new to site, new to idea of bdsm

Netzach said:

You suggest that T/b is but a tepid "emulation" of the dynamics of M/s.

A lot of T/b exchange really doesn't give a crap about the imbalance of power at all and emulates nothing outside itself.

I'd say that I've often seen M/s pretend to much more intensity edge and danger than it actually often contains. Picking out my spouse's panties and food entails a fuckload LESS attention and worry than hanging someone in the air by ropes.

I've operated in both modes. I can appreciate either one. What I can't for the life of me understand is why M/s always has to denigrate the idea of play, especially play that plays on some major edges. Simply because something is arrived at by consensus does not make it "safer" or an emulation or a poor substitute.

Click to expand...

Considering that I corrected you earlier about misquoting me and....

Considering that you misquote me again, presenting me as having said topping or bottoming is "tepid" - when I said no such thing.

And considering your prejudices and misconceptions that you so proudly trot out about M/s (when that was not even the topic of the discussion)....

I think no discerning reader will be surprised if I begin to have less patience and forbearance with your questions or comments directed a what I contribute to the discussion.

But I'm giving it one more try... one more chance for a reasonable discussion, based on fact and logic, devoid of attempts at overbearing personal opinion and prejudice.

To wit:

Netzach said:

A lot of T/b exchange really doesn't give a crap about the imbalance of power at all and emulates nothing outside itself.

Click to expand...

Of course, I do agree with you.... as far as it goes. "A lot of" or a little of... I will not quibble.

The point I will make is that there is still T/B "play" that does, indeed, emulate D/S. Personally, I have observed quite a lot of that. Your observation may be different.

And I will also reiterate the point I made earlier that "play" is "play" and a "scene" is a "scene" - and they are not to be confused with a reality dynamic.

Now as to whether this is better or worse - one compared to the other - that is totally a value judgement for each individual. Obviously, T/B play is better for a person who does not want to dominate or submit or who does not want to be involved in any kind of relationship and so on. OTOH, the reality of D/S may well be judged as "better" by a person who seeks a relationship dynamic or wants to dominate or to submit. ...shrug... It is completely a matter of personal preference and I think no one is justified to tell someone else what is best for the other person.

I will also say that if T/B's "don't give a crap" - lol... then why argue it? It just is what it is, whatever that is. I suggest we let it go at that.

Netzach said:

I'd say that I've often seen M/s pretend to much more intensity edge and danger than it actually often contains.

Click to expand...

I'm quite sure, and do agree with you that some people who claim M/S have their egotistical heads buried in their asses. But I do not see any of that in this discussion.

Indeed, M/S is another of those descriptors that some people feel have a cachet. And I have observed that far more than a few people want to lay claim to those descriptors who do not qualify to do so under the definitions of the terms. If those people rankle, I do share your feelings.

Netzach said:

What I can't for the life of me understand is why M/s always has to denigrate the idea of play

Click to expand...

That is not what has happened in this discussion.

In point of fact, you are the person doing the denigrating. You are denigrating M/S expansively and maliciously. And you've gone out of your way to do so.

SinfulSailor said:

I mean that we can not have a discussion at all - either shallow or in depth - without vocabulary. We must be able to understand the words we write or say to each other.

This is obvious.

It is my observation over a very long period of time discussing kink that when people rant about "labels", the root of their complaint is that the word(s) about which they are ranting mean something other than what they want the words to mean.

For example, commonly many people want to "label" actions/reactions/interactions (and so on) as either dominant or submissive when by the definitions of the terms the actions are, in fact, not dominant or submissive at all. In some people's minds there is a cachet to dominance and submission which they want to be free to claim whether or not their claim has any validity.

If other people do not accept as meritorious their unjustified claim to the cachet of dominance or submission, they sometimes get pissed and start ranting about "labels" and how unjust and useless labels are.

...shrug...

That is my long term observation. It is a bullshit rant. It is based in greed and envy and other bullshit motivations.

A thing is what a thing is.

To clarify: I don't give a hairy rat's ass what people do when they go home at night. They can call each other Beagle and Bunny for all I care, and they can call bottoming submission. I do not care. It is when people come into public forums and try to teach or put forth a position as fact or truth when that position is based on an inaccuracy (or worse) an intentional falsehood - that is when I bristle and correct the falsehood they are trying to sell and spread as truth.

If we are teaching.....

A thing must be what the thing is.

If we are having a substantive discussion....

A thing must be what the thing is.

Otherwise, we teach falsehood and our discussions are drivel.

Click to expand...

Yes, I totally agree that we do need words but my problem is that the lables used are way to blunt to actually carry the amount of information needed for a discussin like this and even less so to discuss your relationship with your partner.

-So, do you want to control things on a detail level?
-I'm dominant.
-Yes, but will you want to take hands on control of things like my diet, the clothes I wear?
-I'm dominant.
-So, will I be able to work or do you want control 24/7?
-I'm dominant.

Not really effective communication and works just as lousy with role reversal.

And no, the dictionary is not really going to help that much because any good dictionary will give you different meanings for a word depending on context. Take the word knot for example.
English isn't my first language but isn't dominant mostly used as an adjectie outside the BDSM?

My problem with labels is that they don't really show the continuum out there. It's a bit like with discussions about music.
When I was a teen, talk about music was about someone stating they were into metal and someone else stating they were into whatever you used to call things like Kraftwerk or Depeche Mode and then a fight broke out. Might not like the end result but lables were clear and understood.
Now you have to use descriptors like post industrial medium hard rock from the south west of Germany.

Lots of rambling aside, what actually helps the person who genuinely thinks they might be into the BDSM thing they heard about, is from my experience going to be about finding out what it is about it that turns your crank and how to best describe it so you can find compatible partner(s).
The fact that they all ramble about d/s is probably because that's what the information they found is all about. That's why I think Stellas essay is useful.
How else are people who are really just about the bondage ever going to find their thing without obsessing about how to fit that into d or s.

SinfulSailor said:

By your logic:

https://www.google.com/search?q=we+...la:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

I have had this discussion before.

Been there, done that.

When a person's mind is made up on this topic, as yours obviously is, I have discovered that person is virtually always impossible to reason with. Even if I provide a bill of sale, you will simply say it is not a valid bill of sale and will maintain that your position is one of obvious truth and fact. In other words, you will ignore any and all evidence that may put your pre-conceived conclusion in factual or logical doubt.

It is like arguing with the Flat Earthers or the Creationists. It is pointless and bereft of hope to ever reach a mutually shared state of enlightenment.

Sometimes it amuses me to watch people publicly display their prejudices and cling blindly to their logically insupportable dogma.

Probably not today.

Click to expand...

Wait, did you just compare my assertion that you can't claim your chattel slavery relationship is more "REAL" than a game of cops and robbers when you live in a culture that doesn't support actual chattel slavery -- to people working from the standpoint of a delusion requiring burden of proof?

And the people going NO MY SLAVE REAL SLAVE! to the people working from rationality and evidence?

Yeah, um, not so much.

You also missed the part that I've been in M/s relationships before. They were real and intense and totalitarian and all the things you might want out of one. And they were still not *more* real than any other relationship or interaction between top and bottom. They were still simulacra at the same time as being real, they were still contextual, they were still about self expression at the end of the day for the people in them and not much more.

Your "reality dynamic" is still a dynamic and not a reality, at the end of the day. I don't know why so many people freak out over this and why acceptance is so uncool, but I really don't care, I'm happy to accept that there is a shared folie a deux in D/s and reality remains "out there" in which you are considered batshit crazy for letting someone else decide all these things for you or needing to decide all these things for someone else.

And the entire idea of devil's advocacy seems to be whooshing past. D/s can handle my critique OK without any interruption in it's total domination of All Things TRUE scene, even if it's a minority within it. The first pieces of information a person is liable to encounter are about how important it is to find someone you can bare your soul to and communicate with on the deepest of levels, and maybe the first bit of information a person really might need most is what part of your wrists you don't want metal cuffs on when you're wrestling with your honey one night. The majority of people entering the activity are not entering "the lifestyle" they are humans doing human fucksperimenting.

I've been in M/s. I simply don't think my shit stinks less because of that.

IrisAlthea said:

Yes, I totally agree that we do need words but my problem is that the lables used are way to blunt to actually carry the amount of information needed for a discussin like this and even less so to discuss your relationship with your partner.

-So, do you want to control things on a detail level?
-I'm dominant.
-Yes, but will you want to take hands on control of things like my diet, the clothes I wear?
-I'm dominant.
-So, will I be able to work or do you want control 24/7?
-I'm dominant.

Not really effective communication and works just as lousy with role reversal.

Click to expand...

Right. Your example is not effective communication. I do think, though, that the dumb-ass who has only a two-word answer for every question is to blame for that - not vocabulary.

IrisAlthea said:

And no, the dictionary is not really going to help that much because any good dictionary will give you different meanings for a word depending on context. Take the word knot for example.

Click to expand...

Yes, when we refer to the dictionary we have to keep context in mind. Personally, I do not find that an overwhelming problem.

IrisAlthea said:

English isn't my first language

Click to expand...

Wow. I have a great deal of admiration for someone who is so fluent, as you are, in a second language. Perhaps, to improve your mastery of English you will appreciate me pointing out that if you want to look it up in the dictionary - you need to spell it "label", not "lable".

IrisAlthea said:

isn't dominant mostly used as an adjectie outside the BDSM?

Click to expand...

Right. Subcultures, professions, industries, fields of study, etc. often have specialized vocabulary. When a subculture develops a specialized vocabulary we often refer to it as "slang".

When we write or speak about DS, we often say things like, "He is a dominant person." Or, "She is dominant in her relationship."

Because we wrote it and spoke it so many times, we (for the sake of saving needless repetition) learned to drop the noun or phrase following "dominant". So instead of people writing, "He is a dominant person," over and over and over, we adopted the shorthand version of simply writing, "He is dominant." The qualifying word or phrase that contains the noun is "silent" and we use the adjective, "dominant" as the noun.

Sometimes we call such things colloquialisms, sometimes we call it lingo, sometimes we call it slang.

IrisAlthea said:

My problem with labels is that they don't really show the continuum out there.

Click to expand...

That seems a bit like complaining that the problem with the ocean is that there are no mountains showing.

Sheesh if we accepted that complaint we couldn't use just about any word. Virtually everything is subject to explanation and qualification.

Netzach said:

Wait, did you just compare my assertion that you can't claim your chattel slavery relationship is more "REAL" than a game of cops and robbers when you live in a culture that doesn't support actual chattel slavery -- to people working from the standpoint of a delusion requiring burden of proof?

Click to expand...

In your apparent eagerness to employ sarcasm, you don't make your point very well. But, it appears that this is the meat of the point you're trying to make:

Netzach said:

you live in a culture that doesn't support actual chattel slavery

Click to expand...

And, the way I read it, you want to take the position that slavery can not exist in reality because the "culture does not support" it. Is that right?

And, again the way I read it, what you are really trying to say is that slavery is illegal, therefore it can not exist. Is that right?

Assuming I read you correctly (see my questions to you above), you want to take the position that the legality of a thing determines the existence of a thing. Slavery is not legal, therefore it is impossible for slavery to exist.

Next time a cop wants to bust me for marijuana..... I'm gonna tell him, "Hey! You can't bust me. Marijuana is illegal, therefore it does not exist." "I know it's true 'cause Netzach said so."

If I misunderstand your position, perhaps you'll clarify it for me.

Netzach said:

You also missed the part that I've been in M/s relationships before.

Click to expand...

No. I didn't miss it. I was gonna let you slide on it though.

I don't know what you did that you called MS - whether it was or wasn't. But it is clear that whatever you did left one helluva bad taste in your mouth and inspired you to hate MS and rant against MS and get yourself all up in a dither over just the thought of it. I mean.... That's crystal clear from reading you above. Your hate of and prejudice against MS is quite evident.

SinfulSailor said:

But it is clear that whatever I said left one helluva bad taste in your mouth and inspired you to hate my opinion and rant against my opinion and get yourself all up in a dither over just the thought of it. I mean.... That's crystal clear from reading you above. Your hate of and prejudice against my opinion is quite evident.

Click to expand...

Fixed that for ya.

Well, inasmuch as I could.

KoPilot said:

Fixed that for ya.

Well, inasmuch as I could.

Click to expand...

You gave it a good shot. LOL!

Stella_Omega said:

You gave it a good shot. LOL!

Click to expand...

I do try

SinfulSailor said:

Virtually everything is subject to explanation and qualification.

Click to expand...

Yes, this was my whole point.
And since there is no lingo universally accepted by everone or even a majority of people into some aspect of BDSM, you are going to have to use a lot of words to communicate outside of your relationship, lokal munch etc.
It also takes an open mind
That is what I think should be in the info folder for newbies. We are obviously going to disagree.

As with the worth-laden words I mentioned before, I can't tell if you intended the spelling tip to be sarcastic or perhaps patronizing so I'm going to take it at face value and say thank you. I know I probably should use spell check but it annoys me no end, so I don't.

I assure you I did not intend to be either sarcastic or patronizing.

You are quite welcome.

SinfulSailor said:

I don't know what you did that you called MS - whether it was or wasn't. But it is clear that whatever you did left one helluva bad taste in your mouth and inspired you to hate MS and rant against MS and get yourself all up in a dither over just the thought of it. I mean.... That's crystal clear from reading you above. Your hate of and prejudice against MS is quite evident.

Click to expand...

I don't need you to validate or punch my card. I've been doing this nigh on 17 years and I've done things that send many people screaming into the night.

I owned them in our terminology, I had complete fiat and complete veto power, it was awesome, they are great people, I don't think that consensus and mutuality are the only way to do things.

What I *do* hate is the incredible arrogance with which people around me conducted themselves whenever they looked outward and saw people doing it differently. And that this problem exists in one of the spaces I've moved within but not others. Women don't do this when we're in the driver's seat of the relationships in the group. And Queer people don't do this. At least the ones I've been around don't.

The entire taxonomy exists in GLBT leather, and for some reason the worry about whether your labels are wielded with laser like precision seems to be missing.

It's understood that some relationships are heavy and some are less heavy in the dynamic, and you don't go touching a dude's collar any more than you go grabbing his sack but there's not really this sneering sense that less heavy dynamic = less intimate relationship or "safer" activity. And I don't really care what your personal "intent" may have been because your words intimate that like crazy.

My words simply intimate that your eagerness to be sure that Dominance and Submission are labeled with utter clarity serves one purpose and it's to marginalize the "barbarians."

I've never seen it serve any other purposes. If you know what you're doing and you know what they're willing to do for you, why is language patrol so important when you meet fresh meat, if not to control people.

Life is like a run. Here's your run book and some rubbers, don't kill yourself. What are you into?

Life is not like a hotel event where you need 18 workshop hours to know who you are just to tie your lover up with a bandanna. That's crazy town, in retrospect.

Netzach:

Sometimes it's ok for you to have your view and for me to have mine. Some things are a matter of opinion or personal preference. ...shrug... So go your own way. I assure you I will not bother you. But you have not shown me that same courtesy. (See below.)

Other things are not a matter of opinion or personal preference. Some things are verifiable by evidence and/or by logic. In those areas, opinion and preference only rule when a bully forces their opinions to carry more weight than fact and reason. And it is clear to me that bullying is exactly what you are attempting.

Netzach said:

your eagerness to be sure that Dominance and Submission are labeled with utter clarity serves one purpose and it's to marginalize the "barbarians."

Click to expand...

Of course, that is bullshit. It is more of your bullying tactics. Anyone can read through this thread and see that it is you, not I, who has been disparaging to other people's dynamics. You continue your disparagement in your last message:

Netzach said:

What I *do* hate is the incredible arrogance with which people around me conducted themselves whenever they looked outward and saw people doing it differently. And that this problem exists in one of the spaces I've moved within but not others. Women don't do this when we're in the driver's seat of the relationships in the group. And Queer people don't do this. At least the ones I've been around don't.

....

My words simply intimate that your eagerness to be sure that Dominance and Submission are labeled with utter clarity serves one purpose and it's to marginalize the "barbarians."

I've never seen it serve any other purposes.

Click to expand...

All you've done in this thread is attack me and male dominant, heterosexual MS relationships.

Netzach said:

Women don't do this when we're in the driver's seat of the relationships in the group. And Queer people don't do this.

Click to expand...

Netzach said:

M/s strikes me as the hierarchy of method acting among all of life's poor players

Click to expand...

You think you are omnipotent and qualified to pass judgment on other people's relationships - all without any inkling of citation to back it up:

Netzach said:

Your "reality dynamic" is still a dynamic and not a reality

Click to expand...

You spout your prejudices and venomous opinions like they are gospel. But I do not see you come forth with citations or facts. You conjure out of the thin air of your own prejudices.

You can't find anything I've said that you can show evidence to disprove so....

Netzach said:

I don't really care what your personal "intent" may have been because your words intimate that like crazy.

Click to expand...

You feel free to make up whatever you want and attribute it to me.

You've done that through this whole thread. Is this the third or fourth time I have quoted you and corrected you about misquoting me? You are ranting, insensible, illogical and you never let the facts or the truth get in the way of a good opportunity to disparage and belittle male dominant, heterosexual relationships - and apparently you see that personified in me and it sends you into a paroxysm of hate which you glory in targeting at me and putting on public display.

Here's a clue: You only show your own prejudices and hate.

SinfulSailor said:

the facts or the truth

Click to expand...

Wait, kink is quantifiable? Since when? The hell kind of citations can she even give you? This isn't rocket science, it's illogical psychodrama, childhood hopes and fears. All you fucking have is anecdote. Where's your citations to back up anything that you've said? Because clearly nothing you say can be trusted until you've sourced it from a journal of psychology.

SinfulSailor said:

disparage and belittle male dominant, heterosexual relationships

Click to expand...

You guys have it so tough out there in the big bad world, I know. Here's a cup of warm milk.

KoPilot said:

Wait, kink is quantifiable? Since when? The hell kind of citations can she even give you?

Click to expand...

A quotation of what I actually write is a citation. Netzach making up things and attributing those things to me is a falsehood. I have corrected her several times in this short thread for misquoting me.

I have referred to the dictionary. That is an unbiased citation. It is what it is. It does not serve any person's preferences or prejudices. That carries far more weight in any unbiased thinker's mind than either of our (or your) personal opinions.

Those are two examples from this discussion. There are many ways to cite fact when we talk about kink.

KoPilot said:

This isn't rocket science, it's illogical psychodrama, childhood hopes and fears.

Click to expand...

No. That would be a matter of personal practice. If you practice kink that way, you are welcome to do so. But all of us do not practice kink that way.

Some of us practice our kink through logical, rational, relationship dynamics that last us through our entire lives. You apparently want to experience kink in a staged way that imitates reality. That is what "psychodrama" is. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychodrama

And here:

http://www.psychodrama.org.uk/what_is_psychodrama.php

(Those are called "citations".)

Those among us who want to get at the truth and fact of a thing use citations. We use them, not only to discuss things with other people - we also use them when we study internally and form our own opinions and positions which we may then discuss with other people.

Notice:

I did not impose on you my opinion of what a psychodrama is. I showed to you (via a "citation"). I "cited" the accepted definition of what a psychodrama is, based on unbiased, qualified teachings of other people.

That is how and why we use "citations".

A short definition of psychodrama can be found here (OED):

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/psychodrama

Which teaches us, in part:

"A form of psychotherapy in which patients act out events from their past."

xxxxxxxx

You may practice your kink by "acting out events". Fine.

Others of us may experience our kink by creating experiences. Just as we do with all the other things that make up our individual selves.

I don't "act out" my work.
I don't "act out" my parenting.
And so on.

I experience these things. I *do* these things. In my life, these things are not a "drama". In my life, these things are real. These things *are* my life.

Some people play at their work, and some people fuck around and play at parenting. ...shrug... That is their choice in their lives. I do not play at my work, I work at my work. I do not play at my parenting, I give it full, serious attention every moment I am awake in some part of my mind and emotions.

Similarly, I do not "play" at my kinks. My kinks are very important to me. I live them. I experience them. They are a fundamental part of me. They are inseparable from who I am, what I do, how I feel, the decisions I make and the way I conduct my affairs in my life.

...shrug... You are free to conduct your affairs and live your life and practice your kinks differently from the way I do.

So, no:

KoPilot said:

This isn't rocket science, it's illogical psychodrama, childhood hopes and fears. All you fucking have is anecdote.

Click to expand...

For you, kink may be psychodrama. In your life, all you may care about is anecdote. But you are absolutely wrong to jump to the conclusion that everyone else experiences their kink the same way you apparently do.

KoPilot said:

All you fucking have is anecdote.

Click to expand...

No.

KoPilot said:

Where's your citations to back up anything that you've said?

Click to expand...

See above.

KoPilot said:

Here's a cup of warm milk.

Click to expand...

Looks like you'll need that for yourself.

To help you calm down a little.

Think a little.

I wasn't even aware Sheldon Cooper was into bdsm until this insane rant started both Netzach and IrisAlthea have always demonstrated empathy and tolerance of the views of others and I really cannot see were they are doing any different here. SinfulSailor on the other hand has laid into people over grammar and spelling like the worst kind of English teacher and has even belittled the way others play as not being real enough. Its all a game ffs unless your kidnapping, raping and possible murdering the people and speaking as a sub I get this warm fuzzy feeling when I'm alive at the end of the session. But if that's what your in to please feel free to post to the fbi or local law enforcement they would like a chat.

Words have emotional meaning depending on the individual and the way they have been used towards them, that's why we have conversions so we can learn what someone means.

This thread was set up by an uncertain sub trying to gain some support and understanding but the whole thread has been hijacked for how words should be used and an I'm right fuck everyone else and everyone who doesn't agree is bullying me. How far back in the closet has the OP been driven by this behaviour do you think?

Sorry would go with chocolate cake and hot sweet tea but got my own reasons to feel like running back to the closet and don't feel very polite right now.

SinfulSailor said:

A quotation of what I actually write is a citation. Netzach making up things and attributing those things to me is a falsehood. I have corrected her several times in this short thread for misquoting me.

I have referred to the dictionary. That is an unbiased citation. It is what it is. It does not serve any person's preferences or prejudices. That carries far more weight in any unbiased thinker's mind than either of our (or your) personal opinions.

Those are two examples from this discussion. There are many ways to cite fact when we talk about kink.





No. That would be a matter of personal practice. If you practice kink that way, you are welcome to do so. But all of us do not practice kink that way.

Some of us practice our kink through logical, rational, relationship dynamics that last us through our entire lives. You apparently want to experience kink in a staged way that imitates reality. That is what "psychodrama" is. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychodrama

And here:

http://www.psychodrama.org.uk/what_is_psychodrama.php

(Those are called "citations".)

Those among us who want to get at the truth and fact of a thing use citations. We use them, not only to discuss things with other people - we also use them when we study internally and form our own opinions and positions which we may then discuss with other people.

Notice:

I did not impose on you my opinion of what a psychodrama is. I showed to you (via a "citation"). I "cited" the accepted definition of what a psychodrama is, based on unbiased, qualified teachings of other people.

That is how and why we use "citations".

A short definition of psychodrama can be found here (OED):

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/psychodrama

Which teaches us, in part:

"A form of psychotherapy in which patients act out events from their past."

xxxxxxxx

You may practice your kink by "acting out events". Fine.

Others of us may experience our kink by creating experiences. Just as we do with all the other things that make up our individual selves.

I don't "act out" my work.
I don't "act out" my parenting.
And so on.

I experience these things. I *do* these things. In my life, these things are not a "drama". In my life, these things are real. These things *are* my life.

Some people play at their work, and some people fuck around and play at parenting. ...shrug... That is their choice in their lives. I do not play at my work, I work at my work. I do not play at my parenting, I give it full, serious attention every moment I am awake in some part of my mind and emotions.

Similarly, I do not "play" at my kinks. My kinks are very important to me. I live them. I experience them. They are a fundamental part of me. They are inseparable from who I am, what I do, how I feel, the decisions I make and the way I conduct my affairs in my life.

...shrug... You are free to conduct your affairs and live your life and practice your kinks differently from the way I do.

So, no:



For you, kink may be psychodrama. In your life, all you may care about is anecdote. But you are absolutely wrong to jump to the conclusion that everyone else experiences their kink the same way you apparently do.






No.





See above.




Looks like you'll need that for yourself.

To help you calm down a little.

Think a little.

Click to expand...

That thing I "unjustly" accused you of doing?

You're totally doing it.

But keep going, really.

All I've got are observations, it's true. But unlike those hets I'm always "hating on" (funny how much time I've spent around them) nobody who bristles at the lightest sense of critique has ever spent any time on anyone else's home turf or in a place where they're not the majority.

I've moved frequently and deeply within many different segments of the bee dee ess em scene/ world/ what have. I'm lucky in that I have been able to approach these things broadly. I get to have those observations, and I'm the first to say, these are merely the ones I've had. Who knows, I'm sure there are some GLBT clubs being torn apart somewhere by the "more real than you" argument, I just never found them.

Those who have actually done coalition to the point where they can handle not being the only narrative in the room don't freak out the minute they're called on to look at their own relationship style as something other than the only one. Anything that says "you know maybe you don't belong at the very tip top of the pyramid and maybe the people playing cops and robbers once a month actually DO" should not be threatening to anyone who gives a shit about safety and safe entry points into the scene.

bdsmshade said:

Its all a game ffs unless your kidnapping, raping and possible murdering the people and speaking as a sub I get this warm fuzzy feeling when I'm alive at the end of the session. But if that's what your in to please feel free to post to the fbi or local law enforcement they would like a chat.

Click to expand...

Why are some people so incredibly threatened by this idea? Why does everything have to be stroked with "naturalism" and "realness" and "I'm not merely PLAYING, I am LIVING IT!" and then if someone else doesn't tonguebathe your worldview in PROPER TERMINOLOGY you must correct the imprecise use of language? Can someone give me a reason that does not involve denigrating everyone else as merely play-acting at things?

Netzach said:

Why are some people so incredibly threatened by this idea? Why does everything have to be stroked with "naturalism" and "realness" and "I'm not merely PLAYING, I am LIVING IT!" and then if someone else doesn't tonguebathe your worldview in PROPER TERMINOLOGY you must correct the imprecise use of language? Can someone give me a reason that does not involve denigrating everyone else as merely play-acting at things?

Click to expand...

Some people struggle with finding an excuse to feel morally superior to others. They discover it in some of the oddest ways.

The dictionary/proper term arguments are always null in this community anyhow. Why?

Most paraphilias have been defined by the *inability* to become aroused unless the item or act is present, and by that definition, almost none of us "fetishists" or "sadists" or "masos" are actually that. Almost every single person in the community fails that test, and the ones that don't are usually pushed onto the margins as "weird."

Ok, so the clinical re-vamp still defines these things as "to the point of significant social impairment" - something almost all of us would deny in our rush to be healthy and normal.

So we've already re-defined the most basic dictionary/medical terms to suit us.

I just can't get over the fact tht he used wikipedia as a citation. That'd earn you an automatic failing grade where I come from.

The attempt to quantify and find logic in something like bdsm (which is a highly emotion based activity) without any use of psychology or anthropology has to really hurt and maybe after a while it just breaks something inside your head. It's just such a totally illogical activity from most view points it makes no sense at all. We all have to find a way to make it work.

Personally I think empathy is a better way to find understanding both of ourselves and others.

bdsmshade said:

The attempt to quantify and find logic in something like bdsm (which is a highly emotion based activity) without any use of psychology or anthropology has to really hurt and maybe after a while it just breaks something inside your head. It's just such a totally illogical activity from most view points it makes no sense at all. We all have to find a way to make it work.

Personally I think empathy is a better way to find understanding both of ourselves and others.

Click to expand...

Logic doesn't belong everywhere, and the people who go so far out of their way to fit it into places where it's not really necessary are just looking to police the shit out of people and push them out of their ""community"".

It's one thing for "my way" to be "have empathy, dismantle oppression, embrace multiplicity", and it's another thing for "my way" to be "[obnoxious nerd voice] submission is X, Y, and Z, and dominance is A, B, and C, and if you dispute these absolute truths that I just made up and justify exactly my way of doing things then I'm gonna ask to see some identification".

Of course, yannow, the latter doesn't even need be so blatant. Which is mostly why we get into these goddamn fights on here so often.

KoPilot said:

Logic doesn't belong everywhere, and the people who go so far out of their way to fit it into places where it's not really necessary are just looking to police the shit out of people and push them out of their ""community"".

It's one thing for "my way" to be "have empathy, dismantle oppression, embrace multiplicity", and it's another thing for "my way" to be "[obnoxious nerd voice] submission is X, Y, and Z, and dominance is A, B, and C, and if you dispute these absolute truths that I just made up and justify exactly my way of doing things then I'm gonna ask to see some identification".

Of course, yannow, the latter doesn't even need be so blatant. Which is mostly why we get into these goddamn fights on here so often.

Click to expand...

One of the things that you have to love about the real world is that people have to try and be polite.
How I would hate to live in a world where there is only one way to do things, even if it was my way it would be so bloody
boring. How could anyone want that?

Do sometimes enjoy your troll hunting style though.

bdsmshade said:

Do sometimes enjoy your troll hunting style though.

Click to expand...

Getting "worked up" over nothing on the internet since 2001.

LegsOpenedWide said:

................

Click to expand...

BDSM is where all the kinks take on super powers. It’s where sexuality can be expanded beyond your wildest dreams. It’s where you discover how to fully utilize the greatest sexual part of you. Your mind