RE: Why online isn't

RE: Why online isn't (Full Version)

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

Message

Emperor1956 -> RE: Why online isn't (6/16/2006 3:20:33 PM)
quote: OMG clothespingirl.. that is priceless. Did you know that during WWII that many many men came home and married their penpals they never had met before in person? Most of those marriages were successful too, much higher level of staying together than other marriages of the time. Well, yes, julia, but the social pressures of the 1940s-mid 60s mandated that divorce was a fairly extreme option. I don't know that the number of apparently successful marriages after WWII can be cited for anything. The truth is that "greatest generation" (the WWII vets) had more than its share of life stress -- alcoholism, marital infidelity, domestic violence all we now know were quite present, as was a massive amount of undiagnosed or untreated PTSD. The other truth is that I'm tired as spit of this stupid thread. So I'm trying in a literate way to hijack it. Wanna join me, people? There must be SOMETHING else you can talk about? E.

OedipusRexIt -> RE: Why online isn't (6/16/2006 3:21:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistressSassy66 [ What are the other requirements to be a "first tier" friend? I think that question is better left to a new thread. As to reality, I've already done my best to make the point that it's a concept, not an absolute. Like hearing the other points of view, though.

Emperor1956 -> RE: Why online isn't (6/16/2006 3:35:57 PM)
WAIT. I have it. Did any of you notice how often FOOD comes up as an analogy in this overburdened thread? Someone (forgive My sloppy attributions) talked about homemade icecream and cherry flavoring. Someone else talked about sweetness in the mix. SOMEONE else talked about apples and oranges and I know LA said "pie in the sky". Even ArdentOne in his hymen-busting post talked about those little pink spoons at 31 Flavors, and Rocky Road AND bubble gum. Online relationships aren't real sex, or real B/D/S/M. NO. The truth is: ONLINE = FOOD. MORE SPECIFICALLY, ONLINE = ICE CREAM. Why didn't I see it before? Its all so clear now...the scales have fallen from My eyes. Thank you, thank you for the illumination. E. (I'm gonna download a Buona beef, sweet and juicy, and a Diet Dr. Pepper. Have fun, y'all)

ArdentOne -> RE: Why online isn't (6/16/2006 4:02:10 PM)
LOL

BitaTruble -> RE: Why online isn't (6/16/2006 4:14:43 PM)
quote: Online relationships aren't real sex, or real B/D/S/M. NO. The truth is: ONLINE = FOOD. MORE SPECIFICALLY, ONLINE = ICE CREAM. Why didn't I see it before? Its all so clear now...the scales have fallen from My eyes. Thank you, thank you for the illumination. E. (I'm gonna download a Buona beef, sweet and juicy, and a Diet Dr. Pepper. Have fun, y'all) Obviously, the scales are still blinding your eyes. ONLINE = CHOCOLATE ... and anyone who doesn't know that is a ________ (insert derogatory comment of choice here .. after all, one must remain PC in all things) [8D] Celeste Highjack completed. Beep.

slavejali -> RE: Why online isn't (6/16/2006 4:18:41 PM)
quote: Online is quite real in my opinion, but it isn't real S&M, it isn't real sex, it isn't real relationships, it isn't much of anything, it is just "real online" and NOTHING more. Combine that with the fact that online self selects for people who often don't have real life relationships and tend not to have any real life S&M experience, you have a recipe for disaster and broken hearts. I think that's a fairly accurate statement based on some simple truths: 1. I've heard so tragic stories about people meeting up from online and it just wasnt what they thought it was going to be or it didnt turn out how they thought it would. 2. Online is very much like reading a book, or watching a movie, it can engage our feelings and thoughts, even make us feel we are part of the movie or story in the book but it could have no reflection on our abilities to live the story we have become so involved in. 3. Just in general life, people can talk about their desires and their wants and needs but to actually put them into action can be a difficult thing. Example: I could fantacise about lotsa thing, if I will ever do everything, is another matter. 4. Its easy to philosophise over issues, putting our philosophies into action is an entirely different thing. 5. Taking on the role of dominant or submissive in a relationship brings with it some challenges. You really have to get to know and be comfortable with yourself for it to really play out harmoniously within relationship. How many people really know themselves or are really comfortable with themselves? When the shit hits the fan, or there is a bump in the relationship or a challenge to face, or an obstacle to surmount, what personality is your default? This can only be fully tested in RT situations. 6. Just looking at the problems faced by online only people and RT people even on this forum, there is an obvious difference between the issues that come up. Example: When we were chatting, if Master had to go work on his car, I would feel a bit frantic, now when he is working on his car, he is just out in the garage, I can even take him a pop, its a non issue. 7. Nothing can replace touch and being in the same room with someone. 8. People can spend more time talking about their wants and needs online within 3 months than they would in the entirety of a 50 year RT relationship. Might find this interesting..but since Master and I have been together, we hardly ever talk about our wants and needs, we just live life and deal with things as they come up. However in our 11 months of chatting, we expressed more to each other than most people would when forumalating a new relationship in RT. I think thats a real positive to online meetings initially. However, it has to be said that its the dealing with outside issues together, with the same influences effecting us together that make a relationship concrete. Example: If the car breaks down, we are both in the car and have to deal with the issue, together. 9. There is a big difference to sticking needles in myself on webcam and Master actually doing it. S/m play can really hurt and a real cock with a human attached to it, is much much better than a dildo. 10. Its the little things that concrete a relationship, things like, making coffee in the morning, doing his washing, arranging the house the way he likes it, making the food he likes and actually being able to serve it to him. I think most people would agree with those points. There is a significant difference to online and RT. I find it bemusing kinda when I see arguements to the contrary. Each, is just what they are, no more, no less. And the differences and the way we choose to live our lives, makes no difference to anyone else but our own experiences.

litleone8620 -> RE: Why online isn't (6/16/2006 4:32:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom Ever read a book or take a class on how to do something and then struggle to do the simplest things on your own? Now, I am the first to recommend that people new to S&M read books, but at least those books were written by people who had actually done the things they write about. Would you choose the doctor fresh out of med school or would you prefer the one who has cut open a few hundred people and gained real world experience to do your brain surgery? Online is quite real in my opinion, but it isn't real S&M, it isn't real sex, it isn't real relationships, it isn't much of anything, it is just "real online" and NOTHING more. Combine that with the fact that online self selects for people who often don't have real life relationships and tend not to have any real life S&M experience, you have a recipe for disaster and broken hearts. Why this sudden outpouring of people slamming online relationships? You do realize you're posting to an Online forum, right? Does that make it less real? You do realize you probably have an online relationship with people in this very forum. Again, does that make your relationship less than what a real one is? I haven't read all the posts yet, but i can imagine there are people here that have an online M/s relationship, contradicting everything you've said. I myself have been contradicted when i commented on online relationships. To those who have one, it is real. It could even be more real than r/t. People who have online relationships have all kinds of tools at their disposal to use if they're feeling 'unreal'. You have to have a lot of resolve and determination to be in an M/s online relationship, and i'm the first to admit, i don't have that. It seems to me, that you don't have that either.

ArdentOne -> RE: Why online isn't (6/16/2006 4:32:51 PM)
Thanks a bunch for that post slavejali. For all the validating and explaining I did for online relationships, it's my curiousity about reallife (RT, RL or meatlife) experiences that brought me here. And I appreciate they way your worded things. I think for the most part, (could be wrong) the people that are in online relationships actually DO want more, but... like me, are sorta stuck with'em. For the time being, it's all we have. Its evident that a face to face, hands on relationship offers perks and pleasures that no amount of typing can reproduce. I think many of us had a bit of a knee jerk reaction to those that attempt or endeavor to belittle this tiny amount that we have. You graciously expressed your point without any of that. Again, thanks.

Noah -> RE: Why online isn't (6/16/2006 4:42:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: agirl ANYHOW....... online experiences are ..well, online experiences...... isn't it a bit nutty to equate them with physical ones?...They are what they are, people get out of them what they get out of them....they are different fish. You can't get pregnant from an online fuck and your bum doesn't turn that interesting shade of red from an online beating....just some silly thoughts.........lol agirl The things you say are true and not silly but there is so much more to the point. Of course the two things can be usefully equated. Is there anything nutty about equating burglary and embezzlement as robbery, while carefully noticing the differences? Is your financial loss less "real" if your money is embezzled rather than burgled from under your mattress? Would you prefer to find (A.) a dollar in an old jacket or (B.) a thousand in your online stock trading account? More to the point, is your heart less stolen if it is stolen through the mail? Over the phone? Online? Is BDSM is just slapping and fucking? Is it not present without slapping and fucking? These seem like fair questions and you may of course apply very narrow definitions to certain words if you like. It seems clear to me that for a person to submit her will to that of another has nothing necessarily to do with touching, not that the touching can't be sublime if the subtler elements are in place. Power exchange can be manifested by various forms of physical interaction but isn't it inherently an internal event, as someone else has pointed out earlier? If a submissive bends her will to a dominant, has she not bent her will regardless of their respective locations? What strange urge makes someone want to appoint himself referree and rule one experience in bounds and one out? If you, agirl, graciously fetch a drink at my request at the same time that certain a wonderful woman in New Zealand is changing her hair color for me, is your submission superior simply because we touch? Is it "more real"? Which one of you is liable to learn more about herself by addressing my request? Should she feel less rewarded when she beholds the result of her devotion to me than you do? As for the need for physical proximity for sadism, a couple of things need to be said. Has one of your "real life" lovers never told you from across the room to do something for yourself? To undress, say, or to touch yourself in a certain pleasurable or painful way? If he says it through the door before entering from the shower does it not thrill you just as much or little? If he says it over the phone when he calls to say he's on his way from work does it mean nothing? Even if online interaction has never done anything for you personally, can you not see how this is all just a matter of degree? I think that for a submissive to act physically upon herself at her partner's request, from near or far, can be a lovely expression--and from what I'm told a lovely experience for her. Tastes may vary, but must we rule those with differing tastes "not (I'm so tired of hearing it) real"? Glossing over the intimacies available with cameras and other remote devices, are so few people familiar with psychological sadism? Emotional sadism? Lots of the pain I am thanked for administering involves no touching, regardless of whether the partner in question is in the same room or the same hemisphere. Similarly, many of the psychological and emotional rewards I offer--in the broadest sense of the word--are gratefully accepted with no touching. I hurry to say that many of the rewards I glean are also taken at a distance. I get the same feeling inside every time a given partner greets me in a way chosen to please me, in person, on the phone, in a letter, in chat. I get the same feeling inside every time a partner genuinely expresses her devotion and her will to obey, irrespective of whether I can set eyes on the obedient behavior. I'm blessed to be able to interact physically with my girlfriend, though at the moment she is on vacation with her family and our interaction must happen at a distance for a little while, as do most of my interactions with certain other very special submissives. When she got in her car to drive away, our relationship, our connection, was not diminished even a little, although of course it was modified. Before she first got in her car to come meet me in the flesh our relationship was already established. She had already submitted to me. Now you can wail as loudly as you like that it wasn't "really" submission, that the pain and pleasure she felt were not "real" pain and pleasure. But then afterward please sing us the song about the bumblebee who can't fly. I like that one better. The plain fact that is brazenly staring us all in the face is that people have rich, rewarding S&M relationships at a distance sometimes. SOme of them have met already in the flesh. Others haven't. Rhetorically covering one's ears and droning: "LALALALALA" with bombastic post responses (I won't mention any nicknames) doesn't change this fact, although it is great fun to watch--for about five seconds. I'm a hugely tactile person too; I'll spare you the gory details. But please, touch can hardly be essential for power exchange unless a very meager sort of physical coercion is what it boils down to. Touch can hardly be essential to pleasure if so many authors and artists can please us from the grave, as it were. Touch can hardly be essential for pain, based on the results of the phone call about your loved one's involvement in a serious road accident. Or a cruel hoax with the same content. If my girlfriend should suffer some grave disease which requires that she spend the rest of the year in some hermetically sealed medical apparatus but can still communicate with me and remains psychologically and emotionally able, our power exchange relationship would continue, again, undiminished. Modified? Greatly. Diminished? Not a bit. What would you be more fulfilled by? Someone or other in the same commercial playspace willing to bend over some furniture and get striped by you, or someone who reveals herself deeply, is always truthful and strives to be ever obedient, even in difficult and painful matters, who happens to be separated from you by distance? You're entitled to either opinion in my view and I wouldn't think less of you as a person for holding the opinion opposite mine here. I don't have any interest in mere physical "play". Online porn wanking seems no more masturbatory to me than casually hooking up with someone where the physical connection is present, period. Let me put it this way: People can masturbate one another up close; coitus can mean less than a kiss blown from a train window, or a chat window; people can love one another and exchange power at a distance. It baffles me that these observations are difficult for anyone to appreciate. Finally: My condolences to those who have been burned in online relationships. But ruling all online experience as inauthentic on that basis is too much like deciding to be a racist because someone of another color stole your car.

spankmepink11 -> RE: Why online isn't (6/16/2006 5:21:20 PM)
Slavejali....as is often the case...i agree with you, which usually saves me a lot of typing. I might add, that in my own experience in chatrooms etc, i was never comfortable with "cyber" displays or actions, it just doesn't "feel" right for me. If it works for someone else...well...more power to them. We can all argue the semantics of "real" vs "not real" till the cows come home, but guess what....online still won't work for me....just as "online" will continue working for those who practice it successfully.... On a side note.....and at the risk of being labeled a hng (horny net girl?) I happen to enjoy watching the "wankers" on occasion.(just another kink) NOTE to wankers....i have a special little place i go to when my voyueristic need arises...so no.. i .do not want to see you on cam

Brosco -> RE: Why online isn't (6/16/2006 5:27:05 PM)
I wasn't going to respond to this thread, its seems every day there is another 'lets bash online' thread and its tedious to have to repeat the opinions to the same people knowing that they will dismiss the opinion out of hand. I had to reply to Noah though. That was a very well written and an excellent explanation for those that 'just dont get it' and I live in hope that it doesn't fall on deaf ears. Brosco

OedipusRexIt -> RE: Why online isn't (6/16/2006 6:00:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brosco I wasn't going to respond to this thread, its seems every day there is another 'lets bash online' thread and its tedious to have to repeat the opinions to the same people knowing that they will dismiss the opinion out of hand. I had to reply to Noah though. That was a very well written and an excellent explanation for those that 'just dont get it' and I live in hope that it doesn't fall on deaf ears. Brosco Really? Honestly, I found it long, a bit tedioius, and involved far-fetched made up examples. IMO.

Noah -> RE: Why online isn't (6/16/2006 6:02:48 PM)
Thanks Brosco. And thanks to all those who shared their ideas and considered mine, not least those who made the same points I did, but sooner and or better ... especially that cheeky poetry buff.

feastie -> RE: Why online isn't (6/16/2006 6:06:14 PM)
I have, in my past, enjoyed a very fulfilling online relationship. It lasted solidly for two years, a little on and off since then and we remain very good friends. It was what I could do at the time. We traded photos, shared phone calls, but never met. It was discussed, but in the end, I am the one that decided it would not be a good thing for me. He was a person whom I could share my innermost thoughts without fear. He never laughed at me, he simply nurtured me. He taught me where to find my strengths and how to work on my weaknesses. He encouraged me to seek out my local group and when I found it, he demanded that I attend my first munch. I did, at his request, even though I was extremely nervous about it. Yes, he sometimes asked me to do certain things physically and I was happy to comply. It wasn't necessarily about the physical act, but the thought behind the act and my motivation to carry it out. I'm not ashamed to say that I loved this man very deeply. The day he ended our relationship was probably one of the most painful days of my life. It is because I know how strong feelings can develop online that I do not choose to involve myself in another online relationship. I don't want to expend that kind of emotion with someone that will remain online. If there is a chance for r/t, then I want that emotion to develop r/t, not online. Online is as real as you want it to be. Yes, certainly, many delude themselves about their online relationships, but then...they do that just as well r/t, don't they?

agirl -> RE: Why online isn't (6/17/2006 12:16:59 AM)
Hello Noah, I absolutely agree........ You correctly noted that I was being lighthearted. I don't actually think that when I'm requested to do something by my Master when he isn't present makes a jot of difference to the weight of his request. When he's present I do it , when he isn't, I do it. Having a totally online relationship is just different to having a face to face, flesh on flesh one .....not better, not worse.....just different. If a person finds it satisfying, then it's satisfying..........and it would be idiotic to insist that my perception, or preferences, should be theirs. Regards, agirl

ExistentialSteel -> RE: Why online isn't (6/17/2006 2:13:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OedipusRexIt quote: ORIGINAL: Brosco I wasn't going to respond to this thread, its seems every day there is another 'lets bash online' thread and its tedious to have to repeat the opinions to the same people knowing that they will dismiss the opinion out of hand. I had to reply to Noah though. That was a very well written and an excellent explanation for those that 'just dont get it' and I live in hope that it doesn't fall on deaf ears. Brosco Really? Honestly, I found it long, a bit tedioius, and involved far-fetched made up examples. IMO. What's this? Dueling critics? Ha. Put me down as giving Noah stars for that post. I can see why cyber would work for him.

twicehappy -> RE: Why online isn't (6/17/2006 3:35:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HollyS quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom Online is quite real in my opinion, but it isn't real S&M, it isn't real sex, it isn't real relationships, it isn't much of anything, it is just "real online" and NOTHING more. Combine that with the fact that online self selects for people who often don't have real life relationships and tend not to have any real life S&M experience, you have a recipe for disaster and broken hearts. I think you forgot a few critical words here: "I don't think," "I don't believe," and "I speak only for myself," are all conspicuously missing. If it's never worked for you or anyone you know, fine. But you don't speak for me, my friends, or the millions of other people who have found love, friendship and yes, sex in an online environment. The reality still exists even if you can't imagine it. Cd forgive me for going off topic on your thread, but i felt like i had to. Holly please go read this thread which i started. http://www.collarchat.com/Is_Political_Correctness_now_affecting_the_bdsm_community%3F/m_418190/tm.htm Why do you believe any poster is required to apologize during the course of their post to add these disclaimers " "I don't think," "I don't believe," and "I speak only for myself," ? Obviously they are posting their opinions, what they think, what they believe as an individual. Nowhere in CD's post did i read the statements" this is the one truth or this is the only real way". Actually if you read any of CD's posts he most vehemiantly protests any individual declaring their opinion to be the only valid one and the words "one true way" apparently upset him to the point of nausea. Not at any point did he claim to be speaking for you, your friends or millions of others, only for himself. The forum boards are an open arena for opinions, thoughts, discussion and heated debate. Why do you feel we must coddle those whose opinions differ from our own for fear of offending them? They need to be offended, suck it up and get over it; no one gets through life without a little offense handed to them. If they do not wish to engage in intellectual discourse with others of alternative opinions or are aware they may find these opinions distasteful probably should not read the forum boards.

ScooterTrash -> RE: Why online isn't (6/17/2006 3:48:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom Ever read a book or take a class on how to do something and then struggle to do the simplest things on your own? Now, I am the first to recommend that people new to S&M read books, but at least those books were written by people who had actually done the things they write about. Would you choose the doctor fresh out of med school or would you prefer the one who has cut open a few hundred people and gained real world experience to do your brain surgery? Online is quite real in my opinion, but it isn't real S&M, it isn't real sex, it isn't real relationships, it isn't much of anything, it is just "real online" and NOTHING more. Combine that with the fact that online self selects for people who often don't have real life relationships and tend not to have any real life S&M experience, you have a recipe for disaster and broken hearts. I have read all the posts on this thread, and although CD & I have butted heads on many occasions and will again (chuckles), if I'm reading the point of his post correctly, I think many people are bashing him without looking at the main point. Yes, certainly you can meet someone on line, talk on the phone, get some preliminary pleasantries out of the way, eventually meet real life and do the "live happily ever after" thing. I don't think there was anything stated that made that sound impossible...I can attest it's tough to do maybe and the odds aren't the best, but I know first hand that it can and does happen. If I am getting the jest of CDs post, he is simply stating that if all you want, or strive for, is on-line S&M, then NO, it's not going to be fulfilling, or dare say "real", for either party, not from an S&M perspective. Yes, you can meet someone utilizing any media you choose, meet real life, and be separated for an extended period of time....during that period you can maintain this "relationship" on-line, but you are maintaining something tangible at that point, not something based solely on-line. The keyword here is maintaining…it is at that point involving physical and mental aspects up close and personal. If on the other hand, all you are going to do, or want, or have, is an on-line meeting, on-line conversations, on-line play, with no intent of having a real life relationship at any point in time, then I have to agree with CD that it's not S&M by any stretch of the imagination. I even saw where someone got sidetracked and even implied that it could even be a "real" M/s relationship on-line...I had to shake my head on that one because that certainly isn't happening, I don't even buy that you can have this and live in two separate residences, little alone strictly on-line…but that is not what is being discussed here anyway (stay on topic). CD stated S & M specifically! This would involve some physical interaction at some point. I think the majority of people whose sole intent is to have an on-line only S & M something (can't quite call it a relationship), are those in situations that make real-life, up close and personal BDSM relationships impossible. Those situations could be (notice I said could) where they are married to a nilla spouse and their real life flesh and blood partner isn't going to be involved in the lifestyle, or those who are paranoid about their employment situation or community standing and won't take a chance on being discovered. To avoid dirtying their hands with cheating (in their mind anyway) or being exposed as some pervert, they tickle their fancy by using the on-line media as an escape. I’m certain there are other reasons, but these I have witnessed. It's not a relationship however and certainly not S & M. CD, if I misinterpreted your post, by all means impart clarity, but if I'm on target, I think you are being slammed harshly for something you didn't say.

darkinshadows -> RE: Why online isn't (6/17/2006 5:30:34 AM)
Hello Scooter - I completely understand the point you are making - but that is on the assumption that all sadism or masochism is physical. It isn't and it has never been defined as purely physical - sexual yes - but not only physical. It is mental as well. Masturbation isn't intercourse, but it is still sexual. So therefore, if online communication is a mental force, if CAN exist and does. It isn't the same - I don't believe anyone has said it is as I have read it. But the use of a crop vs. a paddle are not the same. Online and realtime are different sections - but does not make them any more or less than each other - just different. Online is what it is - it is real. Personal preference. Peace and Rapture

Chaingang -> RE: Why online isn't (6/17/2006 7:05:16 AM)
Do people here realize what Pros call online or phone only clients? They call them "wankers." That's instructive, or should be. People need to do what they need to do. But the preference by far is to get out of one's head and into the real world.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875