RE: Watered down BDSM

RE: Watered down BDSM (Full Version)

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

Message

LordODiscipline -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/23/2006 5:10:20 PM)
*Not cool -* Thirty postings back and forth into this - <<and, suddenly>> you decide that you were not* really referring to my posting and myself and that posting you recant was not actually a directed insult you tossed out glibbly assuming I was an HNG and did not have a voice or a clue. *I understand that it was aimed at a lot of people - but, it directed itself toward me... as mentioned in a previous posting.* *Nice try, does not wash.* **If you wanted to apologize or to restate your case, that would be one thing - but, stating the whole thing is a misread when you yourself* reinforced it through your words...* Next time you desire to hand out insults, understand that all of the people you speak to out here do not accept them casually and may actually understand a thing or two beyond the cyber world. Thank you for playing. And, see you around at BR/The Crucible** ~J

juliaoceania -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/23/2006 6:32:10 PM)
I would ask for one little question answered, do you think that being romantic is somehow in conflict with D/s? I saw you post twice how romantic Castle Realm BS was irritating to you (I am not a convert of Castle Realm myself mind you, I prefer real relationships with honest goals not built upon complete and utter fantasy). I was just wondering if you feel a submissive should be romanced at all or ever? I rather enjoy romance personally, even if I am of a submissive persuasion, and my Daddy doesn't mind doing the odd romantic gesture to make me feel safe and protected... he is the domliest man I have ever met. I was just wondering if you think that it is "watered down" to have romantic feelings and demonstrations within a dynamic. BTW, I am just sincerely curious and not in any way shape or form trying to insult you, your dynamic, worldview or whatever. To each their own as far as I am concerned,... eight years is certainly longer than I have went the distance.

LordODiscipline -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/23/2006 6:53:49 PM)
*Romance is not (in and of itself) "bad"...* *What is "bad" is the very extreme romanticization of BDSM to be something it is not...* *As a general rule, I have learned:* *Whenever someone states that:* *1. They have "Honor"* *2. Follow a chivralic lifestyle* *3. Are a gentleman/lady* *4. insist everyone must follow some canned listing of "Rights" or "Dutys"* *5. their submissive requires more of their undivided attention than a mentally handicapped adult would* *6. or, extol some esoteric and seldom realized code as their way of living La Vida Loca* *I cringe knowing full well that* *a. This person does not have a clue* *b. does not actually believe what (s)he is saying (the harder and more insistent they are, the more they are lieing about it)* *c. They are so full of poop their eyes are brown.* *d. their submissive is a succubus bent on the destruction of the dominant's soul <ref: South Park>* *Romance - sure.. have fun...* *It (like manners) is the grease on which the axle of many a relationship wends it's wheel* *But, try to convert me into some relational dynamic where the submissive is in control of the relationship??* *Hey - I can emasculate myself in better/faster ways for more money on a stage Tijuana for gringos with money - and, the tequila will be free!* ~J (who does not drink)

juliaoceania -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/23/2006 7:01:25 PM)
Clear as mud, and I rather agree, I want something real... not the Hollywood version of it. Although chivalry and honor are rather big for both of us in our real lives, not just D/s ideals. It is called "being nice" around my home...smiles

LadyHugs -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/23/2006 7:37:20 PM)
Dear LordODiscipline, onestandingstill, Ladies and Gentlemen; I noticed LordODiscipline, that you will see onestandingstill/Suzanne at BR or The Crucible. I would like to have a notice of when you do intend to attend. Being an active member in the metropolitan area of Washington, DC and know Suzanne being a real individual, active in the scene and true to her claims of associations; perhaps I may witness a civil introduction and exchange. Although Suzanne has not petitioned and or request my support, I shall not hesitate to stand with her. I thought I would publicly mention such, as not to have assumptions cloud the facts. Respectfully submitted for consideration, Lady Hugs

MASTERRocker -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/23/2006 7:43:37 PM)
Very diplomatic LadyHugs,,, or should I say Ambassador of 'All Things Bound and Tied'; we might need to put a gag order on this......

subinside -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/23/2006 8:32:46 PM)
Personally, i don't know why the rest of Y/you folks allow someone to highjack a thread like this and make it all about him. i would say that given the attitude shown here, it most definitely is all about him and what everyone else has to say is just noise.,.. But just because it is his way, doesn't mean it's everyone's way... and comments made have been to purposefully enflame the rest of you.. (that or he really likes his soapbox.. or actually believes that his opinion really means something to the rest of us.), and y'all are walking into it willingly. Ignore him, and maybe he'll just shut up.

Frank01 -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/23/2006 8:46:39 PM)
I happen to agree with LOD. People by and large make D/s a joke-let him speak.

LordODiscipline -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/24/2006 3:08:59 AM)
*Lady Hugs:* *I did not cast aspersions on Suzanne's veracity - just her honesty in asserting where her barbs were aimed and levied. And, justifiably so.* *As far as your assistance in the mediating of meetings in the metropolitan area -* Although Suzanne's social skill might be lacking and require your support (I do not know her as well as you do), I am quite capable of behaving more civilly than most in many and do not require chaperones or a 'second' in my interactions... *But, then you missed the point of the statements.* *The fact is, I hope to never meet Suzanne...* *I like the people I meet to have a modicum of grounding in their makeup and only meet purposely those people I desire to because of a mutual 'like'.* In this instance with Suzanne - she has a prejudicial and negative outlook on people whom do not support her rigid opinion on the decorum of how the world 'should be'... I tend to shy away from people who cannot see beyond their own nose and assume that their opinion is "The Word" and all others are without merit. *So where-as you "would not hesitate to stand by her", I would tend to walk in the opposite direction knowing that the association would not enhance my life in any way.* I thank you for such a gracious offer - I will have to turn it down on the grounds that there is no basis for such and my words denoting future meetings in the flesh were actually a means of ending the conversation (i.e.: "See ya!") ~J

LordODiscipline -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/24/2006 3:15:50 AM)
*Dear Ms. Subinside:* *I would suggest that you go back and read the thread.* *I neither 'hi-jacked' nor converted the conversation to anything other than that which others led us to.* Your read on this is incorrect and if you were to actually seek an understanding of this, you would see that I tried to keep it civil and on topic... and, was not allowed quarter in several instances... so, gave none in return. *Now, (at this juncture) you and "Ms. Hugs" have continued the work started by others in-so-much as you have made it about the author of postings, and not the subject in the posting's thread.* I would suggest that IF you were sincere and cared about whether or not these things were really on topic, you would continue the topic in the thread - and, confine personal insults to private interactions - instead of grandstanding and leaving the thread bereft of (what might otherwise be) the opportunity to add your voice to the subject. *Vice expressing an opinion about someone you do not really know... and, have only seen this one thread in regard...* *Sincerely:* ~J

MrrPete -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/24/2006 4:36:15 AM)
Let's get back to the OP. When I got involved with BDSM there was lots of discussion online in the IRC channels. It became obvious that no one term could describe everything. BDSM became the accepted simply because it covered the most activities. It became the umbrella term. for Bondage, Domination/Submmission, Sado-Masochism. Other activities such as latex/rubber, crossing-dressing, high-heels & stockings are included because quite often they are done in conjunction with BDSM itself. A lot of fetishes can be done separately of BDSM and they remain fetishes. The fetish becomes BDSM by association with a recognized BDSM activity. I personally know a very sadistic, cross-dressing, Dominant. Lately a new term is evolving; WIITWD and to me it's more like a secret password that means nothing to the uninitiated. There's no secret and no need of explanation when I say I'm into BDSM OK, that's MY story and I'm sticking to it

ScooterTrash -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/24/2006 4:54:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subinside Personally, i don't know why the rest of Y/you folks allow someone to highjack a thread like this and make it all about him. i would say that given the attitude shown here, it most definitely is all about him and what everyone else has to say is just noise.,.. But just because it is his way, doesn't mean it's everyone's way... and comments made have been to purposefully enflame the rest of you.. (that or he really likes his soapbox.. or actually believes that his opinion really means something to the rest of us.), and y'all are walking into it willingly. Ignore him, and maybe he'll just shut up. subinside, I don't believe LOD has hijacked the thread at all, he has just pointed out that there are many other aspects of BDSM that have become soft, or watered down, than just the addition of hundreds of kinks and perversions. I've known LOD since the days when we (ShiftedJewel & I) had a chatroom on MSN and yes, he can be blunt and to the point, but like a snake (no offense LOD) he will strike back with a vengeance if you poke at him with a stick. His point as I took it, was that many Dominants feel they are so lucky to have a sub or slave, that the dynamic reverses and they nuture their acquisition to a sickening level because they are so afraid of losing it. This negates the entire dynamic and all the sudden the sub or slave is the one in control. You see this in many cases and if anyone pulled their title out of a Cracker-Jacks box, to coin Suzanne’s phrase, is those behaving in this fashion. Certainly I have my slave’s best interest at heart as far as providing shelter, food and a healthy environment and yes, if she is sick I am quite conscious of the problem at hand and will do what is necessary to be sure she gets well. On the other hand, if she is upset because of something I have her do (rarely if ever has happened) or would be simply bummed out because of something someone said or wrote to her...she is a big girl and can deal with that on her own (and she does this rather well). My idea of protection is that if they threaten her physically I will drop them where they stand, I do not equate that to coddling, I equate that to protecting my property.

UnvailedPurpose -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/24/2006 5:02:08 AM)
LordODiscipline: Personally, I find diametrically opposing points of view serve as food for thought and although I do not have cause or reason to comment I thought I would by simply saying thank you.

eyesopened -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/24/2006 5:02:25 AM)
Oh crap now i'm more confused than ever. Is there a place where a straight, monogomous, Bondage & Discipline submissive belongs?

LordODiscipline -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/24/2006 5:13:37 AM)
quote: ...I've known LOD since the days when we (ShiftedJewel & I) had a chatroom on MSN... *Really?? What room was that and what was your moniker there?* quote: ...and yes, he can be blunt and to the point, but like a snake (no offense LOD) he will strike back with a vengeance if you poke at him with a stick. **LMAO - none taken... the truth IS the truth. And, I have never had issue with that.** quote: His point as I took it, was that many Dominants feel they are so lucky to have a sub or slave, that the dynamic reverses and they nuture their acquisition to a sickening level because they are so afraid of losing it. This negates the entire dynamic and all the sudden the sub or slave is the one in control. You see this in many cases and if anyone pulled their title out of a Cracker-Jacks box, to coin Suzanne’s phrase, is those behaving in this fashion. *Very well said.* *- One thing I want to point out to the folks here - I do not talk about my relationship and avoid any discussion about it in general.* Although I am very public and "out", what happens in my home and with my people is no one's business but my own... and, I only bring it to bear when it is directly required to allow for an understanding of me and my experience or to provide concrete example. It is a mistake to assume that if someone does not provide information freely as though there is a requisite to make this board and others a place to pour out one's most intimate secrets they are bereft of experience and/or value. *I believe that is half of what we have seen taken place here...* *But, then - that was obviously an ill founded assumption.* ~J *(Scooter - write to me and tell me what your monker was in MSN)*

ShiftedJewel -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/24/2006 5:22:20 AM)
LOD... yes, that was his moniker and mine was ShiftedJewel. Our room was D/sLoving and before that was Learningtokneel. I wish I could remember the name of the big room though... it had a huge community but I can't for the life of me remember the name. *Jewel*

catize -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/24/2006 5:35:40 AM)
quote: His point as I took it, was that many Dominants feel they are so lucky to have a sub or slave, that the dynamic reverses and they nuture their acquisition to a sickening level because they are so afraid of losing it. This negates the entire dynamic and all the sudden the sub or slave is the one in control. There are variations of intensity on any continuum, including BDSM. If someone labels themself dominant and then caters to the whims of the submissive, why should we care? What others do and how they do it has no impact on what I do, or you do, in our respective dynamics. The relationship I have with my master does not become diluted because there are other people in the world who define BDSM differently.

twicehappy -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/24/2006 5:53:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: catize If someone labels themself dominant and then caters to the whims of the submissive, why should we care? Because it has and continues to water down bdsm as a whole. Much like was stated in the OP all the drift has caused a great deal of confusion among those who practice this lifestyle. Granted every individual has the right to practice their own dynamic however they see fit but it does make it difficult on the community as a whole and for individuals in the long run. It used to be fairly easy to tell who was who and where you fit into WIITWD, now with the prevalence of the PC"call yourself whatever you like as long as you are comfortable with it" you practically have to ask 8 hours worth of questions to determine what it is the person is into. But until the bdsm community can agree on definitions that at least generally describe the terms we use to describe ourselves this will continue to be a problem.

LordODiscipline -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/24/2006 6:05:13 AM)
quote: There are variations of intensity on any continuum, including BDSM. If someone labels themself dominant and then caters to the whims of the submissive, why should we care? *This was a "bitch thread" - complaining about things that are pet peeves and irritants...* *Why should you care?* *You should not if you do not... it was not your pet peeve, it was mine... and, I do not "care" (per se) - it just irritates me.* ~J

catize -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/24/2006 7:14:25 AM)
quote: But until the bdsm community can agree on definitions that at least generally describe the terms we use to describe ourselves this will continue to be a problem. Fundamentalism within WIITWD is impossible to enforce because it is a private dynamic defined by each person, couple or group. Even if we had a consensus written in stone, there would always be those who would do it their own way.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875