RE: Is slavery the final goal of submission?

RE: Is slavery the final goal of submission? (Full Version)

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

Message

peppermint -> RE: Is slavery the final goal of submission? (2/21/2013 8:42:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve quote: As to taking direction well, well he'd be dead if I always did that. Lol. Well, last time I didn't obey him the ER put him on a ventilator for 3 days. Guess he wasn't breathing as well as he thought he was.

Jenniferloves -> RE: Is slavery the final goal of submission? (2/22/2013 3:38:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl quote: ORIGINAL: Jenniferloves Have to say, the lists may differ from author to author. While some may as you said be, Bullshit, surely there must be some universally agreed concepts of either role? Otherwise you could not have known the differences being Dom or Sub? Well, lets start with: that list equates BDSM with D/s. BDSM = Bondage/Discipline/Sad-Masochism. You can engage in D/s and never engage in BDSM. You can engage in BDSM and never engage in D/s. So, just from that viewpoint alone the entire list is wrong. Part two: it devalues part of our community, by placing them into lower castes and it gives novices false information. It basically says, that if you're not aspiring to be "level 9" then you're just playing. Have to say Oside I agree with you that D/s can occur outside the realms of BDSM but not sure where you’re going this one: You can engage in BDSM and never engage in D/s. That statement has flummoxed me and perhaps others? As for part two: Maybe this is the PC brigade again were we are all equal but to take your argument that the list is wrong because it introduces a caste system and devalues the BDSM community is contrary to Dominance and Submission. The basic concept of Dominance/submission is ranking... it’s Dominance over submission not submission over Dominance or did I pick that false information up wrong?

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Is slavery the final goal of submission? (2/22/2013 4:13:09 AM)
quote: You can engage in BDSM and never engage in D/s. You can Also engage in BDSM and never engage is S&M, if your relationship is primarily D/s. Although many may not agree with this statement. Some consider BDSM to mean bondage, discipline, sadism and masochism. Other consider it to mean bondage, dominance, sadism and masochism. I tend to agree with the latter, primarily b/c my own relationships have little to do with discipline and everything to do with dominance and submission. It all depends on how you roll. For some, bondage is not just rope work or tying someone up to the bed posts with scarves. Bondage (for me at least) represent the mental bond I have with my partner(s). In MY world, you only tie up the ones you love, you know?

OsideGirl -> RE: Is slavery the final goal of submission? (2/22/2013 7:55:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jenniferloves Have to say Oside I agree with you that D/s can occur outside the realms of BDSM but not sure where you’re going this one: You can engage in BDSM and never engage in D/s. That statement has flummoxed me and perhaps others? Because you don't have to be Dominant or submissive to engage in Bondage/Discipline/Sado-Masochism. I have a friend that is a masochist, she absolutely has no interest in submitting. Beat her, fuck her...if you want breakfast make it yourself. quote: The basic concept of Dominance/submission is ranking... it’s Dominance over submission not submission over Dominance or did I pick that false information up wrong? I don't view Dominance and submission as ranking. I don't view someone that labels themselves a Dominant as superior to me. But, even if I did, that is not the same concept of that list.

xssve -> RE: Is slavery the final goal of submission? (2/22/2013 8:47:13 AM)
quote: As for part two: Maybe this is the PC brigade again were we are all equal but to take your argument that the list is wrong because it introduces a caste system and devalues the BDSM community is contrary to Dominance and Submission. The basic concept of Dominance/submission is ranking... it’s Dominance over submission not submission over Dominance or did I pick that false information up wrong? Uh, we are all equal, ideally, in the eyes of the law. I think castes systems do devalue the BDSM community, because they tend to be dehumanizing - if all I really wanted was a blow up doll, I'd get a blow up doll - a sub can be a lot of things besides a good time in bed, a companion, a friend, an adviser, a lot of the "a sub should never open her mouth unless there's a cock in it" is constructionist wank fantasy - don't get me wrong, I'm all for constructionist wank fantasies if you're into that, but to keep things in perspective, we're all just people trying to fulfill our particular needs - for a lot of people, this does involve discipline, which implies hierarchy, even if it may be temporary - switch's presumably engage in some sort of hierarchical construct, but it flips back and forth according to the particular dynamic, I assume - whether it's time stamped, ad hoc, competitive, or whatever, I have no idea, but it isn't hierarchical in quite the same sense as you're using it. But BDSM is basically an array of options, not an institution, the closest thing to an institutional value we have is SSC, and various derivatives, RACK, CASE, etc., and these do not require a hierarchy in order to apply them. Discipline implies a hierarchy as well, but it tends to imply a goal oriented construct, rather than a cult of personality, i.e., the goal of maintaining a functional dyad that serves and satisfies the needs of both partners. I was trained for watchstanding in the military for example, among other things, and it requires a certain degree of discipline to watch a bunch of empty buildings for long tedious hours in the middle of the night, in all kinds of weather, much of that training was basic sleep deprivation, and it might be termed "submissive", but it's just a necessary function in a larger design, a critical function, you're the first line of defense, it demands discipline. If a non-negotiable hierarchical relationship is what you need however, if that's what does it for you, just whistle, there's always plenty of takers, D/s is the basic concept of D/s, BDSM overall encompasses a bit more diverse range of options.

xssve -> RE: Is slavery the final goal of submission? (2/22/2013 9:15:19 AM)
Watchstanding, like many things in the military, is tantamount to slavery: the punishment for failure to stand a watch iin a military manner can be harsh, up to and including summary execution, but you consent to this when you sign on the dotted line. The punishment for failing to fulfill your duties as a virtual slave are presumably less harsh, but either way, don't sign onto it unless you're willing to do it, read the fine print - but even in the military there is a conscience clause.

Jenniferloves -> RE: Is slavery the final goal of submission? (2/22/2013 10:53:10 AM)
I guess I really am getting my eyes opened here [:)]

Jenniferloves -> RE: Is slavery the final goal of submission? (2/22/2013 11:09:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve quote: As for part two: Maybe this is the PC brigade again were we are all equal but to take your argument that the list is wrong because it introduces a caste system and devalues the BDSM community is contrary to Dominance and Submission. The basic concept of Dominance/submission is ranking... it’s Dominance over submission not submission over Dominance or did I pick that false information up wrong? Uh, we are all equal, ideally, in the eyes of the law. Trust someone to take the PC comment out of context... I believe that equality ought to be inherent in every society. At least you emphasised that it isn't though. That said, if you believe that there is equal power shared in the BDSM lifestyle either in the bedroom or outside of it - keep drinking the Kool-Aid! In a lifestyle choice such as this where one can expect an imbalance of power, it shouldn't surprise many that there is a hierarchy/list/ranking.

LadyPact -> RE: Is slavery the final goal of submission? (2/22/2013 11:59:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt You can Also engage in BDSM and never engage is S&M, if your relationship is primarily D/s. Although many may not agree with this statement. Some consider BDSM to mean bondage, discipline, sadism and masochism. Other consider it to mean bondage, dominance, sadism and masochism. I tend to agree with the latter, primarily b/c my own relationships have little to do with discipline and everything to do with dominance and submission. It all depends on how you roll. For some, bondage is not just rope work or tying someone up to the bed posts with scarves. Bondage (for me at least) represent the mental bond I have with my partner(s). In MY world, you only tie up the ones you love, you know? It depends on how accurate you want to be with the initial conceptualization of the acronym. When coined, it really was Bondage, Discipline, Sadism and Masochism. The reason that people wanted to start throwing in that bit about the D standing for Dominance, or even further that the thing stood for Bondage, Discipline/Dominance, Sadism/submission, and Masochism was because the folks that were D/s types without the kink basically felt they were being left out or ignored. (Why they wanted to be a part of things that were pulled straight from the Diagnostic Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders never really made much sense to Me.)

Missokyst -> RE: Is slavery the final goal of submission? (2/22/2013 12:04:33 PM)
Thats why I like you, you are in touch with roots. I was kind of floored when D/s got tossed into the mix. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt You can Also engage in BDSM and never engage is S&M, if your relationship is primarily D/s. Although many may not agree with this statement. Some consider BDSM to mean bondage, discipline, sadism and masochism. Other consider it to mean bondage, dominance, sadism and masochism. I tend to agree with the latter, primarily b/c my own relationships have little to do with discipline and everything to do with dominance and submission. It all depends on how you roll. For some, bondage is not just rope work or tying someone up to the bed posts with scarves. Bondage (for me at least) represent the mental bond I have with my partner(s). In MY world, you only tie up the ones you love, you know? It depends on how accurate you want to be with the initial conceptualization of the acronym. When coined, it really was Bondage, Discipline, Sadism and Masochism. The reason that people wanted to start throwing in that bit about the D standing for Dominance, or even further that the thing stood for Bondage, Discipline/Dominance, Sadism/submission, and Masochism was because the folks that were D/s types without the kink basically felt they were being left out or ignored. (Why they wanted to be a part of things that were pulled straight from the Diagnostic Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders never really made much sense to Me.)

Jenniferloves -> RE: Is slavery the final goal of submission? (2/22/2013 12:07:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact (Why they wanted to be a part of things that were pulled straight from the Diagnostic Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders never really made much sense to Me.) [/color] [sm=mademyday.gif] Classic!

DaddySatyr -> RE: Is slavery the final goal of submission? (2/22/2013 12:32:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Missokyst Thats why I like you, you are in touch with roots. I was kind of floored when D/s got tossed into the mix. This confuses me, a bit. Surely you're not suggesting that D/s has no place, here? BDSM as a "lifestyle"? I've always maintained that it would be very difficult for bottoms to drive while their wrists are cuffed to their ankles so "24/7 BDSM" is a very difficult goal to reach. I have always believed that without D/s the BDSM stuff might work but it would be almost as empty as bar-hopping looking for bedmates; sure, the sex is okay but where's the substance? Where's the emotional entanglement; the "raison d'etre"? I have been told (by people who claim to be Old Guard types) that the original acronym was, in fact: BDDsSM. I don't know for sure about that but I do know that it is VERY difficult to have BDSM without some form of D/s. In fact, I believe that D/s is the umbrella under which BDSM resides. Peace and comfort, Michael

Jenniferloves -> RE: Is slavery the final goal of submission? (2/22/2013 12:39:38 PM)
Here, here!.... about time some Dominant came in and told us what this ought to be about... I forgot whose tagline it was but it personified what this is/has turning/ turned into... Collarme or Coddleme!

DaddySatyr -> RE: Is slavery the final goal of submission? (2/22/2013 12:55:47 PM)
I think if you'll notice, I kept to statements such as "I believe..." and "I think ...". I have no desire to tell others how to live. Therefore, "this" *ought* to be about whatever it is that they decide it is for them; as long as they don't also try to decide for me. Peace and comfort, Michael

RedMagic1 -> RE: Is slavery the final goal of submission? (2/22/2013 12:55:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I have been told (by people who claim to be Old Guard types) that the original acronym was, in fact: BDDsSM. I don't know for sure about that but I do know that it is VERY difficult to have BDSM without some form of D/s. In fact, I believe that D/s is the umbrella under which BDSM resides. The best documentation I've seen was in a History of the Lifestyle thread on Fetlife. That site isn't easily searchable, but the basic deal was this: Someone found a thread from the early 1990s that defined BDSM as Bondage, Discipline, Sadism and Masochism. This is the first known use of the acronym. Within a few months, someone else referred to the DS as standing for domination and submission. So the people who state that "domination and submission were added later" appear to be correct, but almost by technicality. This then lead to discussions/arguments about the "real" meaning of BDSM, almost from the very beginning of its use. (Not that kinksters have ever argued about anything else, ever.) BDDsM was an alternative offered in order to be more clear about what was meant.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Is slavery the final goal of submission? (2/22/2013 12:58:29 PM)
I remember the term BDSM from the early 80's. There is a group on FET dedicated to the history of WIITWD. Here is a picture of an ad from an underground newspaper in 1973. It uses "BD-SM" https://fetlife.com/users/356780/pictures/16637451

RedMagic1 -> RE: Is slavery the final goal of submission? (2/22/2013 1:04:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam I remember the term BDSM from the early 80's. "S and M" is older than BDSM. Maybe that's what you're thinking of. Everything I've ever seen, ever, has placed BDSM as a genuinely online-inspired acronym, like LOL. And that it was coined in the early 1990s. All that means is that if you're right, and you can prove it by finding anything in writing, then you'll singlehandedly change the etymology of the word.

OsideGirl -> RE: Is slavery the final goal of submission? (2/22/2013 1:04:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I have always believed that without D/s the BDSM stuff might work but it would be almost as empty as bar-hopping looking for bedmates; sure, the sex is okay but where's the substance? Where's the emotional entanglement; the "raison d'etre"? You can engage in kinky sex without having a power dynamic. You can be in a loving relationship that engages in kinky sex and not have a power dynamic.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Is slavery the final goal of submission? (2/22/2013 1:07:30 PM)
I remember the term from the late 80s and I've met people that have told me (whether they're being truthful or not) that the acronym was used as far back as the 50s in the Old Guard community. I can't say for sure but I can refute that it didn't exist before the 90s. My guess is, with the explosion of the interwebs and the globe becoming smaller, as a result, the idea/term was just able to reach more people and become more "mainstream". Certainly, while the acronym can't be traced back as far, the idea of Bondage, Discipline, Sadism & Masochism goes back a few hundred years. I'm referring, of course, to the Marquis de Sade and if you read the collected works, you will find that his lovers felt compelled to endure the BDSM out of some desire to be with him; to serve his wishes. That sounds like D/s to me! Peace and comfort, Michael

RedMagic1 -> RE: Is slavery the final goal of submission? (2/22/2013 1:07:43 PM)
Saw your edit. Thanks. That would seem to indicate that the only thing new in the 1990s was that the hyphen was dropped. Probably S/M in that poster meant sadism-masochism, so yeah, the initials meant sensation play long before they meant "D/s relationship."

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.445313E-02