RE: BDSM Definitions?

RE: BDSM Definitions? (Full Version)

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

Message

adaddysgirl -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/2/2006 10:25:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists quote: Why do you hold the opinion that a slave submits once and a submissive daily is ridiculous, adaddysgirl? If not for those differences, in which way(s) do you see a slave and a sub being different from each other? For the record: i'm asking for the sake of understanding how others arrive at a different opinion, not out any desire to change your's or anyone else's opinion Here is how I arrive at my opinion The foundation of my opinion is found by understanding what my personal moral principles and values with regards to a person. It is my belief that a person is entitled to have an opportunity to have their basic needs meet that will foster a healthy well-being. It is my belief that we have a joint responsibility to do what we are able to in foster the fulfillment of these basic needs for ones well-being. The next step is to understand what are a person’s basic physiological and psychological needs that contribute to a person’s well-being. The physiological needs of a person are generally simple understood as food, clothing and shelter that will maintain a person’s physical health. The physiological needs of a person is one that is open to debate. I personally support the arguments of Dr. Deci and Dr Ryan in which they identity three basic phychological needs; Competence, Relatedness and Autonomy. The following is a quote from there article “Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. “Inductively, using the empirical process,we have identified three such needs--the needs for competence (Harter, 1978; White, 1963), relatedness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Reis, 1994), and autonomy (deCharms, 1968; Deci, 1975)--that appear to be essential for facilitating optimal functioning of the natural propensities for growth and integration, as well as for constructive social development and personal well-being.” The particular need that I refer to in order to answer your question is “Autonomy”. What is Autonomy? There is many specific definitions of autonomy but it is my understanding that autonomy that we are talking about is the personal freedom and moral independence of the person. For many, autonomy would be contrary to their idea of Lifestyle slavery. However, for me autonomy is not opposed to lifestyle slavery and I would say it is even a necessary requirement to protect against the dangers of Co-dependency. Lifestyle Slavery is a consensual arrangement and therefore one exercises their personal freedom to enter into consensual slavery. However, for the basic psychological needs to be met, a person need for autonomy must be continuously be met as well. In other words, the person must exercise their personal freedom to decide continuously that consensual slavery is their relationship choice. Be a person Master, Dominant, sub or slave, it is necessary that we have the personal freedom to continually make choices to live the way we desire to. To consider that one makes this choice only once would in my opinion disregard the basic psychological need of autonomy that is necessary for a healthy well-being. i realize this is 'old stuff' now but i want to say thank you KoM for putting this into words in a way i never would have been able to. i have been a member here over 2 yrs but really never got into these message boards much. i really think i am more of a verbal communicator than written and well, just don't really know how to put things sometimes. Autonomy, yes, that is what i am saying....but would have never thought of that particular word. In any event, in light of the recent turn of this thread, this probably isn't very important, but i did want to say thanks [&:] Daddysgirl

justheather -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/2/2006 11:01:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: teamnoir I taught a class on this at the Citadel, (San Francisco), last month. Here's the summary of what I taught. Top and bottom refer to the roles in an SM interaction. An SM interaction is defined as being an interaction who's primary focus is sensation. It could be sensation which is produced by psycho-emotional means, but it's focus is on sensation. Dominant and submissive refer to the roles in a d/s interaction. A d/s interation is defined as being an interation who's primary focus is on power or control. It might be a power exchange, or it may simply be a naturally occurring power differential. Master and slave refer to the roles in an m/s interaction. And M/s interaction is defined as being an interaction who's primary focus is on ownership of a person. Many people consider M/s to be a subset of d/s, some consider it to be a completely separate thing. These terms are not mutually exclusive and often overlap. There's nothing to prevent one participant from seeing the interaction as SM while the other sees it as d/s. So long as the behaviors involved are consensual, the interaction can be just fine. I use the word "interaction" here because all three can happen on either a scene-by-scene basis or on a relationship-by-relationship basis. Okay, here are some "definitions" I can swallow. I think many people have already embraced these ideas whether consciously or not. In fact, way back when I said that "these words already have definitions", this was pretty much what I was talking about. Here they are presented in a very concise and intelligent manner that would potentially be a good model to offer to those who do not understand the terms. The important difference between these definitions and those presented before is that that is all they do. If my vote still counts, I vote for these. Reason being: They include as opposed to exclude. They don't qualify interaction. They don't establish any sort of claim regarding intimacy, commitment, spirituality, or even the nature of consent, all of which are extremely individual and personal concepts relative to the relationship at hand. They don't purport to define terms while actually doing something entirely different, like label or imply relative value. I especially like this part: These terms are not mutually exclusive and often overlap. There's nothing to prevent one participant from seeing the interaction as SM while the other sees it as d/s. So long as the behaviors involved are consensual, the interaction can be just fine. Thank's Mr. Noir. Where were you three hundred odd posts ago?

OhReallyNow -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/3/2006 1:43:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: justheather quote: ORIGINAL: teamnoir I taught a class on this at the Citadel, (San Francisco), last month. Here's the summary of what I taught. Top and bottom refer to the roles in an SM interaction. An SM interaction is defined as being an interaction who's primary focus is sensation. It could be sensation which is produced by psycho-emotional means, but it's focus is on sensation. Dominant and submissive refer to the roles in a d/s interaction. A d/s interation is defined as being an interation who's primary focus is on power or control. It might be a power exchange, or it may simply be a naturally occurring power differential. Master and slave refer to the roles in an m/s interaction. And M/s interaction is defined as being an interaction who's primary focus is on ownership of a person. Many people consider M/s to be a subset of d/s, some consider it to be a completely separate thing. These terms are not mutually exclusive and often overlap. There's nothing to prevent one participant from seeing the interaction as SM while the other sees it as d/s. So long as the behaviors involved are consensual, the interaction can be just fine. I use the word "interaction" here because all three can happen on either a scene-by-scene basis or on a relationship-by-relationship basis. Okay, here are some "definitions" I can swallow. I think many people have already embraced these ideas whether consciously or not. In fact, way back when I said that "these words already have definitions", this was pretty much what I was talking about. Here they are presented in a very concise and intelligent manner that would potentially be a good model to offer to those who do not understand the terms. The important difference between these definitions and those presented before is that that is all they do. If my vote still counts, I vote for these. Reason being: They include as opposed to exclude. They don't qualify interaction. They don't establish any sort of claim regarding intimacy, commitment, spirituality, or even the nature of consent, all of which are extremely individual and personal concepts relative to the relationship at hand. They don't purport to define terms while actually doing something entirely different, like label or imply relative value. I especially like this part: These terms are not mutually exclusive and often overlap. There's nothing to prevent one participant from seeing the interaction as SM while the other sees it as d/s. So long as the behaviors involved are consensual, the interaction can be just fine. Thank's Mr. Noir. Where were you three hundred odd posts ago? *this slave can say that if these had been presented, in this manner, in the first post, all of her arguments would have been useless. This is something that she could agree with.*

raevyntc -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/3/2006 5:19:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL Sinergy I simply stated my opinion about a person's behavior on these boards. I was under the impression that internet message boards were appropriate places to express one's opinion. Your statement about your opinion of her behavior would have been acceptable; your statement that she violated protocol was not unless you were following proper protocol yourself. You may not have it both ways, if you wish to others follow protocol then you must as well. quote: ORIGINAL Sinergy If you are referring to twicehappy, she either attempted to publicly insult me. *Twice's comment could only have been construed to be insulting if you admit that words have definitions, that you do in fact contrary to your tedious prior contentions care what others call things.* *Given your comprehension skills I think the girl used a brilliant strategy to capture your attention. Either way you were, how do you phrase that, "had".* quote: ORIGINAL Sinergy As a psychiatrist, perhaps you would be willing to comment on the psychological danger of somebody vesting their emotional stability in the opinions of others. *Why, do you wish a consultation? You are a little far from me, try a colleague of mine, Mary Manix, Psy.D. located in Encino.* quote: ORIGINAL Sinergy A number of posters have made vague comments about feeling juliaoceania has been insulting. I have asked for examples of this, and none are forthcoming. *Here are but two of the comments she made to Twice* quote: ORIGINAL juliaoceania I call that childish and rude still remains catty, petty and altogether childish to make a point to do so... *This second list second is of several violations of protocol as your sub was replying to doms/dommes if you wish to apply protocal to others start with your own house first.* quote: ORIGINAL juliaoceania look up the word "may" and then get back to me with yelling in all caps... I will not even consider the rest of the post because of that.you are displaying ignorance about the topic when you can inform yourself but just to tell ya... your posts smell fishy in my opinon. It means this... I can post an opinion about whatever I read on CM now I am saying... well the same back at ya! *You did have your little subbie apologize to Twice but let me clue you in to something you do not know.* After reading all of your girls spiels defending you I bet a friend of mine that the minute you arrived home and read her works of the day you would order her to apologize, even better I later found out that a couple I know made the same bet with their friends who are also posters, so much for the sincerity of that apology. I gather you are functioning as the id to her superego yet you appear to have had little influence upon her difficulty in relating to others which is a disturbing personality trait. Perhaps when you make your appointment with the doctor you should schedule one for your girl as well.

justheather -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/3/2006 5:24:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: raevyntc After reading all of your girls spiels defending you I bet a friend of mine that the minute you arrived home and read her works of the day you would order her to apologize, even better I later found out that a couple I know made the same bet with their friends who are also posters, so much for the sincerity of that apology. Wow, that's amazing because as soon as I read your post from yesterday, I made a bet with a friend of mine (and later found out a couple I know made the same bet) that your glued-on moustache would at some point fall halfway off, revealing your twue identity.

twicehappy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/3/2006 5:24:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: angelic One word that keeps coming to mind (and maybe this should be another thread, if so i apologize)... how does the word 'honor/honour" come in to WIITWD? I think honor much like the words "true" and "real" have been so overused in reference to WIITWD that it has also become a standing joke. I think it used to refer to being some one whose word meant something, some one who would do the right thing in any given situation.

OhReallyNow -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/3/2006 5:28:29 AM)
quote: I think honor much like the words "true" and "real" have been so overused in reference to WIITWD that it has also become a standing joke. I think it used to refer to being some one whose word meant something, some one who would do the right thing in any given situation. it still does. This slave has been fortunate in her experiences to meet those who still hold honor above all else. Those who believe that their word and a handshake are binding between the parties involved.

KatyLied -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/3/2006 5:28:31 AM)
quote: her difficulty in relating to others which is a disturbing personality trait. That's a bit over dramatic, don't you think? Oh, I forgot you are qualified to dx disturbing personality traits from reading posts on a message board. (yes, that last sentence was sarcastic and since my Dom and I don't follow any protocols, I'm allowed to say whatever I want). edit to add disturbing

OhReallyNow -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/3/2006 5:32:31 AM)
this slave has found that though she often disagrees vehemently with both Julia and Synergy, she has never found cause to attack them in such a way. Their outspokeness is to be commended in this day and age where everyone is so concerned with being polite and correct. This slave does not know you, but she has found from just the few posts that you have graced us with, that she is not missing much at all. She also finds it very amusing that Twice, who claims to be so able to stand on her own, would need the words of another to defend her. */shrug* *each to their own it seems*

marieToo -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/3/2006 5:48:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: justheather I especially like this part: These terms are not mutually exclusive and often overlap. There's nothing to prevent one participant from seeing the interaction as SM while the other sees it as d/s. So long as the behaviors involved are consensual, the interaction can be just fine. See, this is the problem though. To me, this basically says...Ok heres your definitions, but these definitions are so obscure and subjective that they can basically mean anything you want. Given these particular definitions, lets say someone is a 'bottom', but they consider themselves rather a 'sex slave' who 'submits', but only to sex. This person has no 'limits' sexually because they are consenting to being 'owned' during the time that they 'submit' to being used as a sex slave. This person can now be described as a bottom, a submissive or a slave. Its a circle with no way out. The only way to define ourselves is to describe ourselves, instead of wearing labels. Why does everyone think that a vanilla person needs a simplified definition? If they care enough to want to understand this, certainly they can understand why it cant be cut and dried, any more than any other relationship can be cut and dried. Surely vanilla people can understand that, afterall what relationships are more blurred with uncertain boundaries than vanilla ones? And why do we need definitions for 'newbies'? To me, this is the most amusing part. Experienced bdsmers feeling like newbies need a word. Newbies have been feeling what they feel most likely since childhood. So they come onto the "scene" and find freaks like us defining things that we cant agree on and making them sit there and choose which 'catagory' they fit into. Now THAT is limiting and frankly dangerous for the less-than-smart ones. We are more of a hinderance than a help. Relationships in bdsm will develope and evolve the same way they do in any other walk of life. Why do we think that our relationships are any more specialized than anyone else's. They aren't!! This whole campaign is so illogical and just reeks out loud of typical bdsm elitism.

raevyntc -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/3/2006 5:48:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: justheather Wow, that's amazing because as soon as I read your post from yesterday, I made a bet with a friend of mine (and later found out a couple I know made the same bet) that your glued-on moustache would at some point fall halfway off, revealing your twue identity. Little girl, first please learn to spell; second if you wish to check my "identity" feel free to meet me at Ben Wick's Pub on Parliament Street in Toronto on the third Tuesday of the month, ask to be seated with the DSSG group. I will be the very tall silver haired gent with the nun tattooed down my arm.

twicehappy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/3/2006 5:55:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FancySeatCover i would agree these basic terms are very simular to my understanding. Thank you Fancy for contributing.

twicehappy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/3/2006 5:58:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: justheather If my vote still counts, I vote for these. Vote noted and thank you, i too liked a lot of teamnoir's definitions.

twicehappy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/3/2006 6:01:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OhReallyNow *this slave can say that if these had been presented, in this manner, in the first post, all of her arguments would have been useless. This is something that she could agree with.* I posted my definitions and ASKED everybody to post their own. I am glad you liked these from another poster, i like these but i liked several of the others as well. Thank you for adding your vote. Perhaps we are getting somewhere with this after all.

twicehappy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/3/2006 6:05:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OhReallyNow it still does. This slave has been fortunate in her experiences to meet those who still hold honor above all else. Those who believe that their word and a handshake are binding between the parties involved. Then you have been blessed indeed, i too know many to whom honor is important, you phrased that very well.

justheather -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/3/2006 6:20:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: raevyntc Little girl, first please learn to spell; second if you wish to check my "identity" feel free to meet me at Ben Wick's Pub on Parliament Street in Toronto on the third Tuesday of the month, ask to be seated with the DSSG group. I will be the very tall silver haired gent with the nun tattooed down my arm. Are all Canadian psychiatwists so vewy vewy sewious?

angelic -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/3/2006 6:42:40 AM)
Unfortunately, twicehappy, i think you are correct. We have become a society (vanilla/bdsm) of instant gratification and 'honor' or doing the 'honorable' thing has gone by the way side.

happypervert -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/3/2006 6:53:57 AM)
quote: Are all Canadian psychiatwists so vewy vewy sewious? No. That only occurs in the psychiatwists who are able to diagnose severe personality disorders from a few posts of their targets on a message board while failing to see signs of even worse disorders in their own posts or those of their pals.

mnottertail -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/3/2006 6:56:19 AM)
Ah, Cwist Awmighty, I have a migwaine now, I need to swawwow some aspwin!!!!

juliaoceania -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/3/2006 7:12:07 AM)
I will check myself into the hospital you work for, and which is this again? Like the Terry Shiavo case, I always respect people that can contribute an expert opinion via some remote form of media... such as video tape or internet message boards!..I am soooo thrilled someone of your stature thought me worthwhile to "investigate"... and I wrote down the name of the pub.. Perhaps you can email me your name.. since you are so ethical I think I would like your board to know how you use your credentials, which is to attack women you do not know on internet message boards. This is frowned upon in the USA for people who hold adavanced degrees and positions within their fields to stoop to such things, maybe in Canada you do things differently? What school did you go to again?

Page: << < prev 17 18 [19] 20 21 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875