quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie
Your posts seem to conflict each other and I think that's where some of the confusion comes in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: akbarbarian

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

AK, well now you have just brought another facet into the discussion. I am a full time lesbian. However I do not do any of those things you mentioned. I don't feel the need to. I am totally comfortable with who I am, I don't care who knows. I just do not feel the need to advertise it. Same with my dominant nature.

I don't think you have to come across like an activist to be what I meant, but it's the easiest way to visualize what I meant as activists are usually the most deeply expressing that part of themselves in every situation they are in. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

quote:

ORIGINAL: akbarbarian

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

AK, well now you have just brought another facet into the discussion. I am a full time lesbian. However I do not do any of those things you mentioned. I don't feel the need to. I am totally comfortable with who I am, I don't care who knows. I just do not feel the need to advertise it. Same with my dominant nature.

I don't think you have to come across like an activist to be what I meant, but it's the easiest way to visualize what I meant as activists are usually the most deeply expressing that part of themselves in every situation they are in. 

I appreciate you continuing to discuss this without getting your boxers bunched because I seriously am not trying to come across in an antagonistic way.

I may be wrong in that you may be missing the subtleties that many of us are trying to explain. While a M/s or D/s interaction may be almost invisible to someone outside that interaction it does not mean it isn't there. I see it as an invisible strand that is always there but no less strong or binding. It doesn't need to be visible to exist. Each person involved in this sort of relationship is going to live it a little differently. What those differences are should not ever place one above the other in importance or realness. It is just different.

The best example I can possibly give is totally fictional and extreme in its difference just to explain.

A.) Man in rural Colorado had large ranch. He has several slaves kept in the house naked and chained 24/7. Constant sensation play and mind fucks.
B.) Woman in NYC apt. Her slave is a wealthy executive while she does not have to work. No visible shackles or signs of  anything other than a purely vanilla marriage.

Which one is more M/s D/s? The truth is, without being involved intimately there is no way of knowing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: akbarbarian

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie
Your posts seem to conflict each other and I think that's where some of the confusion comes in.

Apparently you're right.  I tried to be clear, but there seems to be somthing I didn't express in language that makes sense to the readers here.  Can you point out what in particular may have been misworded? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: agirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: akbarbarian

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie
Your posts seem to conflict each other and I think that's where some of the confusion comes in.

Apparently you're right.  I tried to be clear, but there seems to be somthing I didn't express in language that makes sense to the readers here.  Can you point out what in particular may have been misworded? 

Are you asking whether someone could *give up* PARTICULAR activities and control aspects.........because they love someone?

agirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: akbarbarian

Situation A is like a brainwashing camp, and situation B is like ah...well it certainly couldn't be a full time brainwashing camp if he enters environments with vanilla people.  But I admit finding examples isn't easy.  Maybe my sig has some people instantly confused about what I mean.  My thread is intended to be about control, and exercising that control, and how important being able to exercise that control is to you and whether you could give it up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

quote:

ORIGINAL: akbarbarian

Situation A is like a brainwashing camp, and situation B is like ah...well it certainly couldn't be a full time brainwashing camp if he enters environments with vanilla people.  But I admit finding examples isn't easy.  Maybe my sig has some people instantly confused about what I mean.  My thread is intended to be about control, and exercising that control, and how important being able to exercise that control is to you and whether you could give it up.

Actually my point was that even though dominant man in situation A might appear to have more control than the dominant woman in situation B, the truth might be the opposite. If the slave in A escaped from her chains and ran yet the male submissive in situation B continue to return the the dominant woman even though he will be subject to her every whim, wether he enjoys it or not, upon return, who then has more control?

Perhaps we did get off topic but it was to understand the context of how you were presenting the issue. I must have the majority of the control in my relationships, how it is handled will vary with the circumstances.

quote:

ORIGINAL: agirl

Ok. Then what has the *love* bit got to do with it.....if it comes down to the choice between a democratic relationship and D/s?

agirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: akbarbarian

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie
Your posts seem to conflict each other and I think that's where some of the confusion comes in.

Apparently you're right.  I tried to be clear, but there seems to be somthing I didn't express in language that makes sense to the readers here.  Can you point out what in particular may have been misworded? 

quote:

I'm not talking about play or sex.  Sexual though I am, I'd almost give up sex to have a really submissive and yielding partner.  I'm not talking about toys or whipping either, though the whippings are nice to express my D/s oriented feelings. 

quote:

To me the big difference between BDSM and D/s, is in D/s sometimes pain is not desired by either party.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gypsygrl

I've decided its useless to try to do without an explicit D/s dynamic in a long term relationship.  I am always submissive whether or not the relationship is putatively equality based/vanilla or not and its simply much wiser for me to only involve myself with others who accept their dominance and are comfortable with my submission and, more importantly, are able to take the dynamic for what it is and are willing to talk about it in those terms.

So, yeah, its mandatory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

quote:

ORIGINAL: akbarbarian

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie
Your posts seem to conflict each other and I think that's where some of the confusion comes in.

Apparently you're right.  I tried to be clear, but there seems to be somthing I didn't express in language that makes sense to the readers here.  Can you point out what in particular may have been misworded? 

I assure you I'm not trying to be nit picky here, but in this post, you are basically saying that D/s is, as I see it, the dominant/submissive dynamic of a relationship, sans anything physical:

quote:

I'm not talking about play or sex.  Sexual though I am, I'd almost give up sex to have a really submissive and yielding partner.  I'm not talking about toys or whipping either, though the whippings are nice to express my D/s oriented feelings. 

But here your comment on the main difference between BDSM and D/s seem like, in your opinion, D/s is the same as BDSM "play" only without the pain.

quote:

To me the big difference between BDSM and D/s, is in D/s sometimes pain is not desired by either party.

I believe pain is irrelevant to D/s, and to say that's the major (or, "big") difference between BDSM and D/s seemed contrary to your earlier post.  Hence, confusion as to what you think when you say D/s. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: akbarbarian
This might be my personal experience speaking.  I haven't ever played, haven't had a casual partner, haven't been to a pro dungeon, etc.  The only people I've ever used a whip on were people I was serious about and I don't consider it play.  And when I whip/"BDSM someone up", it's personal to me.  I get the feeling that on these boards people consider BDSM impersonal and perhaps even staged, and D/s highly personal.  I've never seen it that way. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

quote:

ORIGINAL: akbarbarian
This might be my personal experience speaking.  I haven't ever played, haven't had a casual partner, haven't been to a pro dungeon, etc.  The only people I've ever used a whip on were people I was serious about and I don't consider it play.  And when I whip/"BDSM someone up", it's personal to me.  I get the feeling that on these boards people consider BDSM impersonal and perhaps even staged, and D/s highly personal.  I've never seen it that way. 

I appreciate your patience and your dialogue here.  I find BDSM to be extremely personal and intimate between my Master and I. I do not consider it "play," I consider it availing myself for him to use at his whim.  But for some it is play, in that they are both enjoying each other playfully and happily.  For others it is less than personal.  It's an individual thing.  Because of that, BDSM does not automatically include D/s, and vice versa.  A masochist who loves to be whipped is not necessarily a submissive.  A submissive is not necessarily a mashochist, or even someone who participates in BDSM activities.  For me, submission goes way beyond anything physical.  My Master dominates my mind, and for us it really can be no other way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: akbarbarian

If it works for you that's great.  I have no doubt there are people with varying types of interest in this.  There is nothing wrong with being vanilla.  The key, is could you live vanilla in order to be with the person you love?

quote:

ORIGINAL: akbarbarian
I find it highly illogical to relate BDSM to play and not to D/s. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

I appreciate your patience and your dialogue here.  I find BDSM to be extremely personal and intimate between my Master and I. I do not consider it "play," I consider it availing myself for him to use at his whim.  But for some it is play, in that they are both enjoying each other playfully and happily. 

In the relationships that i have been in, for us, the bdsm was more or less the physical part of the relationship.  And it pretty much had to do with kink.  Okay....(simplistically put) tie me up and whip me.....that's some cool discipline with bondage (but never, ever on the serious note that discipline spankings were given in).  i'm not really a masochist, nor were my partners (particularly) sadists, but there definitely was a 'pushing' of the physical at various times.  So along with the B&D, there was some S&M but again, this was pretty much the kink part of the relationship.
 
Was it play?  Well, i call it play....because it was fun!  (even though i may end up crying, physically hurting, or humiliated in some way....it was just an area where we could live out any sexual fantasies we had.)  It's rather funny that each dom had there own kink they wanted to try....and i was willing to try (just about) anything....and the agreement was...if it really didn't work for one of us, then we didn't do it again. 
 
It was basically exploration, trying new things, pushing things we had already done....just all kinds of things....depending on his mood at the time.  Was it serious?  Well, i call it play....as in relation to the rest of the relationship, which was not play.....but it was serious in the sense that it was definitely an integral part of our total relationship.
 
And no matter what we did there, i found it both extremely personal and intimate.  For us, it was what we did only with each other.  And honestly, i could not have imagined it any other way.


For others it is less than personal.  It's an individual thing.  Because of that, BDSM does not automatically include D/s, and vice versa. 

Now here's where i make the distinction.  A maso sub goes to a play party.  A sado dom goes to a play party.  They know each other a bit but have no relationship outside of the 'dungeon'.  While at the party, he ties her up and whips her.  They both end up satisfied and go their own way.  Perhaps they never see each other again...or perhaps they 'play' again at another party. 
 
To me, this is BDSM.  He tops....she bottoms.  i don't see a Dom/sub partnership there.  Now, if they want to call it D/s, i really don't care.....but i am just saying that i don't see anything more than BD SM.
 
Now on the flip side of the coin....i have talked with those into Domestic Discipline.  In short, the husband is the Head of Household and as such, he dominates....and the wife submits to him.  i consider this a D/s relationship (or partnership) but in many cases, they engage in no kink whatsoever.  Basically, their sex lives are vanilla;  there are no whips and chains, no bringing others in, no watersports, no objectification....nothing of that sort.  And although spanking is used as a discipline tool, they engage in no BD SM whatsoever.

A masochist who loves to be whipped is not necessarily a submissive. 

This is what i have learned.

A submissive is not necessarily a mashochist, or even someone who participates in BDSM activities.

i agree....as i described above.

For me, submission goes way beyond anything physical.  My Master dominates my mind, and for us it really can be no other way.

And that's where i differentiate the physical part of the bdsm with the overall mental/emotional/psychological aspects of a D/s partnership.
 
Thank you for making it easier for me to explain how i see it  :)
 
DG