quote:

ORIGINAL: Proprietrix


My reply here is probably more questions expanding on the OP rather than a reply with any answers.
From a Sociological perspective, the idea of a BDSM cult absolutely fascinates me, and a BDSM commune has an enticing appeal.
I would think it would be difficult to put one together. Besides coordinating the mundane vanilla aspects of outside family and jobs, all sorts of difficulties occur to me, such as members with offspring, how the hierarchy would work between all members (both Dominant and submissive), and how challenging it would be to find not just one, but several other kink-minded people who had a belief system compatible enough to make it happen. Of those challenges, I think income/employment would be the easiest to overcome. There are many people in the lifestyle who are talented at craftsmanship, and with combined efforts, the commune/cult could possibly even support itself off selling lifestyle wares.

But who would hold the key position in this situation? The person who originated the idea and put it out there for others? The property owner? Would it necessarily need to be a Dominant in the highest position of power? If so, would "all" the members be subservient to that person, like in a Goddess worship situation? In most cults, there is a prime central figure that all default to, but realistically, how big could a BDSM commune become if other Dominants were expected to defer to the leading Dominant? How easily could it operate?
Would new members be trained? By whom? To what specifications? Would an incoming submissive be trained to the uber-Dominant leader’s specifications, or just to the rules in general of the community?
Where does it cross the line from commune into cult? Or does it even matter if it crosses that line?
What would be the likelihood of the government becoming involved?
Does religion play a role? Spirituality without religion? A belief system without spirituality or religion? I could see the benefits on a financial and liberty level of establishing it as a religion.
There would have to be a commonality of beliefs and shared definitions among the members.
How likely is it that an entire community could be set up around one person’s dreams and ethics and beliefs? How long would it last?
How would conflict be handled?
How technical would it need to become regarding codified rules and protocol and the distribution of wealth and ownership (of both property and slaves)?
How separate from vanilla society would it be?

It’s an interesting concept to think about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MaleModel
One could imagine a confederation in which the founding Dominant exercised loose control over groups of other Dominants, but with a clear understanding about the use of communal property (including sex slaves) and the finances.  Perhaps a re-reading of the Federalist Papers would be in order before setting out on this venture. lol

quote:

ORIGINAL: MaleModel
LA, it just seemed implausible to me that a slave would finish up his or her duties, put salve into his/her wounds, and then convene the Dominants to resolve conflicts among them, and make binding decisions.......before spending the night servicing one or more of them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zenofeller

slaves governing masters, now that's a comune destined for greatness. i imagine it can already be found, in the woods where lambs chase wolves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrDiscipline44
At some level, I can agree with zeno and M&M, submissives and slaves should not be put in positions of authority over dominants in a person/living situation. I know, I know. There probably are such things going on somewhere. But just because it happening, doesn't equate it to being right. In the end it comes down to being a personal choice, I guess.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MaleModel
Wouldn't that be humiliating/unacceptable to most people who feel themselves to be Dominant?  Being told what to do by a slave?  Having the slave or his agents ENFORCE his decision, which brings a loss of something of value to the Dominant (or else it would never have reached adjudication).

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross
If a dominant is humiliated by someone they are not in a personal relationship with, I have to wonder what they consider their dominance to be.  For me, dominance has no bearing on anything but their own personal relationship.  When it comes to social standing, they have no more or less place than any slave switch or vanilla.  If they find that a hard pill to swallow, that really is their own problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Proprietrix
In the case of a BDSM commune, I wonder if there would indeed be exclusive personal relationships. I think the general trend among those interested in BDSM communes is that *all parties* are kind of having a personal relationship with *all other parties*. It's kind of an enlarged poly atmosphere to the point that personal relationships and points of social standing actually overlap in every day life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

quote:

ORIGINAL: Proprietrix
In the case of a BDSM commune, I wonder if there would indeed be exclusive personal relationships. I think the general trend among those interested in BDSM communes is that *all parties* are kind of having a personal relationship with *all other parties*. It's kind of an enlarged poly atmosphere to the point that personal relationships and points of social standing actually overlap in every day life.

At which point really, UNLESS you forbade people to switch in any form and did not allow any switches into the commune at all, then ones relationship orientation loses all relevance whatsoever in terms of social interaction.  It becomes about working for the whole (as you said before), and thus ones personal relationship orientation becomes moot.

Seriously, look at how few doms can manage to make a relationship with two submissives work in the long term.  The pool of dominants who would able to even try and make a go at this is really small (although I'm sure many enjoy the idea).