly. You two, on the other hand, are fucking marvelous. You should take advantage of that, you could be swimming in cock and pussy. After all, in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. Just a word of caution, if you meet someone who isn't fat and ugly, they are probably fake and a scammer.

GotSteel -> RE: BDSM out of necessity? (1/18/2012 6:30:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dscouple7383 I think the people who agree with me just don't like to be called fascists for disagreeing with them, or have their significant others be called assholes. Well as you can tell from the responses you've been getting there are a significant number of morbidly obese posters on the collarchat forums, but I suspect that has a lot more to do with online dating and the internet in general than it does with BDSM. For instance here's the last fetish club I went to http://s54.photobucket.com/albums/g102/fyreking/Variant%20Ball%202010/#!cpZZ1QQtppZZ20 it's not mostly really old, fat, and unattractive people. I'd say it's mostly just the opposite.

nortons -> RE: BDSM out of necessity? (1/18/2012 11:21:21 AM)
"BDSM out of necessity." From my experience I have only met one or two who were anxious to meet but turned out to have little or no interest in bdsm. Imagine my surprise! I am guessing from what I saw that they lacked enough self esteem to believe they could have a relationship with a vanilla man. So they imagined that if they dangled the forbidden fruit they could attract someone else who was desperate.

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875