RE: OWYN

RE: OWYN (Full Version)

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

Message

MariaB -> RE: OWYN (8/30/2016 2:00:16 AM)
LilJuly, DocStrange, DesFIP, OsideGirl, neeldes, Dizzy, catize, Lucy, DaddySatyr and myself (sorry if I missed someone) all gave our opinions. None of us tried to remove it off topic. All of us more or less ignored the twisted words of Wicked and some other sock who clearly carries a bitter tongue. This thread only got nasty when LP responded (off topic) to just one person, a person she clearly doesn’t like but a person who had given time and thought to add to this topic. It went down hill from there. Sorry we didn't live up to your expectations but you killed this thread LP, nobody else did.

catize -> RE: OWYN (8/30/2016 7:27:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB LilJuly, DocStrange, DesFIP, OsideGirl, neeldes, Dizzy, catize, Lucy, DaddySatyr and myself (sorry if I missed someone) all gave our opinions. None of us tried to remove it off topic. All of us more or less ignored the twisted words of Wicked and some other sock who clearly carries a bitter tongue. This thread only got nasty when LP responded (off topic) to just one person, a person she clearly doesn’t like but a person who had given time and thought to add to this topic. It went down hill from there. Sorry we didn't live up to your expectations but you killed this thread LP, nobody else did. QFT Thanks, Marie, I struggled with how to say this, saved me some keystrokes!

needlesandpins -> RE: OWYN (8/30/2016 7:33:03 AM)
Well, that all escalated quickly [>:] Needles

LadyPact -> RE: OWYN (8/30/2016 8:51:06 AM)
Yep, and you're right. I was wrong and I apologize. Mind if I give it a second shot? This part is just my estimation, but I think the majority of our forum participants have, or have been in relationships where most of the negotiations (except for upkeep, as TDC stated) is already done. I mean, the site used to be called "Collar Me" where the focus is mostly on D/s. That leaves out a heck of a lot of casual players, top, bottoms, folks who just do kink at the club, and so on. More often than not, those are the folks who stumble on this site. When you live with or are in the relationship with the person you kink with, sometimes, some of this stuff is easier. While it's probably an over-generalization, if the kink goes good, and it's a loving relationship, the sex is going to follow. So, unless there's an actual problem or something 'comes up,' there's not a lot of focus on negotiating whether there's going to be sexual contact or not. Casual play comes close to being the opposite. If you don't negotiate the potential of sexual contact or not, that can be some pretty murky water. We all hear the horror stories about that. Aftercare, I tend to see as the same thing. In the loving relationship, hey, if you (for whatever reason) experience drop on Tuesday after you played on Saturday, your partner is probably perfectly willing to show you a little extra affection. Do the cuddling, the listening, and all of that. It doesn't work like that when dealing with casual play unless it's something that you discussed before you agreed to play Saturday night. As a top, I know there are a couple of things that I don't dig. One is something I'm starting to call excessive aftercare. Most people just really don't neeeed an hour's worth of aftercare from a 'light' fifteen minute scene. (Not talking edge play type stuff here.) For most folks, an OTK spanking or some light bondage just doesn't require that. I think it's more people taking advantage to get their cuddle kink on, and in most cases, I didn't sign up for that. The other is trying to hold the top (or the bottom) hostage for "drop" weeks later. If I play with somebody the first Saturday of the month, I'm probably not going to buy into the other person has "drop" the third Thursday of the month. An expected trigger? Maybe. Post play regrets? Maybe. The majority of the time? Probably not.

MariaB -> RE: OWYN (8/30/2016 11:32:52 AM)
Thank you for putting this back on track :) I’ve been involved in a fare bit of casual play and nine times out of ten they’ve been spur of the moment scenarios. It tends to be half way through the evening when I’ve just spectated a really good scene and I’m keen to get going with some unsuspecting victim (just kidding). From past experience I’ve learnt to know my play bunnies well. They are people who know me of old, are into the same sort of play I’m into and have no expectations from me other than being sober, being safe, protecting them from others during a scene and doing what we like doing best. That way we all go home happy at the end of the night. I consider this to be safe casual play. Past experience… hmm I could write at least a chapter of a book about some epic fails, especially in the early days when a young and over eager me wanted to try everything with anyone who was willing. I was never accused of being abusive but I know I sent quite a few subs into a dark place for a day or two simply because their expectations were different to mine. I agree that we need an open dialogue with a new or casual play partner and we need to understand how to properly close a scene, because whilst we may just call this BDSM play, there can be a lot of ‘in the moment’ D/s. As dominants we can get inside someones heads and push all the right buttons and if we are their first play partner then we have a double problem because the likelihood is, we’ve just opened Pandora’s box and if we do that, the sub may mistake their momentary emotional involvement for love. At least they are going to lust after us and so when we walk away after a cuddle and forget to text them the next day (I mean, they did only have a spanking [&:]) they are going to go through feelings of abandonment.

catize -> RE: OWYN (8/30/2016 1:16:01 PM)
Glad to see we are back on topic! In reading your OP, it did slant more toward negotiating play sessions, but I believe it is just as important when seeking a long term relationship. How many times have we seen posts by either D/ or /s a few months into a relationship complaining their partner did X or wouldn't do Y? Contrary to popular beliefs, none of us are mind readers. That is why I believe asking for each others definitions is crucial; including after care. : ) It is a learning curve, and initiates, whether top or bottom, are bound (pun not intended) to make mistakes. I made my share of assumptions in the beginning, but I looked at my part of it and learned from those experiences

Awareness -> RE: OWYN (8/31/2016 7:19:40 AM)
I'm not dissing your attempt, but I believe the entire discussion around this topic springs from a false premise. That casual play can ever be anything but a crap-shoot. BDSM enforces an unearned intimacy during play. You're allowing someone to do things to your body which you wouldn't allow a casual stranger to do (well, if you have any sense of self-preservation, that is) and the resulting sense of intimacy is illusory. It compresses the learning experience by which people build trust. It's no wonder then that the casual play space is replete with systemic claims of trust violation. (I say claims because I strongly suspect a significant percentage are based on a failure to communicate effectively). A sub playing casual runs the risk of consent violation. A Dom playing casual runs the risk of being accused of consent violation by a malicious or nutty sub. Attempting to build a consent framework around casual play strikes me as pointless because you're attempting to impose rationality on people who can be irrational at best or downright insane at worst. It's always going to run the risk of failure because people are not rational actors - and BDSM people more so than most. I think it's far better for people to realise they're taking a hell of a risk when they play casually - and their decisions should be based upon an understanding of that very real risk, rather than lulled into a false sense of security by exchanging acronyms.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: OWYN (8/31/2016 8:07:36 AM)
never mind, off topic.

DaddySatyr -> RE: OWYN (8/31/2016 8:46:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness I'm not dissing your attempt, but I believe the entire discussion around this topic springs from a false premise. That casual play can ever be anything but a crap-shoot. BDSM enforces an unearned intimacy during play. You're allowing someone to do things to your body which you wouldn't allow a casual stranger to do (well, if you have any sense of self-preservation, that is) and the resulting sense of intimacy is illusory. It compresses the learning experience by which people build trust. It's no wonder then that the casual play space is replete with systemic claims of trust violation. (I say claims because I strongly suspect a significant percentage are based on a failure to communicate effectively). A sub playing casual runs the risk of consent violation. A Dom playing casual runs the risk of being accused of consent violation by a malicious or nutty sub. Attempting to build a consent framework around casual play strikes me as pointless because you're attempting to impose rationality on people who can be irrational at best or downright insane at worst. It's always going to run the risk of failure because people are not rational actors - and BDSM people more so than most. I think it's far better for people to realise they're taking a hell of a risk when they play casually - and their decisions should be based upon an understanding of that very real risk, rather than lulled into a false sense of security by exchanging acronyms. I have very little casual play experience. I have next to "no" public casual play experience. However, my guess is that if one is going to engage in casual play, doing so in public (in front of witnesses) might be their best bet. I think there's a whole lot of conflation betwixt BDSM and D/s (or M/s) behaviors. Because of that, I think there's a blurred line, in general and your point about some perceiving casual play as the precursor to a full-blown relationship. If a parallel can be drawn: it's like the bleach-blonde bar flies I used to meet, back in the 80s thinking that just because she allowed me access to all her holes, one night, she was somehow moving in with me. I've only ever had one "relationship" that was predicated on play and that turned out (in the end) to be a flaming disaster simply because we'd discussed BDSM parameters, but had never discussed what was expected out of a relationship. Hell, we never even discussed a relationship. I thought we were "play partners", but she thought we were headed for a relationship. It's why I'm always on about taking time time and really getting to know someone, if they're thinking about relationships. I believe negotiation is imperative, but ON-GOING. It has been years since I have said to a woman: "this is forever". Instead, I've said: "We'll be together as long as we keep making each other happy." That, in-and-of-itself, implies on-going negotiation because people are forever changing and evolving. Three years ago, if someone had asked me if I would be okay with having a dog in the house, I'd have looked at them like they had four heads. Now, it's a case of: "Love me/love my dog". I've changed. I would NOT hold my ladies responsible if they decided that having a dog in the house was not something that we'd originally "negotiated". While I wasn't dishonest (and it was one of them that convinced me to bring the dog into the house), I changed the conditions of our living agreement. Play time is one thing. So, if we're talking about BDSM, "negotiation" can be all-encompassing (per "session", I guess), but if we're talking D/s - M/s RELATIONSHIP, "negotiation" needs to be a more fluid thing (from both parties). That's my belief. Michael

WickedsDesire -> RE: OWYN (8/31/2016 9:26:08 AM)
Good thread - pretty much how I see things and it scares me were my words MariaB I made sure I said that. My initial words are what they are - they allude to those less than honest, lacking the moral fortitude to sit in judgement proffer an honest opinion - logical is that. Curious how you can sit in judgement, and not I, whatever one of the two you are. I do not differentiate between a sock, liar, cheat - if that is okay with you twisted one and all you claim to speak for - have you stolen their minds and tongues. I do not negotiate I discuss: Everything is fluid to me, and that is how it should be with all. There must always be a paper trail if things go awry - electronic format is fine. Casual play is something I don't do 1. I did it once with a friend at the second club I attended. I actually enjoyed it and I shared her bed later as I was staying a her place - strange how I never ravished that one _ i can offer no explanation for that - other than I think I did not wish to mislead her. I think something happened to me after my marriage from long long ago. in that, whilst I have a very open mind, morals bequeathed me of their existence. 2. I always avoided the grope box at clubs (brilliant concept) I am not sure why and I am loon enough to go in one - alas I cannot reverse time. but over time complaints were made of nipping and such like and rough grabbing. For a seemingly simple concept of casual play. 3. Ah back to one I still smile at the hook on her bedroom ceiling to this very day Now, the first club I ever went to I was literary dragged kicking and screaming (they just turned up at my door) they were not a couple as such but they played together and think he had a slave - a mythical creature I state does not exists _ i usually cite I almost new one in my lifetime and it was his her. But both of them (friends) played together and yet no sexual contact in that aspect. I always need sexual contact. But casual play occurs between two where it is not required in that sense.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: OWYN (8/31/2016 12:30:02 PM)
I agree with your points, a relationship has to be a relationship first and foremost, and a BDSM relationship second.

LilJuly76 -> RE: OWYN (8/31/2016 2:11:26 PM)
you know what I noticed LP, I have only done S & M play for about 9 or 10 years but in that time frame very few Dominants I played with have gotten me into subspace. I don't know why that is, but the few that got me to that point take excellent care of me when I drop.

LadyPact -> RE: OWYN (9/1/2016 6:42:32 AM)
First things first. I appreciate folks giving me a second shot on this. Thank you for that. There were a couple of thins that stood out to me... quote: I think it's far better for people to realise they're taking a hell of a risk when they play casually - and their decisions should be based upon an understanding of that very real risk, rather than lulled into a false sense of security by exchanging acronyms. I find this to be correct. Even if we attempt to improve negotiations to the best of our ability, the guarantee does not exist. However, we can't just throw up out hand and say "consent violations will always exist, so we should give up that we can reduce them". Part of this thread was to think about how it's not supposed to be an all or nothing proposition. If we improve negotiation skills, we can (hopefully) reduces things like mistakes, uneven expectations, etc.

LadyPact -> RE: OWYN (9/1/2016 7:09:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I have very little casual play experience. I have next to "no" public casual play experience. However, my guess is that if one is going to engage in casual play, doing so in public (in front of witnesses) might be their best bet. For what it's worth, there are certain places in the country (USA) that I feel this is the better way to go. Some of it has been so bad in the last five years, that neither side of the slash wants to be at risk quote: I think there's a whole lot of conflation betwixt BDSM and D/s (or M/s) behaviors. Because of that, I think there's a blurred line, in general and your point about some perceiving casual play as the precursor to a full-blown relationship. Believe it or not, I almost included this in my original. Goes for both tops and bottoms alike, though, I must admit, I see it from the botto m side more often. "Oh, we're going to play. We're going to have sex! That means we're in a relationship now." Except, if people had a one night stand at the bar, we're only fwb, etc, nobody would say that's how it goes. quote: If a parallel can be drawn: it's like the bleach-blonde bar flies I used to meet, back in the 80s thinking that just because she allowed me access to all her holes, one night, she was somehow moving in with me. I've only ever had one "relationship" that was predicated on play and that turned out (in the end) to be a flaming disaster simply because we'd discussed BDSM parameters, but had never discussed what was expected out of a relationship. Hell, we never even discussed a relationship. I thought we were "play partners", but she thought we were headed for a relationship. That's exactly where the unequal expectations come in. quote: I believe negotiation is imperative, but ON-GOING. It has been years since I have said to a woman: "this is forever". Instead, I've said: "We'll be together as long as we keep making each other happy." That, in-and-of-itself, implies on-going negotiation because people are forever changing and evolving. I'm a little unsure about "on-going" for those folks who do CNC. quote: Three years ago, if someone had asked me if I would be okay with having a dog in the house, I'd have looked at them like they had four heads. Now, it's a case of: "Love me/love my dog". I've changed. I would NOT hold my ladies responsible if they decided that having a dog in the house was not something that we'd originally "negotiated". While I wasn't dishonest (and it was one of them that convinced me to bring the dog into the house), I changed the conditions of our living agreement. Play time is one thing. So, if we're talking about BDSM, "negotiation" can be all-encompassing (per "session", I guess), but if we're talking D/s - M/s RELATIONSHIP, "negotiation" needs to be a more fluid thing (from both parties). That's my belief. Michael If you'd like, I'm about to start a 'dog' thread. Perhaps, you would enjoy participating.

Bhruic -> RE: OWYN (9/1/2016 8:25:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact First things first. I appreciate folks giving me a second shot on this. Thank you for that. There were a couple of thins that stood out to me... quote: I think it's far better for people to realise they're taking a hell of a risk when they play casually - and their decisions should be based upon an understanding of that very real risk, rather than lulled into a false sense of security by exchanging acronyms. I find this to be correct. Even if we attempt to improve negotiations to the best of our ability, the guarantee does not exist. However, we can't just throw up out hand and say "consent violations will always exist, so we should give up that we can reduce them". Part of this thread was to think about how it's not supposed to be an all or nothing proposition. If we improve negotiation skills, we can (hopefully) reduces things like mistakes, uneven expectations, etc. I agree with both these ideas. I too feel like casual play is an extremely dangerous proposition... if casual play means playing with someone who you do not know well. Negotiation may improve the odds of avoiding a negative experience... but I think it is most likely to do that by failing, and resulting in no casual play. And in spite of any negotiation, I doubt negotiation would have much impact on the consequences if there IS a negative experience. It is one person's word against another's in the case of a negative experience, and anyone who has the negative experience, in spite of having negotiated the scene, is undoubtedly going to feel that they got something they did not negotiate for... otherwise the experience would not have been negative. EVEN if the offending partner did not do anything they did not negotiate. You can negotiate the minutia of what will be done, but you can't negotiate the reaction... and when someone reacts negatively, they will not be in the mood for a calm review of what was negotiated. For my part, casual play is just something I would avoid... unless I have an audience paying close attention. The only time I have ever engaged in casual play was as the submissive (An "in the stocks" percussion scene at a busy club... to get a sense of the other side of things) and the only reason I felt comfortable was that, as the recipient, I felt in total control of the outcome... in the sense that being in the position to say "I didn't want that" is more comfortable than being in the position of hearing it.

OsideGirl -> RE: OWYN (9/1/2016 9:24:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact First things first. I appreciate folks giving me a second shot on this. Thank you for that. There were a couple of thins that stood out to me... quote: I think it's far better for people to realise they're taking a hell of a risk when they play casually - and their decisions should be based upon an understanding of that very real risk, rather than lulled into a false sense of security by exchanging acronyms. I find this to be correct. Even if we attempt to improve negotiations to the best of our ability, the guarantee does not exist. However, we can't just throw up out hand and say "consent violations will always exist, so we should give up that we can reduce them". Part of this thread was to think about how it's not supposed to be an all or nothing proposition. If we improve negotiation skills, we can (hopefully) reduces things like mistakes, uneven expectations, etc. One of the moments that stand out for me: M was a popular play partner in the LA community. A sub had negotiated to play him at our favorite BDSM club and one of the things she negotiated was no sex. Half way through the scene, in a frenzy, she's begging him to fuck her. He says "you said we couldn't do that". She replied with "I don't care, fuck me!" He refused because he knew he needed to stick to what was negotiated. It was the honorable thing to do since she was "under the influence" and that not sticking to the agreement would likely bite him in the ass later. Immediately afterwards, she was mad that M stood his ground. Two days later she thanked him for sticking to what was negotiated.

LilJuly76 -> RE: OWYN (9/1/2016 4:22:34 PM)
he was right to do that OsideGirl, as you know when we're in subspace, we're not exactly thinking clearly, we're on a high, we want to do crazy things, it's up for the Dominant to do the right thing.

Bhruic -> RE: OWYN (9/3/2016 6:29:43 AM)
The problem with negotiation as the be all and end all is that what one wants to do when one is not at all aroused is sometimes different from what one wants to do when one is very aroused. Sometimes people need that arousal to summon the courage to do what they REALLY want to do. The negotiation discussion always seems to assume that who one is and what one wants when one is unaroused and sober is who one really is, and what one really wants. I am not sure that is always the case. Granted, sober negotiation is the safest way to avoid something you don't want... but it may also ensure you never get what you do want.

LilJuly76 -> RE: OWYN (9/3/2016 6:55:07 AM)
I'm not in it to get what I want. If the Dominant I'm with says I'm allowed to spew my juices than that's what happens, if they say no, than that's what happens, whatever they want, as long as it doesn't inflict on my small amount of hard boundaries, I have never had a problem.

Bhruic -> RE: OWYN (9/3/2016 7:31:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LilJuly76 I'm not in it to get what I want. If the Dominant I'm with says I'm allowed to spew my juices than that's what happens, if they say no, than that's what happens, whatever they want, as long as it doesn't inflict on my small amount of hard boundaries, I have never had a problem. You might be the exception of someone who doesn't want anything. On the other hand... if your Dominant paid no attention to you at all, perhaps that might not be very satisfying to you... so maybe there is, in an abstract sense, something you want. I'm curious, throughout your life, have all of your hard boundaries always stayed the same?

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875