RE: Watered down BDSM (Full Version)

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



Message

LordODiscipline -> RE: Watered down BDSM (10/7/2006 3:14:41 AM)

quote:

While I agree with the comment about Civility being a two way street, I disagree with the second statement about it needs to be offered before it is returned


You are right - I was referencing (and, had stuck in my mind) the paragraph above this one where I spoke of "leaders" in the leather community who were offering false bone fides.
 
My thought process was that "when they meet you and lie about who they are - they disrespect you and the community (and, sometimes the community's history) by doing so" - and, that is not offering you civility at the outset -
 
So, whereas that situation is definitively damning for they - civility is a two way street where it needs to be offered gratis and openly at the start and always until there is cause not to.
 
~J



LordODiscipline -> RE: Watered down BDSM (10/7/2006 3:26:34 AM)

quote:

Yet, there is in some cases where those who can validate creditials who have passed away now for some, as all of us age in the scene, so have our elders who helped shaped their students and or admirers, in M/s, D/s, S&M and or BDSM.  That is the area where credibility can no longer be established but, was at one point able to be fully confirmed and validated.  What is important though, is that we (in general terms) create our own reputation as we make a journey through the lifestyle and life itself.  Not everybody will be title holders.  And, not all title contests have more than one couple and or one person, so they win by default.


I find this excuse used often by people who are lieing about thier backgrounds...
 
"They all died" -
"The ancient house burned down and all records were destroyed" -
 
- and, seldom will accept it as anything more than an extension of a lie anymore.
 
There is always someone who can validate a history... someone who might state that "Yes - I knew Joe - and, Alice used to hang out with him in the early days at the Grand Onion Bra on Houston Street when they held those meetings. If Joe was alive, he would say the same."
 
The convenience of the grave is simply too easy an excuse when fables are being presented as fact.
 
The "elders" have not all passed away - and/or there are more people who knew them than the one telling the story - so there is almost always the possibility of confirmation with a communique.
 
(And, I am willing to bet that I know whom you are speaking of in the "home visit" scenario)
 
~J

Oh - and, there are way too many silly titles for people to hold.... it seems in these days whenever someone wants to have a fete, they create a title so that they might give it away - or, they are trying to get something regional for a national title - and, there is little support for it in the local area.... I have had several friends win titles who were the only ones competing in the contest - and, that simply makes all of these titles look silly - hence my references elsewhere to "buying a leather sash and stenciling it myself" - it would have as much veracity and meaning relative to the plethora of sashes being handed out these days - not to mention the idiotic lies told by some of the candidates and that (even) the (honorable?) judges knew about prior to and after the contest...



MissyRane -> RE: Watered down BDSM (10/7/2006 4:27:24 AM)

but so if this whole thing 'causes problem..that we're all in a one big pile...then why not keep the things..bit more seperated?
There is "BDSMwith/without fetish" and then just "Fetish"...personally I don't really know of any fetishes I have..so I don't really know how to deal with those lol...but yeah like someone said perhaps it would be easier if the line was drawn somewhere..like...one category was BDSM(and BDSM with fetish) and then pure fetishes ...like collarme is a BDSM site...and then there would be another site somewhere...for Fetishists that have no interest in BDSM and then there could be like only fetish clubs and then bdsm clubs..with fetish and so on n so on...

ok this's probably a bad idea I don't know..but still it just ran through my mind.

<thinks I'm gonna be killed for that comment..[>:]



twicehappy -> RE: Watered down BDSM (10/7/2006 5:27:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissyRane

then just "Fetish"....personally I don't really know of any fetishes I have..so I don't really know how to deal with those lol....


Lmao......if you figure out how email me.  Scooter and Jewel had a subbie here for a trial period when i arrived who was supposedly into S+ M, after getting to know him i became more and more confused as to his orientation. After he left we figured out what he meant by being into S+M, to him it stood for STAND +MODEL, he just wanted to dress up in latex.



LadyHugs -> RE: Watered down BDSM (10/7/2006 5:43:45 AM)

Dear LordODiscipline, Ladies and Gentlemen;
 
I will have to still make it a point, where us older individuals that are not public and wave the 'who's who' in other people's faces as to flaunt credibility about; may face the challenges of credibility.
 
For my own personal situation, majority of my Masters were already in their 70s and 80s when I was in my 20s.  So what happens then?  Sure, I have other means to establish credibility, such as independent newspapers and such--but, what about others in similar circumstances?  What will happen when you age --being the young gentleman you are now?  We also have those who are new citizens to the USA, coming from around the World, to which credibility is challenged.  Those who are military and discover overseas, are they to suffer challenges and subjected to being falsely accused of being a liar?  This is my area of concern; as to credibility.  This is why my comments on establishing one's own reputation, independent of other's needs to establish credibility.  I posed this same question to a known writer and presenter, to which has contradicted themselves on many occassions.  Your thoughts on this please.
 
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
Lady Hugs
 
 



LadyHugs -> RE: Watered down BDSM (10/7/2006 5:53:50 AM)

Dear MissyRane, Ladies and Gentlemen;
 
Indeed it is difficult to 'lift' and 'separate' elements that need to be moved from the BDSM umbrella.  I for one, have a glove fetish per se.
However, as a lady I often appear in long skirts and femdom 'uniforms' per se, where gloves are an accessory, not a fetish standing all by itself.
 
As much as I do want to avoid the "stand and model" for some individuals who do have fetishes; it seems increasingly so that is all they want to do.  Even picking up trash or making themselves useful at a party would be welcomed.  But, showing off their attire, is no better in my mind's eye as modeling in a show case.  I know it may seem cold and unkind of me but, so many thrust themselves upon unwilling participants and don't lift a finger to be helpful at parties or dungeon gatherings.  I am always happy to see those in fetish willing to help.
 
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
Lady Hugs



twicehappy -> RE: Watered down BDSM (10/7/2006 6:38:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyHugs

 I for one, have a glove fetish per se.


I love the look of an elegantly dressed Lady in gloves, not to mention the touch of them on bare skin.
 
I really have no objection to the stand and model type (or any type for that matter) attending gatherings as long as like you have noted, they are willing to pitch in and help. I would never dream of going to someone's (vanilla of bdsm oriented) home for dinner and not at least offering to help with serving, the dishes or something. My children were raised to do the same it was simply called manners.



LordODiscipline -> RE: Watered down BDSM (10/7/2006 6:40:54 AM)

See - there is the issue -
 
I am not a 'young gentleman' (in fact the term 'gentle man' would be in dispute in many areas of my life - and, "young" is exceptionally relative - and, definitively not relative to the time I have been in leather) -
 
I have people who can vouch for me going back over decades - and, others who knew the people I knew - and, I believe that I shall always be verifiable - if by none other than those that know me best.
 
We do not lose our entire kinsmanship ('friends and family' for those MCI Customers) as simply as a medeval plague might have performed for humanity.
 
Even AIDS has not remove all associations and knowledge - just devastated the ranks and left us a lot sadder and with more holes int he ability to garner that information.
 
Further -
 
I personally do not "call people liars" unless there is some significant reality divergent issue brought forth and in evidence...
 
I simply withhold placing any judgement entirely on them or their situation and take it from there as a neutral in my own mind - in other words - they may not have said it 'at all' to me, as there is nothing that lends to it's credence or credibility - and nothing they are saying which is improbable.
 
However - if they claim that they are 'fourth generation leather', 'trained in an ancient house', a 'grand <master, mistress, mouse, etc>', or some other such nonsense...
 
I definitively do not have issue with telling them there and then that I do not appreciate being 'beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men'** 
 
It seems the very least I might do for them relative to their disrespect which was evidently well practiced on others and thoughtfully posited on those present.
 
The fact is -
 
IF someone is going to make a false claim in a public/personal venue - and, (when mountingly egregious - those things that are simply beyond the pale) in cyber venue.. then they should be capable and willing to provide the information to support it.
 
We live in a sub-culture that prides itself on personal history - we live in a sub-culture that is fluid and moving constantly -
 
Either in the ether of cyber - or in the world, we are a constantly moving group.
 
With these two things manifest and not changable in the near future, there are always those present who believe they can manifest their self with a simple tale and a twist... That will and always shall be a constant as long as we are human.
 
But, whereas many of our alleged leaders in leather are afraid to speak out (that it might affect their income to be divisive) some of us [who are simply not dependant on the good will of the masses for money and/or votes - and who are unaffected by these leaders sqeamishness for confrontation]  feel that it is not something we should not shrink from... we might feel it is personal.
 
But, then - that is speculation... and, although I am sure my less then gentile disposition for nonsense might become evident when people push me... I am always civil where it is given, deserved and returned...
 
And, as I am a curious sort - I often turn the other cheek to see if they would dare.
 
~J



danreeves -> RE: Watered down BDSM (10/7/2006 7:04:22 AM)

I am very curious and also new to this lifestyle--when a sub wants to be used-this means???? what would be examples of useing her-and how would the first move be made when starting play?



LadyHugs -> RE: Watered down BDSM (10/7/2006 11:01:29 AM)

Dear LordODiscipline, Ladies and Gentlemen;
 
Thank you for your candid responses.
 
I might add though, in a sweet and good natured way, anybody a year younger than I are young. [Eyes twinkle with a bit of humor]
 
As you have those to vouch for your decades, so do I.  You are correct in that, you stated so nicely--we come in to then become part of an extended family of sorts and those knowing of our (in general terms) associations.  This is most true about those more 'exposed' in the public venues, such as Eagle Leather Bars here and about, other Leather gathering areas in knooks there abouts here and there; or Old Hellfire and Paddles and such and the wonderful model of it all; The Sanctuary of the Dark Angel.  Private homes and parties---ah memories.
 
It still remains a concern of mine, to which the new generation to which are more socially interactive, through support and education groups and, seemingly of late to give little respect to those who may practice the lifestyle in a most discreet manner.  Some may be more genuine in being in a M/s relationship than most who are among the 'visible' among us.  But; more of a concern is the challenge to such people's credibility.  Although, justifying credibility is subjected to what credibility means--I find it most sad, when credibility by association to others is held to such lofty weight. 
 
In my mind's eye; the individual person creates their own credibility by how they behave, the attitude they have and how they function in a M/s, S&M or D/s and or BDSM manner.  Another thing of my time line in the lifestyle, name dropping was frowned upon.  It seems these days, it is who you know matters more than what you know, as first hand knowledge and experience.
 
In some cases, those who have run for titles, have done so for many reasons.  Their spirit of intent is not always ideal in my mind's eye.
Some run for the sole intent to gain attention and not really on the intent of representing the community, champion causes and the like.
At times the truth comes out behind the scenes, to which someone in confidence with individuals seeking titles; have done so just to add another feather in their cap per se, as to add it to their resume`; just like forming groups also adds to their resume`--but, they ommit the fact that the group only survives three months or less.  Thank goodness not everybody does so-- but, it is enough, in my mind's eye to distable the whole intent of the title.  May I have your mind's eye views on such please?
 
May I also see through your mind's eye; as to how to approach the problems that may be deemed much like a cancer; as it applies to leadership in general in the community at large.  In the maintaining the spirit of intent on focusing on those who give false creditials, lie and or do not practice what they claim to represent, e.g. community matters vs. personal agenda; are discovered to be full of falsehoods--
as far as leaders and or those with titles, about to seek a title and or those who are past title holders?
 
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
Lady Hugs



LordODiscipline -> RE: Watered down BDSM (10/8/2006 5:51:52 AM)

quote:

Some may be more genuine in being in a M/s relationship than most who are among the 'visible' among us.  But; more of a concern is the challenge to such people's credibility.


Well - I (personally) do not have an issue if someone gives caveat to their experience - ("I have been in BDSM for ten years at home and am now just getting out"<---it allows for an honest dialogue and an understanding of one another, vice the "I have been involved in leather for ten years" which is a tacit lie)

quote:

Although, justifying credibility is subjected to what credibility means--I find it most sad, when credibility by association to others is held to such lofty weight. 


As mentioned - where there is a high value placed on longevity and in a culture where faking personal bone fides is easy and an art form for the most accomplished of liars, it is something that is going to be more and more commonplace as our ranks swell - Questions will be asked and answers expected...
 
I do ask and do expect answers - otherwise I completely discount the tales being told and/or the person telling it.
 
Harsh? Callous? Contrary to past positions based on the provacy of the individual?
 
Certainly -
 
But, where we have communities being pillaged (reference ATL) by such individuals - where we have individuals on the internet being taken significant advantage of (I am not talking about murders, etc - simply graft, fraud, and the simply complex 'tom foolery' that destroys lives) -  where no one has the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say: "Hey - WTF is with your Ancient House story anyway??!" it is becoming more incumbent on the leaders of the community to stand up and speak up - otherwise they are simply administrators - authors - and, people who give neat bondage lessons while being 'eye candy' and selling their latest books.
 
And when these alleged leaders in leather fail in their moral and/or appointed obligations to look after their constiuents, it is then a requisite for individuals to stand up and speak up.

quote:

In my mind's eye; the individual person creates their own credibility by how they behave, the attitude they have and how they function in a M/s, S&M or D/s and or BDSM manner. 


Certainly - and,  personal bearing and demeanor does go a long way towards establishing someone's credibility within a group or with individuals.. I am talking about the stated history of the individual and their "house"

quote:

Another thing of my time line in the lifestyle, name dropping was frowned upon. 


I have heard this often - but, never experienced this - If I were to state that "I know Master Jim from Hell Fire" - that name was something that anyone who spent a great amount of time there would know... it did not "out" anyone and was not a hauty "I know Guy Baldwin and he would never say something like that..." sort of nonsense.

quote:

  It seems these days, it is who you know matters more than what you know, as first hand knowledge and experience.


Well - as evidenced in the parallel thread on "Civility" - stating that you know someone does not mean that you "KNOW" someone...
 
I know a lot of names too!! ;)
 
quote:

Some run for the sole intent to gain attention and not really on the intent of representing the community, champion causes and the like.
At times the truth comes out behind the scenes, to which someone in confidence with individuals seeking titles; have done so just to add another feather in their cap per se, as to add it to their resume`; just like forming groups also adds to their resume`--but, they ommit the fact that the group only survives three months or less.  Thank goodness not everybody does so-- but, it is enough, in my mind's eye to distable the whole intent of the title.  May I have your mind's eye views on such please? 


You can never eliminate the political hacks... those people who simply suck the life blood from an organization because they want to be 'known' - and, give back less than they get in all ways.

That is the nature of humans - and, as someone on the parallel thread so eloquently pointed out - we are not above 'human endeavors and behaviors' simply because someone writes lofty words and can coin a phrase which means absolutely nothing (look at some of our most vaunted writers... many of them - if you come to know them - do not live to the values they tout and some have even recanted large sections of their writing - although, they still have them in print! [;)])

quote:

Some run for the sole intent to gain attention and not really on the intent of representing the community, champion causes and the like.
At times the truth comes out behind the scenes, to which someone in confidence with individuals seeking titles; have done so just to add another feather in their cap per se, as to add it to their resume`; just like forming groups also adds to their resume`--but, they ommit the fact that the group only survives three months or less.  Thank goodness not everybody does so-- but, it is enough, in my mind's eye to distable the whole intent of the title.  May I have your mind's eye views on such please?


People acclaimed as "leaders" in our ranks are not always voted in or appointed - that is the number one issue.
 
Theyare often people who speak well, look good, and 'know folks' - they are often people who have a book that sold moderately well and are on the road a lot speaking it up - they might write a weekly column (or, a monthly one like a hack I know intimately [:)])...
 
They are not appointed, so much as used as exemplars due to their public and publicity (self generated in many instances). - Like a 'Movie Star" (capitalization for effect) they simply are a phenonenon of the culture and will disappear with time.. and, not all are bad people - just not great leaders.
 
Then there are the elected... and, as elections go we are no better than the population at large in picking our leaders... they are (as you mentioned) often self agrandizing and promoting... interested more in self preservation and self promotion then the community and may (even??) be exceptionally divisive in nature...
 
However - we do not have people who want to volunteer for such positions who might be more amply capable in them... we are perverts andmany people do not desire to be public... the internal politics are gut wrenching (as you mention) and turn many away - and, they are not paid positions.
 
The best we mighdo is implement term restrictions on the people elected... and, some sort of recall availability to perform the 'idiot-ectomy' as required when the law suits start being warmed up...
 
But, in the interim - we DO have some good people at the forefront - and EVERY community has it's saints as well - If anyone knows Catlynn from NYC - she is one... she volunteers for everything - LLCX organizing commitee, TES Board, BR organizing committee, etc... etc... etc...
 
God bless her and those like her
 
These are the core of all good organizaitons  - and, although "out" to the world at large - are seldom in the limelight of their organization in that overt way that so many are...
 
The people need to be promoted and promulgated and cultured within the societies and organizations to ensure that they are being taken care of - so others will come forward.
 
OK - that is enough... I have rambled on too much already.
 
~J



Amaros -> RE: Watered down BDSM (10/8/2006 6:46:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissyRane

but so if this whole thing 'causes problem..that we're all in a one big pile...then why not keep the things..bit more seperated?
There is "BDSMwith/without fetish" and then just "Fetish"...personally I don't really know of any fetishes I have..so I don't really know how to deal with those lol...but yeah like someone said perhaps it would be easier if the line was drawn somewhere..like...one category was BDSM(and BDSM with fetish) and then pure fetishes ...like collarme is a BDSM site...and then there would be another site somewhere...for Fetishists that have no interest in BDSM and then there could be like only fetish clubs and then bdsm clubs..with fetish and so on n so on...

ok this's probably a bad idea I don't know..but still it just ran through my mind.

<thinks I'm gonna be killed for that comment..[>:]


An excellent observation, fetish is a catagory unto itself.

The big problem here so far is not with catagorization, everyone seems to agree on the generla catagories, but disagree on the details of those catagories - we started out with the complaint that "we're all in one big pile", tried to define some catagories of inclination that did not drag identity into it, and have apparently ended up back in one big pile again in order to resolve the identity problem (is that your knee or your shoulder?).

The danger of being too diffuse is that people do have expectations, and submissives, by nature, tend to people who by and large would perfer to avoid making decisions, so a certain amount of taxonomy of inclination and expectation is useful: the problems arise when identity gets dragged, in, i.e., is it something you are or something you do?

Oddly enough, it's people who identify very strongly with their roles that seem to have the biggest problem with definitions that don't describe them perfectly, but there is an equal reaction formation from those who see this as unrealistically ridgid.

In short, these definitions are but general guidlines, in the broadest sense, at one end, it's just a generalized catagory - slaves and submissives and bottoms are all very similar, they are all catagories of submissive, and that much is presumably clear, but the intricacies of these roles are often largely a matter of self defintion: ultimately, you do define the role for yourself, by acting it out - to the point that you may identify with the role so completely that it might no longer properly be described in terms of role, but becomes fused with identity.

Again, this is a matter of individual preogotive: you are handed a general set of expectations, a basic selection of materials, and you craft your individual role or identity with the materials provided, and whatever you bring into it of your own, until it is your own, and that would be the difference between role and identity.

There is a big difference here between the role and identity camps, as one of the role camp, I answer the question "does a slave have the right to say no?" in the affirmative: objectively, a slave is still a citizen of this country, and has the same constitutional rights, or lack therof, as anybody else, and "slave" status is a role that means as much as you want it to mean.

The identity camp by contrast, answers the question with a certain amount of shock that a person calling themselves a slave can even ask the question, the answer to which is a resounding "no".

The difference is naturally going to be confusing to newbies asking for advice, and the distinction I'm tying to make here is between somebody who has just started exploring, or with limited experience, beginners and intermediates, and somebody who has been at it so long or gone so deep that they've forgotten what it's like to do anything else.

I'm not hugely concerned about it, there are plenty of opinions to go around in here, although the conflict itself may cause some confusion among the inexperienced who are seeking clues on how they are expected to behave, and what they can expect form others.

It would be nice to sort it out and come to some sort of consensus on a starting point, but it's not going to happen all at once.

"Once having become something, a man would rather die than become it's opposite"

- Frank Herbert

I think we just barely got past the difference between identifying the basic materials/configuration of a given role, including the matter of even calling it a role at all.

I think I might have won the argument, but I haven't gotten that much formal feedback on it yet from the identity camp, and the informal feedback tells me no.



Amaros -> RE: Watered down BDSM (10/8/2006 6:56:45 AM)

In order to qualify and clarify the "camp" reference, so that it doesn't just become another unnatural division, ultimately, the idea is that you start out in the role camp, it allows you some slack, the chance to experiment and try different things until you find something that suits you - and gradually progress into the identity camp, when you do find something you're comfortable with, that addresses your needs: i.e., it's a continuum, not a division.



LadyHugs -> RE: Watered down BDSM (10/8/2006 7:21:10 AM)

Dear LordODiscipline,

Thank you for sharing your mind's eye on my posed questions.

Sincerely,
Lady Hugs



LadyHugs -> RE: Watered down BDSM (10/8/2006 8:02:30 AM)

Dear Amaros, Ladies and Gentlemen;
 
I do agree with your post, in regard to 'camps.'

Regardless if the words, camps, tribes, groups and such are used; it still is an assembly of individuals.

In addition, I have stated words similarly; that we package ourselves for public consumption; by the way we dress, by the way we behave and by the way our attitude shows.  How we sell ourself, starts first within ourself.  Then how we wish to be seen by others.  It is a choice and one must will themself into that choice.  We enter this community and select many doors.  Each door leading to another, not much different then a maze.  None may be considered wrong but, it might be wrong for us (in a general way).  What happens though, is the onlooker may witness what would be wrong for them.  Yet, it would be wrong for me and for example Master A, B, C and D. 

Due to common views, it develops innocently into a group of like minded individuals.  Then such exchanges of which are in harmony, as there is no need to debate, defend or maintain the personal opinion and can talk about other things.  But, this is very natural, as we all tend to associate with like minded individuals.

What is hard to some, is to see people define a role they feel comfortable in and then phase into the person define the role they lead.  Some are controlled by a role, assuming that role is the total sum.  Some take a role, as to abuse it--that is the sad part of it all.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
Lady Hugs



Amaros -> RE: Watered down BDSM (10/8/2006 8:33:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyHugs

Dear Amaros, Ladies and Gentlemen;
 
I do agree with your post, in regard to 'camps.'

Regardless if the words, camps, tribes, groups and such are used; it still is an assembly of individuals.

"Camp" might not be the best word here, clique, or coterie might be more accurate, as it is a continuum.
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyHugs
In addition, I have stated words similarly; that we package ourselves for public consumption; by the way we dress, by the way we behave and by the way our attitude shows.  How we sell ourself, starts first within ourself.  Then how we wish to be seen by others.  It is a choice and one must will themself into that choice.  We enter this community and select many doors.  Each door leading to another, not much different then a maze.  None may be considered wrong but, it might be wrong for us (in a general way).  What happens though, is the onlooker may witness what would be wrong for them.  Yet, it would be wrong for me and for example Master A, B, C and D. 

It is based on consent, and in an expressly and explicit leagal sense, informed consent - a contingency (safe, sane, consensual) settled on by the current cohort/cadre specifically to avoid legal troubles, the foundation we are building on.
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyHugs
Due to common views, it develops innocently into a group of like minded individuals.  Then such exchanges of which are in harmony, as there is no need to debate, defend or maintain the personal opinion and can talk about other things.  But, this is very natural, as we all tend to associate with like minded individuals.

Birds of a feather flock together, form an assembly, or clan, clans gravitate together to form tribes, tribes gravitate together to form supertribes or nations. As this occurs, linguistic divisions need to be overcome, otherwise they can be as divisive as geographical ones.
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyHugs
What is hard to some, is to see people define a role they feel comfortable in and then phase into the person define the role they lead.  Some are controlled by a role, assuming that role is the total sum.  Some take a role, as to abuse it--that is the sad part of it all.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
Lady Hugs

I have no quibble with the identity order, or faction: they have become the role, it isn't my place or preogotive to question that, unless it affects me personally - it's a common aspect of human psychology - I can quibble when one applies an external defintion onto what is, and remains, essentially an internal self-definition, i.e., what does Slave mean specifically?

In short, I see a flat, acentric organizational pattern, while they may see a centripetal, hierarchial one - this hierarchy however, even as it may or may not exist, is flexible, fluid, and constantly changing, because that is the nature of human political-economy.

To some, it means to never question, never object: total, unquestioning submission - for them, this is good, but I cannot support transferring or forcing this defintion onto anyone else who may not feel that way, or feel that way yet, and yet still self identifies with the role, and whose behavior still conforms to the general definition.

I think I've adequately described what I feel the difference is between submissive and slave, in terms of expectations and tacit consent, though perhaps I need to recap here somewhere - in some sense, a submissive just doesn't fight back very hard, a slave is more deeply devoted and motivated to serve - but all divisions here are artificial, outside of self definition, and these divisions are fluid, not static: one might be a slave in bed, and a submissive out of bed, or vice versa, may be dominant under other circumstances, etc., and these roles may be in constant flux, depending on the person.

Which is why hard and fast definitions tend to be inadequate to fully describe a particular dynamic, they are, by nature, generalizations.




Amaros -> RE: Watered down BDSM (10/8/2006 8:52:46 AM)

This OP was mainly concerned with the broadening of the definition of BDSM to include things that strictly speaking are only peripherally related to D/s by virtue of being kink - the definitions thread became a debate between identity and role factions.

I got confused, but I think it deserves restatement that a slave is one whose basic human rights to self determination have been abrogated by force - "Slave" in the BDSM sense is a role that in no way abrogates your constitutional rights, should you choose to excercise them. That is a point that i believe needs to be made explicit and reiterated as necessary.
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyHugs
What is hard to some, is to see people define a role they feel comfortable in and then phase into the person define the role they lead.  Some are controlled by a role, assuming that role is the total sum.  Some take a role, as to abuse it--that is the sad part of it all.


I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here, perhaps that one can become so immersed in a role that they are no longer "understood" within the context of the external social matrix, who are perhaps incognizant that such a role even exists, or how it operates, and thus cause problems for themselves.

I dunno, I tend to be sympathetic in this case, but I'm not as sympathetic to those who would force their roles on others, and this goes for anybody, BDSM or otherwise, I recognize and uphold the individual right to self determination on every level and every stage - that's the way I am.



ImpGrrl -> RE: Watered down BDSM (10/8/2006 4:27:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

i'd just like BDSM to include B&D and not so much focus on S&M.  B&D feels a little like the red-headed stepchild.  i avoided learning about the "lifestyle" way back when because i had an idea about S&M and knew i wasn't a masochist but that i DID want to be bound and controlled and be submissive.  There's not a whole lot said about B&D that i was aware of.... now that i found it i hope i get to stay and not still be considered a freak.


So - make your BDSM about B&D!  It's not "BDSM" that doesn't focus on the individual bits - it's the people *doing* it.  Take it and make it your own.



Amaros -> RE: Watered down BDSM (10/9/2006 6:09:00 AM)

I think that's right, it is an individual preogotive, although the existence of a community broadens the scope of possibility, and furnishes some standards - it's really question of how far those standards should go, where are the limits? Statistical proabilities that apply to groups will tend to break down when it comes to the individual.

I'd have to say I'm more BD than SM, I do have a sort of remote, objective "agent"  or aspect to my personality that can pass for sadistic, if I need to indulge it to satisfy masochistic urges (although it's typically more instrumental in analysis), and I am kind of curious about masochism in a psychological sense - I see it as perhaps a way of shutting off that "watcher" that tends to inhibit our less socially acceptable urges, objectification, etc.

I'm not into feeding it with past frustrations, from whence Sadism probobly largely derives, IMO - I prefer to save my ire for those who have earned it.

I do think there's an element of this in many styles of edge play, even crossdressing, etc., i.e., someone culturally expected to be dominant taking on a role that is culturally expected to be submissive, so though peripheral perhaps, to the leather and chains esthetic, or even the leather and lace esthetic - it does sort of fit under the umbrella there somewhere.



caitlyn -> RE: Watered down BDSM (10/9/2006 6:53:14 AM)

Thanks you for this topic ScooterTrash.
 
In my view, this actually goes well past the lifestyle being a 'catch all' for various alternative (or what some might call deviant) sexual activities. There is a clearly articulated position that establishes who is in charge, and who is subjugated. It looks very much like the old traditional marriage, and I think a lot of girls in my age group are looking for that, within this lifestyle. Just to be fair, other age groups and men, may be looking for the same thing, but I really can't speak to that.
 
Why look here? Social stigma of course.
 
You just can't 'want' to sacrifice a career and yourself to keep a home and raise a family. It just isn't considered a worthy goal anymore. It is alternative thinking, and once you open yourself to alternative thinking ... well, the rest is history.
 
Being told (subtly of course) how to dress, and how to act, and what to do ... being told to keep house (even if the words are never said) ... having a little discipline passed your way ... these are things that might seem acceptable in exchange for living at home and raising a family. The nature to nurture, may be a strong driving force.
 
Perhaps an additional lifestyle category of H/h might be in order.



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 9 [10] 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.09375