|
Aswad -> RE: Are there any Dominants who don't care about submissive orgasm? (5/4/2007 5:21:24 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: slaveluci
Ok, you know what? That's actually a very good point. You are right. [...] i'm listening....i'm agreeing [...]Excellent example and i agree wholeheartedly. Thanks for the brainfood there.
Gasp. Choke. Sputter. You can't agree with me. Who will I argue with now? [:D]
quote:
i guess if i were being totally honest, more than anything else it boils down to how her definition affects other people, especially new folks here. [...] But, as someone earlier said (mistoferin, i believe), the idea of those new to the forums seeing assertions that they aren't real slaves if they have needs, for instance, is a daunting one.
I get that, and I agree that it is a concern.
That said, it's impossible to have a forum which allows people from a wide subset of the BDSM community to discuss their activities, lifestyles and opinions freely and also give a beginner some reasonable introduction to it.
For instance, I'm into toilet service (the kind that's practical for men, not the kind that's messy), EBM and pretty extreme fisting, not to mention therapeutic and/or mind-altering applications of the D/s dynamic. There's no way someone who's just starting out can apply any of that safely or sanely. And I'm pretty sure a lot of the people who are just starting out would completely freak out if I elaborated on these (heck, some of the experienced ones do). Not to mention the entirely messed-up ideas they'd be stuck with if I wrote a post about deep brainwashing (no, I'm not into it, but I know how to do it); we'd be lucky if they didn't call the police next time they heard someone was into BDSM. And the criticisms alone would keep such a post on the recent-threads list for a long time.
The alternative, of course, is to have an elaborate registration procedure where you have to read an introduction to BDSM and take a short questionnaire or something, and that would just hurt the people whose contributions really enrich the forum, plus driving some of them off.
It's a delicate balance, and I tend toward the idea that this board should be a resource for the people already in the community, rather than an introduction, as there are many other introductions out there. Sure, I'd give advice to a beginner; advice directed at them, at the level I assume them to be at. But we can't be everything for everyone, and CM currently fills a niche with regards to a fairly constructive forum (semi-covered) where people can talk about anything from beginners' issues (well covered) to the more advanced, esoteric or extreme (all poorly covered) aspects of BDSM.
In short, if they haven't done their research, and don't have the critical filtering required to self-censor what isn't appropriate for them, and don't take the time to read enough posts to get a more balanced view, there's not much we can do for them. Management without consent only goes so far.
Also, what daddysprop and some others here (on the forum, not this thread specifically) have described is closer to a dictionary definition than common practice. It would, IMO, be inappropriate for them not to be able to discuss that here, and if they can discuss it, there's no way that wouldn't be a bit of a shock to a "novice" who isn't looking for that particular kind of power exchange.
Just my 2 cents, as usual.
quote:
As someone who used to hold some (what i now believe are erroneous) beliefs similar to that, i guess i'm just ultra-sensitive to seeing stuff like that stated as fact because if i had bought into it, i wouldn't be here now and i certainly wouldn't be a slave.
We all started out with preconceptions (prejudices?) about BDSM, I think. I know I did. But we shed these along the way, and if someone is truly drawn to this particular kind of relationship (D/s, M/s, whatever), they'll probably be back sooner or later.
quote:
quote:
I'll take "naïve" as a complement. Most people call me a hopelessly hardened cynic[:D] ...okay, noted
Just as a brief (yeah, right) explanation... I'm cynical about people, about online communication, about societies and subcultures, etc... That has made me a pragmatist, in some regards. And it means I make certain assumptions about posts, threads, etc. getting stuck in the same ruts over and over for the same, small set of reasons, as well as talking differently online from IRL, making certain assumptions about what people are trying to say, even when it might appear differently to me, etc.
Arguments about fundamental disagreements tend to quickly resolve with both parties getting to the core of their differences and then walking away from it, no harm, no foul. Anything else is usually a communication error (I make a lot of those myself, even more so IRL). When someone makes a statement that either doesn't make sense to me, or offends me in some way, I try (but often fail) to assume good faith, and see if I can find some way to fit what they said to something that is both sensible, inoffensive and reasonably congruent with what else they have said. Sometimes this fails, sometimes it leaves the statement in a disagreeable (to me) light, but most of the time I find something that makes perfect sense, even though it may not be something I agree with.
Being a cynic isn't a good thing, obviously, but I try to leverage the benefits too. Overcompensating can be useful, too, even if it isn't a substitute for genuine naïvité. [:D]
quote:
The latter of course...that and the point that i think, in general, people find it much easier to be confrontational online as the same repurcussions don't exist. And, as we can't see each other, it's just colder and more formal, involving less compassion, in general i think.
Sure there's repercussions online. You have an interest in being here, meaning there's something to lose. And we humans don't generally poison the well we drink from, unless we don't realize it, or (in the case of the environment) have made a habit of doing so before we realized it. I like being here because there's a lot of information here, a lot of interesting people, and a fairly friendly tone; if I anger a lot of people, there will be fewer interesting people who want to talk to me, a less friendly tone (what goes around tends to come around), and eventually, if a lot of people do that, things will degenerate to the point where the people contributing good information start to leave for greener pastures. I think we all have some subconscious awareness of this; it's how communities/societies work, we've all had prior experience with those and how these things work in them, and I think we're all aware that a forum is a community/society.
The point about online communication being colder, however, I agree with. Although I'd say it's more that it's "detached" than "colder", which is a sufficiently subtle difference that it isn't always relevant. I try to ameliorate it somewhat by the use of emphasis and smileys, but that doesn't substitute for an actual smile or a friendly tone of voice.
As for being more formal, I try to leverage that instead of seeing it as a disadvantage. You've probably noticed that I use a fairly formal register when posting here; my IRL language isn't usually that formal, but online I try to be formal enough that it is clear I'm not trying to convey harsh feelings at least, and it sometimes helps me (and others) focus on the topic at hand. Some don't respond well to it, though, of course. I'm glad to see it worked here.
quote:
Well, i would contend that is much easier said than done, Aswad. If one can always remain totally analytical and objective and never be emotional or have a tendency to react quickly, that would be easy.
I get that. Which is why I generally try to avoid putting too much emotional content in my posts. But there are certainly times when we may feel negative emotions from a post online; the trick, as far as I've been able to tell, is the same things they tell you in marriage counselling and some communication courses. By practicing those things, we gradually find it easier to postpone an emotional response, or detach ourselves from it when we reply. There has been no small amount of eye-rolling (and more) on this end of the keyboard while browsing the various threads of this forum, I can assure you. [:D]
quote:
Not everyone - especially myself - can always do that, especially when it involves a subject near and dear to us or implications we perceive as negative or accusatory.
I have a friend who really pisses me off a lot of the time, usually without meaning to, and often simply because of the way he thinks. I keep him around just as much for the reason that he effectively helps me deal with such things (practice, getting to explain my views, etc., with a person I have a vested interest in maintaining good relations with) as for any of the other reasons. Perhaps something to consider?
As for implications, I realize it's hard not to read those between the lines, but that's what I try to do, unless it contributes to my assumption of good faith. Just been on too many forums where things have been a lot more heated than here, I guess.
With regard to negative and/or accusatory implications, I find it useful to examine why I react in that way. It usually tells me something about myself. Hence, the comment about whether there might be an implicit value judgement or subconscious need for validation involved, although I'm not asserting that; it was just a question. I lost my concern for what other people think, entirely, a long time ago; back in college (not sure if that is the appropriate equivalent), I used to explicitly dress in a completely backwards manner (and not in conformance with the "dress codes" of any of the non-mainstream cliques either) just because I liked watching people's reaction, and their response to me not minding their disapproval. Not everyone has the "benefit" of having been an outsider and disapproved of by their peers throughout the bulk of their lives, though.
quote:
But then, i have faulty short-term memory. If i'm suffering from amnesia in this case, i'm sure you'll enlighten me[:)]......
Being that I am suffering from clinical memory impairment at the moment, and probably will be for the next year or two, I doubt it. [:D]
That part of the reply was to you, although I'm fully prepared to admit my assumption was wrong. I was trying (and probably failing) to communicate that to me, it appeared that the reason you were taking offense is because you were either (a) treating the word she used as having a meaning identical to the meaning you associate with it, or (b) making a (probably subconscious) value judgement that a 'slave' was somehow not "as good as" a 'sub', thereby feeling insulted as you consider yourself a slave and perceived her statement to be 'demoting' you to sub. Possibly both.
But I'm perfectly open to the idea that I may have been way off base or flat-out wrong in that regard. If so, I sincerely apologize.
quote:
Thanks for the food for thought above, though..........slave luci
You're welcome. And thanks for your own food for thought.
Hmm... sharing of bread... Hungry now. Food! [sm=meh.gif]
Edit: Fixed my second-biggest quoting blunder so far.
|
|
|
|
