Oh I'm confused about the complete BDSM definition (Full Version)

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



Message

chatterbox24 -> Oh I'm confused about the complete BDSM definition (10/24/2012 8:50:04 AM)

The definition. I know it means different things to different people but damn Im having a mind block cause i just can't distinguish the difference between kinky vanilla and BDSM.
Here is a couple examples I have trouble with. Vanilla couple vs. BDSM couple. Both have kinky sex in the bedroom, no outside element of BDSM going on outside the bedroom. What is the difference?
Another is, 1950's style type household vs slave/master relationship. What is difference? Power exchange in both relationships in and outside the bedroom, but what gives it that BDSM element?









OsideGirl -> RE: Oh I'm confused about the complete BDSM definition (10/24/2012 9:22:01 AM)

You're confusing BDSM with D/s.

BDSM is Bondage, Discipline, Sado-Masochism. It's basically "kinky sex" (for lack of a better description) The "discipline" refers to corporal punishment acts like spanking, flogging, strapping etc.

Adding D/s into the acronym is bastardization and IMO incorrect.

You can engage in BDSM without engaging in D/s. You can engage in D/s without ever engaging in BDSM.

1950's, M/s are D/s realtionships. They may or may not include BDSM.






chatterbox24 -> RE: Oh I'm confused about the complete BDSM definition (10/24/2012 9:37:57 AM)

thank you, but guess what im still confused a little. Oh boy. Told ya, total mind block.

This quote " You can engage in BDSM without D/s"
Does D/s mean when you use it alone in your answer, discipline and sado-machocism?



searching4mysir -> RE: Oh I'm confused about the complete BDSM definition (10/24/2012 9:40:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

thank you, but guess what im still confused a little. Oh boy. Told ya, total mind block.

This quote " You can engage in BDSM without D/s"
Does D/s mean when you use it alone in your answer, discipline and sado-machocism?




Dominant/submissive (it's about control, not necessarily pain). There doesn't need to be sado-masochism or bondage involved with a D/s relationship. Master is not a sadist and I'm not a masochist. I get nothing more than a spanking that leaves my bottom pink, but he has the final say in our relationship, always.



chatterbox24 -> RE: Oh I'm confused about the complete BDSM definition (10/24/2012 9:45:16 AM)

Ok thank you again, now its starting to clear up.

And Oside you said, 1950's and M/s are both D/s relationships. ANything that separates the two, really? Is it just merely " what word" someone decides to define their relationship?

1950's vs M/s, if all the same elements are there?



poise -> RE: Oh I'm confused about the complete BDSM definition (10/24/2012 9:45:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

thank you, but guess what im still confused a little. Oh boy. Told ya, total mind block.

This quote " You can engage in BDSM without D/s"
Does D/s mean when you use it alone in your answer, discipline and sado-machocism?


You can engage in BDSM (Bondage, Discipline, Sado-Masochism) without D/s (Dominance/submission)
In this scenario, there is no Dominance or Submission, just two equal partners
enjoying kinky sex. One taking the role of Top, and the other as the role of the Bottom.
And sometimes a little bit (or a lot) of both can be involved.

1950's households are more relationship dynamic than bedroom dynamic, and in
which case leans more towards D/s (Dominance and Submission) as opposed to
BDSM (Bondage, Discipline, Sado-Masochism)

The confusion probably lies in the fact that many often think the D/s of BDSM is
Dominance and Submission.

edited for formatting issue



chatterbox24 -> RE: Oh I'm confused about the complete BDSM definition (10/24/2012 10:00:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: poise

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

thank you, but guess what im still confused a little. Oh boy. Told ya, total mind block.

This quote " You can engage in BDSM without D/s"
Does D/s mean when you use it alone in your answer, discipline and sado-machocism?


You can engage in BDSM (Bondage, Discipline, Sado-Masochism) without D/s (Dominance/submission)
In this scenario, there is no Dominance or Submission, just two equal partners
enjoying kinky sex. One taking the role of Top, and the other as the role of the Bottom.
And sometimes a little (or a lot) bit of both can be involved.

1950's households are more relationship dynamic than bedroom dynamic, and in
which case leans more towards D/s (Dominance and Submission) as opposed to
BDSM (Bondage, Discipline, Sado-Masochism)

The confusion probably lies in the fact that many often think the D/s of BDSM is
Dominance and Submission.

edited for formatting issue


Yes, if you don't know the terminology or start confusing them, definitely a lack of understanding goes on!
I think one needs a college course to sometimes mentally absorbed this stuff! And even then you either get it, or you don't!
I really believe for someone to be an actual natural Master or an actual natural slave, they have natural born tendencies. Sure someone can be molded, or it can be a learned behaviour .......but its not the same.
I think people who learn at an early age, or even later at life, seem to have a different way of thinking then the average population. A very unqiue way about them. When someone practices this life style, with all the best intent, I do think it creates some of the best people on the planet. IMO.



littlewonder -> RE: Oh I'm confused about the complete BDSM definition (10/24/2012 10:24:13 AM)

Bdsm: kinky sex. This can include anything under the sun: top/bottom, sub/slave, Dom/me/Master, bedroom only, 24/7 relationship, even vanillas. Does not always include s/m.

S/m: an interaction between a sadist and a masochist. Doesn't always have to include a power exchange or sex.

D/s: power exchange between a Dom/me and a sub. The sub usually consents each time for different stuff. If she doesn't like it she can say no and he/she stops. May or may not include sex.

M/s: power exchange between a Master/Mistress and a slave. The slave consents once and that's it. Everything else is fair game. Her/his only right is stay or leave. May or may not include sex but usually M/s is based on long term relationships so sex would be involved.

1950's relationship:Usually is between a husband and wife. Husband in charge of the household, wife stays home, cooks, cleans, etc...man can punish her if she screws up something. This is usually no more than spankings.

Female led marriage: Same as 1950's relationship except reverse genders.

Leather: Includes formal protocols and rituals. Refer to LadyPact.

I think that I covered just about everything.



chatterbox24 -> RE: Oh I'm confused about the complete BDSM definition (10/24/2012 10:48:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder

Bdsm: kinky sex. This can include anything under the sun: top/bottom, sub/slave, Dom/me/Master, bedroom only, 24/7 relationship, even vanillas. Does not always include s/m.

S/m: an interaction between a sadist and a masochist. Doesn't always have to include a power exchange or sex.

D/s: power exchange between a Dom/me and a sub. The sub usually consents each time for different stuff. If she doesn't like it she can say no and he/she stops. May or may not include sex.

M/s: power exchange between a Master/Mistress and a slave. The slave consents once and that's it. Everything else is fair game. Her/his only right is stay or leave. May or may not include sex but usually M/s is based on long term relationships so sex would be involved.

1950's relationship:Usually is between a husband and wife. Husband in charge of the household, wife stays home, cooks, cleans, etc...man can punish her if she screws up something. This is usually no more than spankings.

Female led marriage: Same as 1950's relationship except reverse genders.

Leather: Includes formal protocols and rituals. Refer to LadyPact.

I think that I covered just about everything.


Awesome! Yep what was clear as mud is NOW crystal clear! Thanks all for the input.



OsideGirl -> RE: Oh I'm confused about the complete BDSM definition (10/24/2012 11:04:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24


Yes, if you don't know the terminology or start confusing them, definitely a lack of understanding goes on!
I think one needs a college course to sometimes mentally absorbed this stuff! And even then you either get it, or you don't!


While I think the internet is a wealth of information, it's also a wealth of misinformation which causes a lot of confusion.

The bastardization of the acronym BDSM is one of those instances. Then you add in "one twue way" websites like Castlerealm and "The 9 levels of submission" and it gets very confusing.

I started into WIITWD when the internet was in it's infancy and learning came primarily from discussion groups, lectures and demos. So, I didn't have to deal with all of the static and clutter that people just coming into this now have to deal with.



evesgrden -> RE: Oh I'm confused about the complete BDSM definition (10/24/2012 1:37:25 PM)

quote:

I started into WIITWD when the internet was in it's infancy and learning came primarily from discussion groups, lectures and demos. So, I didn't have to deal with all of the static and clutter that people just coming into this now have to deal with.


There's WIITWD, and there's how we relate to each other. So there are people with vanilla relationships who like to play tap and tickle, there are people who have a relationship in which one person has 51% of the vote 100% of the time with or without kink, and there's every variation in between.

I was around at the same time as you, Oside, and is I recall, way back then there were some pretty clear definitions, and most of the d/s world closely mirrored the gay leathermen, or Old Guard. But as more people got into it, there were many who like some aspects but not all, so many more variations became popular.

This pissed off some folks, was immaterial to others, and I remember once commenting (back in the ACLU d/s board days on AOL) that d/s was becoming quite mainstream and I pointed hints of it on tv.. even the Buffy series delved into it some 15 years ago. What amused me was someone who got pissed off, because she said.. get this.. the reason she was into d/s was because it was NOT mainstream.. and if it became mainstream she just might not bother with it anymore.

talk about the tail wagging the dog.. and the need to belong to something just because it's "different"? sheesh

but I digress.. again.

Chatterbox, my gut response is that if you have kinky sex, there's a bdsm element with or without a power dynamic outside of play. Somehow a 1950's household with no kink... not bdsm. To me, that's just one person having all the say.



LadyPact -> RE: Oh I'm confused about the complete BDSM definition (10/24/2012 5:28:12 PM)

I'm another one who agrees about the bastardization of the acronym BDSM when folks started throwing in Dominance and submission as an additional abbreviation to what was already there. (I mean, really. How many other acronyms are out there where individual letters stand for two different words?) That had to do with a number of D/s folks not being especially happy about being grouped in with the sadists and masochists. For as long as I've been around, there has been something of a division about it.

Leather is different than M/s in some ways. Leather is a lifestyle that exists thanks to gay leathermen. It's not just the dynamic that we are committed to. We are also committed to a certain way of life. For many, that's the protocols, the recognition of the leather community as a whole, a commitment to furthering education, and various other causes, charities, etc. We also keep certain traditions that have been around since the early gay leathermen days, such as Master's Caps and passing down a vest. It is a culture. There's even a leather archives that is located in Chicago.



ProlificNeeds -> RE: Oh I'm confused about the complete BDSM definition (10/24/2012 6:49:58 PM)

Is it time for alphabet soup yet?



littlewonder -> RE: Oh I'm confused about the complete BDSM definition (10/24/2012 7:42:44 PM)

quote:

talk about the tail wagging the dog.. and the need to belong to something just because it's "different"?


I remember this when I was on AOL also. Since then, I've run into TONS of people who say this. I have always found it's usually the young crowd who like to shock and awe people, who are into being Goth and punk or whatever just because it's different. What they don't understand is that it's not a big deal and most of the people they are trying to shock with it, just don't care and just roll their eyes.

And I'm also one of those people from back then when definitions were crystal clear cut. There was a difference between s/m, D/s, M/s and Leather. Now everyone just lumps it altogether and I admit I do it now just because it's easier for the "newbies" to understand even though it makes me cringe.



Muttling -> RE: Oh I'm confused about the complete BDSM definition (10/24/2012 7:46:05 PM)

I swear, this thread could drive a man to drinking







(Fortunately, it's a short walk instead of a long drive for me.)



Spiritedsub2 -> RE: Oh I'm confused about the complete BDSM definition (10/24/2012 7:50:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder

D/s: power exchange between a Dom/me and a sub. The sub usually consents each time for different stuff. If she doesn't like it she can say no and he/she stops. May or may not include sex.

M/s: power exchange between a Master/Mistress and a slave. The slave consents once and that's it. Everything else is fair game. Her/his only right is stay or leave. May or may not include sex but usually M/s is based on long term relationships so sex would be involved.


Am I understanding the part above right, that D/s is about a one-event situation, where M/s is the term when the power exchange is ongoing in a relationship, even if not so long-term?
Or is the distinction more about the extent of the power of consent? Sorry if that is confusing.



littlewonder -> RE: Oh I'm confused about the complete BDSM definition (10/24/2012 7:53:57 PM)

the distinction is about the extent of power one is willing to turn over.



Spiritedsub2 -> RE: Oh I'm confused about the complete BDSM definition (10/24/2012 7:59:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder

the distinction is about the extent of power one is willing to turn over.

Is it somewhat typical for a couple to start out D/s, then move into M/s if the relationship continues? Is it somewhat typical for new people to start out sub, then develop into slave? Or do slaves start out the gate knowing what they are as newbies? I'm asking based on what you've seen over time.



littlewonder -> RE: Oh I'm confused about the complete BDSM definition (10/24/2012 8:02:17 PM)

Common? I dunno because I don't delve into people's personal lives. I'm sure there are some who start out one thing and go deeper as time moves on. Master and I have always been M/s. I've always been M/s with all the men I have ever been with. If you want to start out as one and move onto something else, that's your right.



OsideGirl -> RE: Oh I'm confused about the complete BDSM definition (10/24/2012 8:46:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spiritedsub2


quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder

the distinction is about the extent of power one is willing to turn over.

Is it somewhat typical for a couple to start out D/s, then move into M/s if the relationship continues? Is it somewhat typical for new people to start out sub, then develop into slave? Or do slaves start out the gate knowing what they are as newbies? I'm asking based on what you've seen over time.


It's very subjective.

Personally, I don't believe in consensual slavery and feel that the term "slave" is distasteful, but many here would consider our relationship M/s.

Some believe that a submissive has to consent every time. That said, our relationship is based on the fact that I've consented once and I consider myself a submissive.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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