quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

I think DS hit it right the nail right on the head. Reading through this discussion, the words "cater to" seem to be what is rubbing people all the wrong ways. And as always, there are some so hung up on terminology and definitions of dominance, submissive, top, bottom, etc. that they can't see the forest for the trees.

Even in a D/s or M/s relationship, nothing can always be one sided. A huge part of this comes from that whole "getting to know you phase." Yes, s-types (which includes slaves, submissives, bottoms and kinksters) tend to get pleasure from making their partner happy, just like D-types (again inclusive of dominant, masters, tops and kinksters) like to be the one in charge.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AKinkCounselor

I think this largely comes down to what the encounter is, and what you want it to be.

If it is a one off / occasional play, then who cares! Both (all) sides are there because they're getting what they want.

If you're talking about someone you want / or are in a long term relationship with, then it is an entirely different thing.

For long term relationships the dynamic you're in is largely irrelevant. Beneath the dynamic it is about fulfillment. Are your needs, wants and desires being fulfilled.

As a sub you might take a lot of pleasure from serving, pleasing and accomadating your dom. But unless that is 100% of what you need to feel fulfilled then at some point its not going to be enough. I think a lot of the feelings of love and compassion for a submissive come from their dom yielding to their needs.

I think, used sparingly, there is a huge amount of good that comes out of a dom who says, I am going to choose to accomodate this thing that you enjoy, purely because you enjoy it, because that is the depth of my affection towards you.

Such an action could be seen as being submissive towards your sub - though it is still the dom making the decision to do that - or it could be seen as being human towards someone you have feelings for.

Now of course that doesn't work for all relationships, some relationships are built on a foundation that would crumble if some a thing occurred but I suspect those relationships exist in the lowlands of the bellcurve.

Maybe it makes me less of a dom! but I am always aware of the desires and needs of who I'm with, and always try to wrap those up into a package that gives me what I want, while maintaining her fulfillment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


I'm going to put the fly in the ointment, here.

The answer to the original question:

quote:

ORIGINAL: arnoud

With that as background, I ask how much of a submissive's fantasies should a dominant cater to?

... is a simple one for me; none.

However, if we remove two words, "cater to" and we replace that with: " ... attempt to include in the over-all dynamic?", my answer changes.

To my mind, it is part of the "partnership" of an actual D/s relationship that I indulge her in some of her wants and desires. It is my responsibility to listen to her hopes, dreams, and aspirations and decide where they fit in to my over-all plan.

I think that there's a bunch of dominants who buy into the "my way or the highway" thing and, to some degree, I buy into it, also. However, if we're talking about a relationship as opposed to "play time", part of "my way" has to be to allow for her well being, also.







Screen captures still RULE! Ya feel me?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Nicely said, Satyr.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

That's all well and good, I suppose, if it worked for you but, I'm wondering if the statement "I have been an s before" doesn't belie the fact that unfulfilled desires aren't the reason you now identify as "d"?

Just a thought.

Good question, it started out fine and dandy until I found myself back to full scale control of everything towards the end. He was too weak for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

I think DS hit it right the nail right on the head. Reading through this discussion, the words "cater to" seem to be what is rubbing people all the wrong ways. And as always, there are some so hung up on terminology and definitions of dominance, submissive, top, bottom, etc. that they can't see the forest for the trees.

Even in a D/s or M/s relationship, nothing can always be one sided. A huge part of this comes from that whole "getting to know you phase." Yes, s-types (which includes slaves, submissives, bottoms and kinksters) tend to get pleasure from making their partner happy, just like D-types (again inclusive of dominant, masters, tops and kinksters) like to be the one in charge.

LL - A voice here from the cheap seats on the topic of terminology...

"S" types include submissives and slaves and bois and lg's. These people find happiness in deferring to the wishes, instructions and desires, of a Dominant (not of just anyone). "S" types DO NOT include bottoms or kinksters, as the people who identify with those terms, like the games and the kink and the sex, but have absolutely no interest in submitting their wills to the will of another. These people believe in equality in relationships and don't associate any particular sex/kink act with power. It's about sensations.

Kinksters are people who reject the D/s concept, but who engage in some fetish or kinky activities which submissives or Dominants may do, also. So, the sex acts may be same but a kinkster is playing with kink, but there is NO power dynamic involved. Which leads us to the other terms: Top and bottom.

Tops are people who provide the sensations. A submissive may top his Dominant, meaning, the submissive may provide the sensations, while the Dominant bottoms, meaning, the Dominant receives the sensations.

Switches may engage in any activity (Top or bottom), but they add the power exchange to it - that's D/s.

Also, Dominance does NOT equal sadism and submission does NOT equal masochism. That's S/m. S/m may be an expression of power exchange when it is done within a D/s relationship, but it may also be sensation play between kinksters.

D/s is about the power.

Some of us prefer to use these common distinctions because it does help to be clear and accurate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

I think DS hit it right the nail right on the head. Reading through this discussion, the words "cater to" seem to be what is rubbing people all the wrong ways. And as always, there are some so hung up on terminology and definitions of dominance, submissive, top, bottom, etc. that they can't see the forest for the trees.

Even in a D/s or M/s relationship, nothing can always be one sided. A huge part of this comes from that whole "getting to know you phase." Yes, s-types (which includes slaves, submissives, bottoms and kinksters) tend to get pleasure from making their partner happy, just like D-types (again inclusive of dominant, masters, tops and kinksters) like to be the one in charge.

LL - A voice here from the cheap seats on the topic of terminology...

"S" types include submissives and slaves and bois and lg's. These people find happiness in deferring to the wishes, instructions and desires, of a Dominant (not of just anyone). "S" types DO NOT include bottoms or kinksters, as the people who identify with those terms, like the games and the kink and the sex, but have absolutely no interest in submitting their wills to the will of another. These people believe in equality in relationships and don't associate any particular sex/kink act with power. It's about sensations.

Kinksters are people who reject the D/s concept, but who engage in some fetish or kinky activities which submissives or Dominants may do, also. So, the sex acts may be same but a kinkster is playing with kink, but there is NO power dynamic involved. Which leads us to the other terms: Top and bottom.

Tops are people who provide the sensations. A submissive may top his Dominant, meaning, the submissive may provide the sensations, while the Dominant bottoms, meaning, the Dominant receives the sensations.

Switches may engage in any activity (Top or bottom), but they add the power exchange to it - that's D/s.

Also, Dominance does NOT equal sadism and submission does NOT equal masochism. That's S/m. S/m may be an expression of power exchange when it is done within a D/s relationship, but it may also be sensation play between kinksters.

D/s is about the power.

Some of us prefer to use these common distinctions because it does help to be clear and accurate.

What I see here far too often are people who need to define SOMEONE ELSE'S relationship. How many women do we have here that constantly get told they are a "sub" not a "slave" because of "x?" Utter bullshit.

While I do agree there are general definitions, people outside the relationship tend to love to try to tell others what they are. As if they are the know all, be all and end all of BDSM terminology. That's great if someone is asking for the differences, but the reality is that within those parameters you defined, an individual can call themselves and their partner whatever they want.

Right on this thread, FO has this need to try to tell sf that she isn't really submissive, she just convinced herself of that. Really? I'm REALLY?! Unless the two plan on entering into a relationship, there is no need to say, "I think you just convinced yourself your are "x" when you are really "y" because this is MY definition.

For me, my dominance in a relationship is 100% mental, not sexual. As in, I'm not terribly interested in CBT, foot worship, etc. That's MY thing. Not yours? Fine and dandy, we are not compatible. But tell me that it means I'm not dominant, or my partner not submissive? Go fuck yourself as my relationship is not part of a group discussion nor does anyone else define me.

Get the point?

Probably missing a bit. Yes, D/s and M/s is about power. One enjoys having power, the other enjoys giving up power. But within each individual dynamic how that power is given, received and divided is not up to other people to decide, but up to the individuals. Regardless, if the d-type doesn't do anything to satisfy the s-type, then eventually that will build resentment and the s-type will kick the d-type to the curb (if they have half a brain in their head).

I have no idea why you felt the need to tell me I should have included "bois and lgs' " in the s-type. If I have to include every possible permutation of person, homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, transsexual, gender fluid, heteroflexible, blah, blah blah because it might make someone feel left out, tough. Feel left out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal

ultimately our energies feed off of one another. No offense, but this makes me wonder whether you aren't really a kinky bottom, and that you've convinced yourself that you're submissive. Part of what I'm getting is the mentality that you're doing your Dom a BIG favor by catering to HIS needs, just so you can hopefully get a few of the crumbs that fall off his table by periodically getting "your turn." I'm sure you didn't mean to convey this message, but this is how I read it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

Right on this thread, FO has this need to try to tell sf that she isn't really submissive, she just convinced herself of that. Really? I'm REALLY?! Unless the two plan on entering into a relationship, there is no need to say, "I think you just convinced yourself your are "x" when you are really "y" because this is MY definition.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal

[Per My Post#40 9/13/2014 11:09:53PM]

quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal

ultimately our energies feed off of one another. No offense, but this makes me wonder whether you aren't really a kinky bottom, and that you've convinced yourself that you're submissive. Part of what I'm getting is the mentality that you're doing your Dom a BIG favor by catering to HIS needs, just so you can hopefully get a few of the crumbs that fall off his table by periodically getting "your turn." I'm sure you didn't mean to convey this message, but this is how I read it.

Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing. Thank you LL, for putting YOUR words in my mouth, without the benefit of letting smileforme50 answer for herself, or raise an objection of her own ...

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

Right on this thread, FO has this need to try to tell sf that she isn't really submissive, she just convinced herself of that. Really? I'm REALLY?! Unless the two plan on entering into a relationship, there is no need to say, "I think you just convinced yourself your are "x" when you are really "y" because this is MY definition.

... Which she is more than capable of speaking up for herself, as evidenced on this cross-referenced "Knowing yourself" thread http://www.collarchat.com/m_4731324/tm.htm (9/13/2014 12:05:37PM), where as OP she poses two questions:

1. "What could a dominant know about a submissive that the submissive doesn't already know about him/herself?"
2. "Does this go both ways? Are there things a submissve knows about a dominant that the Dom doesn't know about him or herself?"

Consequently, please note the date and time stamp of my post, that although my remarks were geared toward her comments on this thread (as being more germane to the theme of this topic), it was 11 hours after she became OP on the "Knowing yourself" thread and had invited opinions such as the one I offered. I in no way addressed smileforme50 without her implicit consent and publicly challenging remarks on this subject matter contained in several follow-up posts over there.

Can you say the same of yourself where you seem to have no compunction in not refraining from voicing your own (sometimes unsubstantiated and purely speculative) opinions? You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but so are the rest of us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

There was a woman who used to post here regularly who really only engaged in D/s during sex. Yet, she identified here as a submissive, SPECIFICALLY because of the people who would disregard what she said as not being "submissive." It's utter bullshit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

It is also true, that not knowing the difference between submissive and masochist is problematic, if only in terms of expectations and assumptions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
But isn't it possible that part of his perceived weakness was...from the "s" perspective...was his own insecurity of allowing any expectations on your part to be met?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

I'm not touchy at all.

As I clearly stated, there are plenty here who identify as slaves who are regularly told they aren't, but rather submissive.

I have never done that to anyone. Ever.

So yes, the definitions are very broad and personal to each couple.

You claim that "bottoms," "tops" and "kinksters" aren't "power players." Why? Because you say so? They may not live 24/7 with a power exchange, but they do play with power exchange. Just because they don't do it to your satisfaction or definition doesn't make them less so.

What? Wrong. However, now I can see what you are objecting to.

There are two worlds here, in kink. There are those who are basically vanilla - mentally, socially, etc... but they like kinky play, which may or may not, include sexual acts. These are the kinksters, the tops and the bottoms. And, a subset of them includes sadists and masochists. It's about the sensations, the fun. These are the people who annoy the D/s types at the clubs because the D/s types think they lack respect. A Dominant is very likely to be laughed at and a submissive questioned. They are seen as "ridiculous." Kinksters think that D/s types are deluding themselves with elaborate fantasies.

The other world of people who are kinky, are power players. They engage in power-exchange. Dominants and submissives, Masters and slaves, Owners and property or pets. Old Guard fits this group. They may engage in High Protocol. These people submit their will to the will of another, or vice-versa. It doesn't matter who is giving or receiving the sensations, if they even engage in kink play at all, what matters to the Dominants and submissives is the existence of authority over another. To these people, it's a serious lifestyle and they view kinksters as promiscuous and irresponsible and perhaps, superficial.

These two worlds clash in our local clubs. The two types tend to attend on different nights, whenever possible. The gatherings are decidedly different, in tone. I gather from your posts that you haven't seen this where you are?

There are some who say that if a Dominant bottoms, she/he is not really Dominant... that the act of receiving a sensation, turns the Dominant into a Switch. That is vanilla sexism bleeding into BDSM. We know this because while a Domme who has intercourse may still be a Domme, a male Dominant who gets pegged, couldn't possibly be a Dominant. This is a great example of what you are railing against. This is people judging if a couple is D/s by the acts they engage in and how they do it. But, D/s people decide for themselves, how their power exchange will look or feel.

S/m may include a power dynamic, or it might not. That varies.

When a top or a bottom decides that they are ALSO engaging in power exchange, then they are a Dominant or a submissive. That can be a Dominant who bottoms or a submissive who tops, or vice-versa. What makes it D/s is the power exchange, not the sensation-giving (topping) or the sensation-receiving (bottom).

Please note - none of that has any value judgement attached. There is absolutely nothing in those descriptions that say one way of being is superior, to another. They are distinctions of difference, not of which is better.

Why do I know these distinctions? Years of real-life community experience. Years of study and research... you begin to see the terms used in different contexts. No, it wasn't me who made them up. LOL If you read BDSM organizations' sites, you see these distinctions made regularly. Read the information posted by the National Association for Sexual Freedom newsletters, policies and agendas. There's a place where centralized knowledge is gathered and disseminated. Or try a local masT meeting. Or, a local Old Guard/Leather Community meeting. Or, a convention, a workshop. Read some nonfiction BDSM books. In any of those places, you will see the distinctions I just wrote, echoed.

This is why my advice for newbies is to learn the language before coming on the boards to try and communicate. It's too easy to be misunderstood and then treated badly.



Now when searching, certainly having a common definition for the terms is helpful. Yet, still, we have a number of people (usually of the s-type) who come here questioning whether their likes, dislikes and desires should be important, or should they have to accept what a prospective d-type tells them because "that is how it works." They usually get a resounding "no" from the forum. Why? Because what they want is important.

There's a difference between knowing your terms and letting others decide which terms fit you. That is not a community problem. That's a matter of personality. If people want to become informed, the information is out there. In any area, ignorance creates vulnerability.

There was a woman who used to post here regularly who really only engaged in D/s during sex. Yet, she identified here as a submissive, SPECIFICALLY because of the people who would disregard what she said as not being "submissive." It's utter bullshit.

Well, that's BS she is choosing to perpetuate, can't you see? If she persisted in owning her identity and allowed people to connect her point of view, to that identity, then eventually, most will see that this is one way that identity looks, sounds or thinks.

I'll end by copying this from my last post to you:

If you disagree, well, then others get to see more than one point of view. It's all good. :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: arnoud
how much of a submissive's fantasies should a dominant cater to?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal

With respect to your observation below, and what BecomingV had posted about those of us who find it useful for there to be distinctions in how we might classify ourselves, I was going to agree that there are those who do engage in power exchange as bedroom(-only) Dominants and submissives, and that I personally believe that couples can have this D/s dynamic without being *just* a BDSM Top or *just* a BDSM bottom.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

We aren't in a club, and we aren't talking about being in a club, dungeon, play party, yada, yada, yada. We are talking online and how those terms are used.

No, you are. I'm being more broad. For instance, the OP of this thread is about a person in real-life. And you chose to focus on one of how many sources of unified, BDSM language? Other than books, the rest of the list IS available online. It's as if you are saying, "No, dictionaries don't exist because I don't like what the terms are, or what they mean." Unless I am misunderstanding you. Are you positing that there is no unified language in BDSM?

Around this site those terms get wielded like weapons because the "one true way" abounds. I've been here a long, long time and have seen it regularly. Likewise, those who regularly attend play parties and clubs telling those who keep things private that they can't possibly know.

I don't think one has to be a murderer to know what it means but unless I actually murder someone, I'm thinking that those who have could fill me in on a thing or two. Like, those who go out in the community and engage with others from around the world, in real life, in addition to, online interactions - they know more.

If I were a newbie, would you suggest I get my information from an online poster, or would you suggest I get my information from the BDSM organizations? Information in this case - terminology.

The point was, is and will remain that while there is certainly a general definition for the terms, the individuals decide which they feel applies to themselves and they get to explain it to whoever they are speaking to. If that person disagrees, no problem, each moves on to the next, or perhaps they discuss the reasons each defines themselves as such and gain understanding of each other.

We agree about this. ^^^ Are you thinking we disagree? I only said that you were incorrect in your terms.

For example, you identify as a "switch," yet from reading your profile, there are many who would think of you solely as a player who really is only into things mostly for sexual gratification. Now, I'm sure you would disagree, and then the question becomes, who is right? Well, you are right of course, simply because you are describing how you feel you fit into things. That is the whole point of what I am saying.

You say that as if that were a problem. So what if people are here for sex? I don't judge them. I celebrate them. So, if someone were to get that impression of me, I'd be fine with discussing it. No insult, or anything like that. For example, one guy earlier tonight offered $500 to kennel him. Ignoramus - his first contact. Did I respond, "Ick?" LOL No, I referred him to this side to the professionals' thread and told him what he sought was for sale there, and he might be safer doing it that way. I also told him that if he kept sending that email out, he will offend people and I wished him well. He wrote back to say he meant no offense. Well, I COULD feel offended but I don't. I just accept that every so often, a message like that will appear. I try to respond as if they just don't know any better and help if i can point them towards their bliss.

Now, back to your reading comprehension. Did you see the parts in which I said, "I identify as Primal?" See, you didn't really read it. I went on to say that this was because I can be happy with, or without, a D/s dynamic. That really, I'm just open to love. So which is it? Do you have trouble reading or did you skim, and tell yourself you knew what you were talking about? And, that's being kind and not suggesting that you are outright lying. You also missed other obvious things like, my Vanilla Hard Limits coming before BDSM hard limits. Or, the part in which I say I don't list kinks because I wouldn't be making choices based on kinks. There's the part about mono, poly or swinging, in which I say I'm open to discussing these things AFTER our relationship is solidified. Or, how about the part I titled, "men who make me pant, pant, pant" which is all about feminist men. And, let's not forget, my closing... approach me in a vanilla and friendly way and let's enjoy getting to know each other. Other hints include: no BDSM interests listed at all, but vanilla ones are. Or, under "seeking" it says, "friends only." Oh, and I don't post a picture, either.

What can I tell you? Today, a guy wrote to say he loved my profile... and that happens a lot. Not just guys, women, too. And, they are people of all different roles, ages, places, etc... He and I exchanged quite a few emails about... guess what? Classics in literature. So, while YOU got a sexy vibe, I assure you, others aren't giving me that kind of feedback at all. Refreshing and intelligent is what I hear most frequently.

Pointing to my profile has failed as an example to make your point. If anything, you've made it clear that you're having some sort of comprehension issue. Not always... I usually think you make sense, although not just now.

Do you get that you and I care about newbies and about submissives and slaves who are manipulated by false information? Doms and Dommes, too.

There is nothing i wrote that says people can't define themselves. I agree that they can and should.

All of this is about one thing... you don't know your terms and you think that making distinctions in terms, is some sort of value judgment. No, it's simply clarity.

Dom + sadist = Sadistic Dom
Top + masochist = Masochistic Top
Kinkster + submissive = Kinky Submissive
Dom + bottom = Dominant bottom
Switch + Top = varies, it depends if the Switch is Dominant or submissive

See how that works?

If you still don't see, then I repeat, "If we disagree, then others can read more than one point of view. It's all good."