RE: Watered down BDSM

RE: Watered down BDSM (Full Version)

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

Message

jesskitty -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/20/2006 1:03:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: twicehappy quote: ORIGINAL: Wolfie648 Well how many thousands of categories would you like? Or should I make that millions or billions (7 billion strong lol). In reply to this and a few other inquiries here is a list of perversions that may be incorperated into each individuals preferences but ARE NOT bdsm in or of themselves. BISEXUALITY - the capacity to feel erotic attraction toward, or to engage in sexual interaction with, both males and females. HOMOSEXUALITY - people who form sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with members of their own gender. LESBIANISM - female to female homosexuality. i don't belive these are perversions, these are sexual orientations, most of which in my mind are genetic things that can't be changed about someone willingly or shouldn't be changed. to me it is an example of diminishing the sexuality as 'legit' by grouping it with 'perversions' and leaving out hertrosexuality, which is the 'norm'.

Amaros -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/20/2006 1:42:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros Hell, I'm all about crushing delicate sensibilities, if it's just perfunctory twitterpating masquerading as insight: if you don't wanna get burned, don't play with matches around gasoline. Just for the record, I have no desire to discourage anyone from posting their honest feelings and/or opinons, even if I ultimately deem it to be perfunctory twitterpating masquerading as insight - my only examples of this would actually tend to be political ones. And I do prefer to hear all viewpoints openly expressed: it provides a more accurate view of what is really going on out there. Preaching to the choir is something I find not only mind-numbingly dull, but just generally mind numbing.

LordODiscipline -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/20/2006 3:10:20 PM)
BDSM is not the catchall for kinks and fetishes. The term (or "box" if you will) is pansexual *"Pansexual" is only a reference to sex - and, although "trite" - BDSM is more than simply sex - it is also, sexy and more encompassing than the sexual aspects involved.* ~J

ScooterTrash -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/20/2006 3:18:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros Hell, I'm all about crushing delicate sensibilities, if it's just perfunctory twitterpating masquerading as insight: if you don't wanna get burned, don't play with matches around gasoline. Just for the record, I have no desire to discourage anyone from posting their honest feelings and/or opinons, even if I ultimately deem it to be perfunctory twitterpating masquerading as insight - my only examples of this would actually tend to be political ones. And I do prefer to hear all viewpoints openly expressed: it provides a more accurate view of what is really going on out there. Preaching to the choir is something I find not only mind-numbingly dull, but just generally mind numbing. I as well Amoros, I as well. The entire topic is more of an observation than an opinion.

LordODiscipline -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/20/2006 3:20:55 PM)
*quote:* What turns my stomach is all the guys who pull their Dom/Master?lord title out of cracker jacks boxes that have no clue what a submissive giving herself to him means that pervert the beauty of the power exchange to their own selfish purposes. We should not have to remind someone we are indeed human beings. *My dearest Suzanne:* *Oh - get the freak off your soap box and slap your bad self silly for want of something to do!* As you do not (apparently) know me, your edict about all people with a moniker of the nature I have is well off mark and a sincere display of prejudicial ignorance based in nothing more than your cyber experience. *Please - for the sake of civility - do try to restrict yourself to commenting about/insulting people you know and stop annoying the rest of us.* *To some of us leather is not about "beauty" but about a way of life which we live...* *I am definitively not a romantic - so your meanderings about 'submissive rights' (et al - ad nauseum) is a sincere piece of tripe to myself and people I tend to consider seriously.* Thank you in advance for your understanding that you are not the "end all" for BDSM relational dynamics and castle realm is not exactly a fact filled place for people to consider as the "end all" for domination and submission. *Sincerely and with all due respect -* ~J *(who has been doing this for at least three months now and has a lot of answers)*

LordODiscipline -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/20/2006 3:23:41 PM)
quote: Irritating it may be, and an issue. However: the community BDSM has no monopoly on power exchange, it's as old as time - they, we, are simply at the forefront of dealing with it openly in a less conspiritorial manner than it has perhaps been dealt with in the past. I like to think that it's a more honest and healthy approach than anyone has tried before. The coddling theory or whatever, that you refer to, which I must say I haven't seen a huge amount of, though I suppose it's there, is part of that - it's a swing of the pendulum back from "Men are shit - the only man you really need is a good divorce lawyer" ethic that has prevailed somewhat in recent decades. *I appreciate the insight - but, I am/was not looking for a solution - just griping like the original poster about the intangibles of life in general...* *That is my bitch - and, I am sticking to it!* ~J

Bearlee -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/20/2006 3:27:26 PM)
<applauds>

NastyDaddy -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/20/2006 4:23:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tanos quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross quote: ORIGINAL: Tanos BDSM = BD + D/s + SM [1] ie it's an overlapping umbrella term for any or all of those. Actually many people do NOT put Ds within "bdsm" For many, bdsm means "bondage, discipline, sadism, masochism" and ONLY those four things. Many people see "BDSM" for the first time and assume it just stands for "BD + SM", just as many people think "a dom" is short for "a dominate" and that "domme" sounds as if it has an acute accent on the "e". But can you find a reputable source that says BDSM = BD + SM ? Regards, Tanos Actually you provided the source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDSM#Etymology Etymology The term "S&M" was originally derived from the clinical terms sadism and masochism. The leather community of the day attempted to distance themselves from what was then classified as a mental illness and began to use the term "B&D" (Bondage & Discipline). This term was later linked back to "S&M" by the clinical community giving birth to the now common acronym BDSM. This term was then later broadened by some to include Dominance & submission. Although, D/s is more properly a cultural dynamic than sexual practice, its common co-occurrence with BDSM has resulted in it being commonly viewed as a linked behavior pattern. Either way the hair is split, you can't spell or say BDSM without spelling or saying DS.

LadyHugs -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/20/2006 8:10:57 PM)
Dear onestandingstill, Ladies and Gentlemen; I do agree with onestandingstill's comment, that in a summary to her post, people teach others how to treat them--regardless of roles. That said, we (as a community) have witnessed with the advent of computers and the chat rooms, the dedicated web sites and such; the large increase of individuals that are as new as a shinney copper penny, identify as a Master, Mistress, SIR, Lord, Lady, Goddess and or take your pick of 'screen names' that have never practiced any what they say in real time/real life and or have any training/mentoring and or attend education and support groups. Although anybody can be anybody behind the screen, you're still dealing with some (but not all) realms of human beings. They are emotional, mental and spiritual. Physical is lacking period. Only do the people leave behind the monitor, physically participate they see it isn't as easy to be a good Master/Mistress but, it is very easy to be an controlling, arrogant, selfish, lazy, coy, incompetent dominant. That does not mean that slaves/submissive sorts cannot turn the tables as, dominants have feelings also. They also engage in the mental, spiritual and emotional realms. With a population within the community, that turn to cyber M/s, D/s and the like, it is perhaps due to the ease of it and being able to escape into another persona or, they just don't have the BDSM, D/s, M/s and or S&M community, support and or education, handicaps that make it difficult to participate, as many gathering sites are for able body people, shutting the disabled out. There are many iscolated individuals--some are serving in the military, to which cyber and or remote domination/submission exchanges is a tie over until there reunited. In my mind's eye though--the way people make their lives, from whatever blend of ingredients they choose from, regardless if B, D, S&M, M/s, D/s D=S, Bondage, fetish and every exhaustable definition we know of; creates their bliss--that to me is what is important. We cannot live another's life for them. Life is a series of choices and with those there are effects/affects. If I can be an inspiration--that is wonderful. But, it is not my duty to act as if I was some tampering Mummy-in-law/Father-in-law; all it does is create a massive mess. Life has boundaries. We create those boundaries and invite who/what we wish as guests. When no longer needed, we see them depart in a kind way; even if its into a rubbish can. Respectfully submitted for consideration, Lady Hugs

SirLordTrainer -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/21/2006 2:31:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline *quote:* What turns my stomach is all the guys who pull their Dom/Master?lord title out of cracker jacks boxes that have no clue what a submissive giving herself to him means that pervert the beauty of the power exchange to their own selfish purposes. We should not have to remind someone we are indeed human beings. *My dearest Suzanne:* *Oh - get the freak off your soap box and slap your bad self silly for want of something to do!* As you do not (apparently) know me, your edict about all people with a moniker of the nature I have is well off mark and a sincere display of prejudicial ignorance based in nothing more than your cyber experience. *Please - for the sake of civility - do try to restrict yourself to commenting about/insulting people you know and stop annoying the rest of us.* *To some of us leather is not about "beauty" but about a way of life which we live...* *I am definitively not a romantic - so your meanderings about 'submissive rights' (et al - ad nauseum) is a sincere piece of tripe to myself and people I tend to consider seriously.* Thank you in advance for your understanding that you are not the "end all" for BDSM relational dynamics and castle realm is not exactly a fact filled place for people to consider as the "end all" for domination and submission. *Sincerely and with all due respect -* ~J *(who has been doing this for at least three months now and has a lot of answers)* Ditto

bandit25 -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/21/2006 3:02:58 AM)
I think you misunderstood what Suzanne was saying...if you look at the rest of the quote, she says, "all the guys who pull their Dom/Master?lord title out of cracker jacks boxes that have no clue what a submissive giving herself to him means", etc. I don't believe she meant anyone who has "Lord" or whatever in their title, just those who do who have no idea what they are doing. Without commenting on whether I agree or disagree on her post, I do think you misunderstood her.

LordODiscipline -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/21/2006 3:10:59 AM)
*Thank you for playing mediator, Bandit - but, you need to go back and read in context.* It was directly attached to my post and was directly critical of my approach/expressed tact toward the subject of interrelational dynamics, I cannot believe it was otherwise (I am not much on 'coincidence' where it would be an incredible stretch of reality to 'go there' even for the moment) ~J

twicehappy -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/21/2006 3:59:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jesskitty i don't belive these are perversions, these are sexual orientations, most of which in my mind are genetic things that can't be changed about someone willingly or shouldn't be changed. to me it is an example of diminishing the sexuality as 'legit' by grouping it with 'perversions' and leaving out hertrosexuality, which is the 'norm'. Anything outside hetero sex is considered a perversion. That does not in any way diminish the reality or validity of that person's choice. I am a bisexual poly 24/7 slave, do i feel diminished because all of those are considered perversions, NO, i am empowered by them. Only about 17 percent of those who are bisexual or homosexual have any genetic markers outside the norm; for most it is choice not genetics.

LordODiscipline -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/21/2006 5:01:22 AM)
quote: Only about 17 percent of those who are bisexual or homosexual have any genetic markers outside the norm; for most it is choice not genetics. *I find this interestingly new to what I understood to be the case.* *Please, cite your source for this information.* ~J

onestandingstill -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/23/2006 8:23:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline *quote:* What turns my stomach is all the guys who pull their Dom/Master?lord title out of cracker jacks boxes that have no clue what a submissive giving herself to him means that pervert the beauty of the power exchange to their own selfish purposes. We should not have to remind someone we are indeed human beings. *My dearest Suzanne:* *Oh - get the freak off your soap box and slap your bad self silly for want of something to do!* As you do not (apparently) know me, your edict about all people with a moniker of the nature I have is well off mark and a sincere display of prejudicial ignorance based in nothing more than your cyber experience. *Please - for the sake of civility - do try to restrict yourself to commenting about/insulting people you know and stop annoying the rest of us.* *To some of us leather is not about "beauty" but about a way of life which we live...* *I am definitively not a romantic - so your meanderings about 'submissive rights' (et al - ad nauseum) is a sincere piece of tripe to myself and people I tend to consider seriously.* Thank you in advance for your understanding that you are not the "end all" for BDSM relational dynamics and castle realm is not exactly a fact filled place for people to consider as the "end all" for domination and submission. *Sincerely and with all due respect -* ~J *(who has been doing this for at least three months now and has a lot of answers)* Actually I am a member of Black Rose, The Dungeon the Crucible, The Woodhull Freedom Foundation, The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom and several other face to face clubs. I have been weekly attending presentations, workshops, extremeatoiruim events, private classes and have been a VERY active person in the real world. I am not a cyberland submissive, you've mistaken me for someone else. I have undergone a one year training under a 27 year Master. I wore a training collar in a 24/7 BDSM power exchange live in relationship with a poly training Dom. Your empty accusations hold no water here Sir. My point comes from the interaction with Doms and subs and what I have seen in the real world. I was a part of that world in public community participation environments once or twice a week for over a year of the 1-1/2 years I've been involved. You are entitled to your opinion, but I see it as you sitting in a Crystal Tower with your eyes shut and blinders on. Doms these days on average are not up to being the ones in control and do not deserve their self appointed titles they throw around. I agree there are absolutely fabulously together Masters out there, but unfortunately they are few and far between. Even in the real world there are many more wolves in sheep's clothing shoving their own defects around on others. This is not just a cyber problem. You have to train to be a part of the ones that cross the finish line. Lack of effort and diligence in this instant gratification society is indeed a rampant problem among many who don the title of Dom and Master.. Maybe you need to get out into the community more yourself. . I am entitled to my opinion. I can choose any soap box I'd like to stand on here. This is what these forums are about. Sharing perspectives. This is mine and the view many other of my face to face real time friends. suzanne

onestandingstill -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/23/2006 8:29:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline *Thank you for playing mediator, Bandit - but, you need to go back and read in context.* It was directly attached to my post and was directly critical of my approach/expressed tact toward the subject of interrelational dynamics, I cannot believe it was otherwise (I am not much on 'coincidence' where it would be an incredible stretch of reality to 'go there' even for the moment) ~J Actually it was based on your statement "*A dominant cherishes his submissive and protects <read: coddles"> her") is what turns my stomach."* If it turns your stomach to protect your submissive that's just terrible in my opinion. I think a Dominant should indeed protect her. I absolutely feel it's part of HIS job. suznne

MrDiscipline44 -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/23/2006 9:13:58 AM)
quote: If it turns your stomach to protect your submissive that's just terrible in my opinion. Then, couldn't you have just said this instead of going into the diatribe?

LordODiscipline -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/23/2006 9:28:05 AM)
*Once again, Suzanne -* *You are demonstrating your ignorance about "other people's" determination on how their relationships work for them.* *I do not "protect my submissive" -* *She is quite capable of"protecting herself"* *And, I would not have it any other way - as I have little patience or "stomache" for people who consider themselves so useless as to believe they require someone to protect them in this day and age.* *Submissives serve me - I do not serve them.* *I am dominant - they are submissive.* **They are NOT weak, stupid, incapable or (and, especially) insipidly narrow minded about the world and other people in it. If they were, I would not want them around me or serving me. Once again, I am puzzled and unsure where these concepts are ellusive or vague to you. Don't get me wrong - You can "feel" any way you desire... no skin off my rear - But, just recall - How you feel does not make you "right" for a lot of us who believe in the conception of dominantion and submission as a reality, vice an Arthurian/Romantic ideal that cannot hold water in the real world. So - once again - please try to recall that you are not the arbiter of all that is BDSM. And, your beliefs are just that - beliefs and bedroom stories people tell themselves in order to feel more special than they are.** ~J By the way - Membership in organizations does not make one 'savy' or more intelligent about the intricacies of BDSM and all of the relational dynamics that it can encompass... it only alllows one exposure and a greater potential to develop an understanding of them. Attend more meetings, meet more real life people and broaden your perspectives vice hanging out on line so much - you will benefit.

Sinergy -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/23/2006 10:23:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: twicehappy Anything outside hetero sex is considered a perversion. That does not in any way diminish the reality or validity of that person's choice. I am a bisexual poly 24/7 slave, do i feel diminished because all of those are considered perversions, NO, i am empowered by them. Only about 17 percent of those who are bisexual or homosexual have any genetic markers outside the norm; for most it is choice not genetics. Hello A/all, Depending on what Feminist seperatist articles or books you read from the Second Wave Of Feminism, heterosexual sex involves penetration which is tantamount to rape. Which is true on some level, although Im not sure what the problem is. On the second, while we have marked out the human genome, there are many genes which (skin tone, possibly eye color, for one example) which determine what happens to a person based on the gene's interaction with other genes. Accordingly, I am not sure the second comment is 100% correct. The debate between nature and nurture has yet to be settled. I think there may be a propensity towards certain behaviors and then nurture sets out the path. Perhaps I am a bit jaundiced on the idea that homosexuality is a "choice." Certain segments of the population (Christian groups, etc) use the "Its a choice" theory to discriminate against people that have sexual preferences outside of heterosexual sex. Just me, etc. Sinergy

Frank01 -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/23/2006 10:31:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: onestandingstill quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline *Thank you for playing mediator, Bandit - but, you need to go back and read in context.* It was directly attached to my post and was directly critical of my approach/expressed tact toward the subject of interrelational dynamics, I cannot believe it was otherwise (I am not much on 'coincidence' where it would be an incredible stretch of reality to 'go there' even for the moment) ~J Actually it was based on your statement "*A dominant cherishes his submissive and protects <read: coddles"> her") is what turns my stomach."* If it turns your stomach to protect your submissive that's just terrible in my opinion. I think a Dominant should indeed protect her. I absolutely feel it's part of HIS job. suznne I disagree. Any more than I think a sub should protect a Dominant. Support can only go so far, then it becomes a truly ridiculous dependence. And the Dominant ends up being a slave to a "slave". And that is NOT what most Tops sign up for-sorry if that burst your bubble.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875