the marks of a slave

Homburg said:

JM, I didn't say it was hard to believe such people existed. I just doubt that it is some vast silent majority. While I can accept that your life has shown you many of these sorts of people, I can honestly say that mine has not. I'm not jumping around telling everyone I know that I'm kinky, but my good friends know. Of those, one has a long-standing interest, and just has had no luck in finding someone that will help him express it. So he found a basically vanilla girl that is happy to boss him around and he takes what little kink he can get. While she wears the pants in the family on most issues, they have no formal power exchange, or any of the trappings. Is this the sort of thing you're talking about?

ETA: This may be more of a generational difference. Your involvement preceded the internet, and the commonality of het clubs, right? At which point, the only interaction you were statistically likely to have was of the sort you describe. In my case, the landscape is different.

Click to expand...

If you're not talking about kink with people, then of course you have no way of knowing whether they're interested in cultural or non-stylized kink.

I'm not referring to the unsuccessful or unsatisfied (though they are surely out there). I'm talking about people who have a clear and explicitly stated understanding of who's in charge in which aspects of their relationships, and who actively embrace power & pain in their sexuality - without incorporating the language and cultural symbols of stylized BDSM.

I do think the difference in our perspectives is, in part, generational. Without a pre-set model in front of us, my buddies and I made everything up as we went along.

But I have also met a lot of people who came of age in the Internet generation and have been exposed to cultural BDSM but rejected the cultural part - while still embracing the concept of control and practice of kink. There's a lot about the culture itself that turns people off, for multiple reasons.

eastern sun said:

I've often wondered if some of the arguments that arise don't originate from a need to keep the BDSM subculture intact. With the rise of the internet, a lot of people are starting to talk about dominance and submission, in the same kinds of terms as heterosexuality and homosexuality. The BDSM subculture has existed for a long, long, long time though. Most cultures resist assimilation for good reasons.

Click to expand...

It is my observation that it is not the subculture of kink which has kept itself segregated from mainstream sexuality, rather it is mainstream sexuality that has moved to segregate and eradicate kinky sex. And by those efforts, dictated that the kinky subculture exist in the shadows. (If it is to exist at all.) There are many times/ages in history when kink was the norm. Sex slaves, bondage, flagellation, group sex, animal sex, homosexual sex, body modification, plural marriages.... you name it.

In any culture in which these practices were acceptable, they were quashed and forced underground or out of existence by the advent of Christian values brought by the explorers, missionaries and colonists of western civilization.

Kink, whatever the kink, is quite natural. Our species is by nature sexually exploratory and diverse. It is the stifling of these natural impulses that is unnatural. It seems clear to me.

To the extent the internet, or any other thing, aids in a reversal of society's inhibiting of our natural sexuality... I think it's great and healthy.

eastern sun said:

I've often wondered if some of the arguments that arise don't originate from a need to keep the BDSM subculture intact. With the rise of the internet, a lot of people are starting to talk about dominance and submission, in the same kinds of terms as heterosexuality and homosexuality. The BDSM subculture has existed for a long, long, long time though. Most cultures resist assimilation for good reasons.

Click to expand...

I've popped into hundreds of BDSM clubs, groups, and kink-based organizations over the years, and never once tried to alter their rules, criticized their customs, or argued for greater inclusion. In the context of an organized setting, I believe that people have a right to preserve and protect their own culture.

I have a lot less sympathy (actually, none) for people who step out into the world at large and assert that their mode of practicing BDSM is the One True Way. There is no such thing as a uniform, global BDSM culture. No common dictionary, standards, or list of protocols. Instead, there are pockets of stylized groups (with differing customs) all over the place, individual interpretations of cultural language and symbols that often seem as numerous as the individuals themselves, and, of course, people who practice sadomasochism without any cultural framework at all.

Homburg said:

ETA: This may be more of a generational difference. Your involvement preceded the internet, and the commonality of het clubs, right? At which point, the only interaction you were statistically likely to have was of the sort you describe. In my case, the landscape is different.

Click to expand...

I think that's a very good point. I'm 29 and started high school with a few BBC computers (not networked and utterly basic) so even in my development from teen to adult, the advancements in technology and the internet have been phenomenal. I used to buy more books but these days, if I'm interested in something, I reach for google. I like the way you can read on a subject from so many perspectives, just by clicking down a list of search results. I can be more discerning and critical, reject certain information in favour of other information in a way that I could not do if I bought a book and read that one perspective from cover to cover.

Similarly, there are changes in the way we interact that would make my grandmother weep. When I was 13 a family came over from Chile and lived at the end of my street. Their son and 2 daughters went to local schools for a year and I became good friends with their daughter, B, who was the same age as me. I wrote for a while after she went back but lapsed as kids do. I had no contact with her since age 15. A few months ago, I sign up to facebook to keep in touch with friends from uni etc and type her name into the search box out of pure nostalgia. We're now chatting from opposite sides of the planet every week or so and I consider that to be nothing short of amazing.

People approach social networking and relationships in an entirely different way these days and rightly or wrongly, it's effective enough for us to be happy with a lot of online communication.

Like Homburg, Master and I have told almost nobody about our kinks. It's not something we discuss. I wouldn't even know how to go about that without halving our circle of friends. I have no interest in what happens sexually in their home so why should they be interested in our deviant lifestyle? For us, it's simply too close and we consider our friends too valuable to risk alienating them by telling them things about our life together that they don't want to know. Places like Lit, at least I know that most people can relate to what I'm talking about and few will judge me. I have also met face to face some amazing people through Lit who I would never otherwise have known. Places (or server spaces) like this, you get out what you put in and by making the effort to get to know people on a personal level and meet up with them when possible, I have enriched my life in a way I never would have done had I just embarrassed my more conservative existing friends.

eastern sun said:

I've often wondered if some of the arguments that arise don't originate from a need to keep the BDSM subculture intact. With the rise of the internet, a lot of people are starting to talk about dominance and submission, in the same kinds of terms as heterosexuality and homosexuality. The BDSM subculture has existed for a long, long, long time though. Most cultures resist assimilation for good reasons.

Click to expand...

Very true.

Also, I have always thought that one of the reasons BDSM remains a subculture is for the protection of the majority of people with no interest in it. If western society embraced BDSM as a sexual lifestyle in the same way that homosexuality has been recognised over the past few decades, there would be huge implications. If people can suddenly go about their designated lives as pyls without censure, it would create a legitimate disguise for domestic abusers. I really think it would be difficult to make any kind of legal distinction that allowed consensual BDSM relationships to be separated from abusive ones effectively. People may huff on the forums if a bystander witnesses something they perceive as abusive and tries to intervene but I would not want to live in a society where something like that could happen without anybody expressing concern. As a slave, I am prepared to remain in my niche within a niche because I don't consider the suffering of abused spouses to be worth my right to proclaim my sexual preferences from the rooftops. My sexuality and my consensual relationship is my own business. Domestic violence should be everyone else's.

JMohegan said:

There is no such thing as a uniform, global BDSM culture. No common dictionary, standards, or list of protocols. Instead, there are pockets of stylized groups (with differing customs) all over the place, individual interpretations of cultural language and symbols that often seem as numerous as the individuals themselves, and, of course, people who practice sadomasochism without any cultural framework at all.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to take issue with the proposition that there is no uniform, global BDSM culture. I will, however, take issue with the extent to which your assertions embrace the concept.

There is a common dictionary. It is called the dictionary. Whether compiled and published in the name of Webster, Oxford, Cambridge, "free online" or whatever, the differences are small enough to call them all "the dictionary". In the dictionary, you will find virtually all the terminology we employ in our bdsm subculture. Whip, flog, clamp, torture, slave, master, mistress, anal, dildo, power, submit, dominate, own.... and so on.

Where I *do* agree with you wholeheartedly is in deploring the on-a-mission-from-god efforts by some (many?) to take unbelievably broad liberties with the dictionary. For example, it is exceedingly common to hear or read a person saying "I can define submission any way I want." No. Submission is what submission is. Anyone can decide the ways and lengths to which they submit and define that as the way they submit. Fine. But if we want to be understood when we communicate with each other, then submission is what it is.

I also have observed, like you, self-defined, self-important individuals and "stylized groups". Like you seem to do, I deplore these individuals and groups.

So to that extent, we are in complete agreement and what you write, the conclusions you have reached, are dead-on, IMO.

Unlike you, however, I note that there *is* a natural "cultural framework" regarding sadomasochism and also regarding dominance and submission. A review of early Chinese, Indian, Japanese, European, Greek/Roman, or most any culture you like to explore will uncover amazingly similar practices in s/m and d/s. It seems clear to me that these similarities are too many, too consistent and too widespread to be ignored.

So, if someone talks about kinky practices, theories and activities that are recurring throughout history and span cultural divides, then that is a meaningful discussion to me. There is nothing presumptuous or "stylized" about it. (By the very definitions of the words.)

Also, if someone (or some group) follows those time-tested and cross-culturally accepted and adopted practices - while I (like you) would consider it a stretch to call these things "the one true way", at the same time I do recognize the relevance of the test of time and culture. It seems both reasonable and wise to me to recognize that relevance.

To throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, by broadly dismissing any and all broadly accepted/practiced s/m or d/s practices as "stylized" is, in my view, staying on the pendulum a little too long and getting a bit too far out there. I think we can correct the self-important, stylized people and groups without going quite so far in the other/opposite direction.

JMohegan said:

If you're not talking about kink with people, then of course you have no way of knowing whether they're interested in cultural or non-stylized kink.

Click to expand...

You've said before that you are a private person. Are you talking kink with that many people openly?

Again, not trying to grill you. Trying to learn. I know which ones of my friends that I feel like I can talk to about this. Just trying to figure out where you are coming from, as previous posts have made it sound like you have kink-friendly cookouts each month or something.

I'm not referring to the unsuccessful or unsatisfied (though they are surely out there). I'm talking about people who have a clear and explicitly stated understanding of who's in charge in which aspects of their relationships, and who actively embrace power & pain in their sexuality - without incorporating the language and cultural symbols of stylized BDSM.

I do think the difference in our perspectives is, in part, generational. Without a pre-set model in front of us, my buddies and I made everything up as we went along.

Click to expand...

It certainly makes sense to me.

But I have also met a lot of people who came of age in the Internet generation and have been exposed to cultural BDSM but rejected the cultural part - while still embracing the concept of control and practice of kink. There's a lot about the culture itself that turns people off, for multiple reasons.

Click to expand...

Eh, the only reason I get along with the group that I'm casually involved with is their laid-back attitude. There are a number of other groups around here that I would not associate with, for the sort of reason you're referencing. Hell, there's one that talked about using different coloured name tags to indicate whether you're a dominant, submissive, master, slave, etc. No thanks, not my thing.

JMohegan said:

If you're not talking about kink with people, then of course you have no way of knowing whether they're interested in cultural or non-stylized kink.

I'm not referring to the unsuccessful or unsatisfied (though they are surely out there). I'm talking about people who have a clear and explicitly stated understanding of who's in charge in which aspects of their relationships, and who actively embrace power & pain in their sexuality - without incorporating the language and cultural symbols of stylized BDSM.

I do think the difference in our perspectives is, in part, generational. Without a pre-set model in front of us, my buddies and I made everything up as we went along.

But I have also met a lot of people who came of age in the Internet generation and have been exposed to cultural BDSM but rejected the cultural part - while still embracing the concept of control and practice of kink. There's a lot about the culture itself that turns people off, for multiple reasons.

Click to expand...

Sometimes the icksome and gross aspects of their cultural turf are too onerous to even blog about, and so specific only you really care.

JMohegan said:

If you're not talking about kink with people, then of course you have no way of knowing whether they're interested in cultural or non-stylized kink.

I'm not referring to the unsuccessful or unsatisfied (though they are surely out there). I'm talking about people who have a clear and explicitly stated understanding of who's in charge in which aspects of their relationships, and who actively embrace power & pain in their sexuality - without incorporating the language and cultural symbols of stylized BDSM.

I do think the difference in our perspectives is, in part, generational. Without a pre-set model in front of us, my buddies and I made everything up as we went along.

But I have also met a lot of people who came of age in the Internet generation and have been exposed to cultural BDSM but rejected the cultural part - while still embracing the concept of control and practice of kink. There's a lot about the culture itself that turns people off, for multiple reasons.

Click to expand...

I also am friends with kinky people who aren't into "the scene," in any way, shape or form. And many more of my friends are sex-positive and dabble in s&m, but have zero interest in D/s or meeting people who have a particular sexual kink or interest other than, yes please.

SinfulSailor said:

I'm not going to take issue with the proposition that there is no uniform, global BDSM culture. I will, however, take issue with the extent to which your assertions embrace the concept.

There is a common dictionary. It is called the dictionary. Whether compiled and published in the name of Webster, Oxford, Cambridge, "free online" or whatever, the differences are small enough to call them all "the dictionary". In the dictionary, you will find virtually all the terminology we employ in our bdsm subculture. Whip, flog, clamp, torture, slave, master, mistress, anal, dildo, power, submit, dominate, own.... and so on.

Where I *do* agree with you wholeheartedly is in deploring the on-a-mission-from-god efforts by some (many?) to take unbelievably broad liberties with the dictionary. For example, it is exceedingly common to hear or read a person saying "I can define submission any way I want." No. Submission is what submission is. Anyone can decide the ways and lengths to which they submit and define that as the way they submit. Fine. But if we want to be understood when we communicate with each other, then submission is what it is.

I also have observed, like you, self-defined, self-important individuals and "stylized groups". Like you seem to do, I deplore these individuals and groups.

So to that extent, we are in complete agreement and what you write, the conclusions you have reached, are dead-on, IMO.

Unlike you, however, I note that there *is* a natural "cultural framework" regarding sadomasochism and also regarding dominance and submission. A review of early Chinese, Indian, Japanese, European, Greek/Roman, or most any culture you like to explore will uncover amazingly similar practices in s/m and d/s. It seems clear to me that these similarities are too many, too consistent and too widespread to be ignored.

So, if someone talks about kinky practices, theories and activities that are recurring throughout history and span cultural divides, then that is a meaningful discussion to me. There is nothing presumptuous or "stylized" about it. (By the very definitions of the words.)

Also, if someone (or some group) follows those time-tested and cross-culturally accepted and adopted practices - while I (like you) would consider it a stretch to call these things "the one true way", at the same time I do recognize the relevance of the test of time and culture. It seems both reasonable and wise to me to recognize that relevance.

To throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, by broadly dismissing any and all broadly accepted/practiced s/m or d/s practices as "stylized" is, in my view, staying on the pendulum a little too long and getting a bit too far out there. I think we can correct the self-important, stylized people and groups without going quite so far in the other/opposite direction.

Click to expand...

I'd say you're overreaching in saying there's a natural cultural framework for d/s in almost all cultures. What there is more commonly is the use of D/s vocabulary to describe love, sex and passion. In many cases, whips and chains and power and all that stuff are used not literally, but as metaphors for passion.

As you mentioned, words that have a meaning in the scene are found in any dictionary, but a non-kinky person using the term submissive or dominant to describe someone is not stamping a label on someone for social identification purposes.

VelvetDarkness said:

Very true.

Also, I have always thought that one of the reasons BDSM remains a subculture is for the protection of the majority of people with no interest in it. If western society embraced BDSM as a sexual lifestyle in the same way that homosexuality has been recognised over the past few decades, there would be huge implications. If people can suddenly go about their designated lives as pyls without censure, it would create a legitimate disguise for domestic abusers. I really think it would be difficult to make any kind of legal distinction that allowed consensual BDSM relationships to be separated from abusive ones effectively. People may huff on the forums if a bystander witnesses something they perceive as abusive and tries to intervene but I would not want to live in a society where something like that could happen without anybody expressing concern. As a slave, I am prepared to remain in my niche within a niche because I don't consider the suffering of abused spouses to be worth my right to proclaim my sexual preferences from the rooftops. My sexuality and my consensual relationship is my own business. Domestic violence should be everyone else's.

Click to expand...

I'm kind of two minds about this. I think it would be great if we as a society could talk about sex a little more honestly. Then again, maybe not. I mean, in a lot of ways, we have lost the ability to be private, to self-edit. Everything is over-shared. On the other hand, it would be great if people had less shame about their own sexuality.

SinfulSailor said:

Unlike you, however, I note that there *is* a natural "cultural framework" regarding sadomasochism and also regarding dominance and submission. A review of early Chinese, Indian, Japanese, European, Greek/Roman, or most any culture you like to explore will uncover amazingly similar practices in s/m and d/s. It seems clear to me that these similarities are too many, too consistent and too widespread to be ignored.

So, if someone talks about kinky practices, theories and activities that are recurring throughout history and span cultural divides, then that is a meaningful discussion to me. There is nothing presumptuous or "stylized" about it. (By the very definitions of the words.)

Click to expand...

I don't think I can look at the pompeiian temple of mysteries, see female flagellants and say to myself "wow, I'm so validated! They're just like me!"

When you cross cultures, there's so much static of difference that I'd say most times Westerners have no idea what they're actually looking at but feel free to make up meaning and impose it on people. The stuff you see may be familiar, but rarely do the motives cross over.

I personally find the idea of "natural" D/s in a culture like - Japan for example, problematic. Anyone who sees Japanese women as submissive hasn't watched any film out of Japan, talked to anyone with a Japanese mom, and furthermore forgets that *men* in Japanese culture could be said to be submissive in the same tangle of etiquitte and how you are meant to act and expectations. Not exactly a pat on the back for maverickness. But also, what feels and looks like submission to a Westerner, like me, is simply a framework you exist in and around, and a culture you navigate, and a place anyone *can* exercise power if they figure out how. I'm not a pure expression of American mainstream - you are dealt cards at birth in your culture - how you *play* your hand is your fingerprint.

Culture *by defnition* is a synthetic set of rules and expectation which helps people deal with their immediate realities. As the realities change, so the culture is challenged and changes, breaks, or modifies, or resists the outside force successfully. Or other. But there's nothing "natural" about the rules or behaviors. Or "un-natural" either, it's natural for us to invent systems. This much I'm sure - our brains are hard wired for narrative.

The existence of modern SM, and via DeSade, I think, is a reaction against cultural norms in the West. In the earlier manifestation, DeSade, I liken it to Dada and Surrealism - a violent synthesis of extremes in a hard-to-shock world of uninmagined violence and topsy-turvy. The only sanity is madness in the Reign of Terror or WWI.

In the case of the seventies-now we're living a postindustrial life out of touch with our bodies like never before. You had opening dialogue on sexuality, via Kinsey and via feminists, and later via gay rights. Things went onto the table in a way they never had before. You're OK, I'm OK. The stuff that people were shocking the world with in the Story of the Eye is absorbed now, Freud is kitchen table stuff.

The guy in Bali with a skewer through his cheeks is having a different experience than the guy in Northern California accessing his spiritual whatever the same way.

eastern sun said:

I agree with you, itw. And want to add . . .

I have a long history of using stories from my life to illustrate and explore more general trends in human behavior. I find stories of real events highly entertaining and very informative, mostly because they point out the inconsistencies in our behavior, the ways we delude ourselves, the shape these theoretical arguments actually take in the stuff of our lives. Like poetry, the minute details of an event can capture the emotional experience and hold it in glass for people to see.

Since these stories are all connected to my sexuality, it can feel exhibitionistic. But I don't have many opportunities to speak so freely about my experience, and find tremendous release in being able to do so.

Click to expand...

I can relate, but in a different way. The writing I've done has been almost entirely humorous. I'm a pleaser when I write too. I tell stories to relate to people, to entertain them and I think to be persuasive (see, this person is just like you). And to scrape away at my own bravado and hubris to get to my own honesty. I think that's a constant struggle for me - finding my voice.

I am very lucky to have close women friends (mothers, even) who are all kinky to some degree (and not in any sort of scene). We get together and can be ourselves and talk about our sex lives without holding back one iota. We're not all submissive, or all straight or all any one thing, but we all accept each other and it is really a pretty awesome thing to have in my life.

intothewoods said:

I'm kind of two minds about this. I think it would be great if we as a society could talk about sex a little more honestly. Then again, maybe not. I mean, in a lot of ways, we have lost the ability to be private, to self-edit. Everything is over-shared. On the other hand, it would be great if people had less shame about their own sexuality.

Click to expand...

Reliance on "open-ness" might be misguided, versus emphasis on *rights* and *privacy*
I can be proud and secure and happy in my sexuality without seeing it reflected back on TV in an ad, and if there's going to be a dialog on it, I'd prefer it be written by people who know ass from elbow. I agree with Velvet on this, I don't think there's much upside to context-less displays of my power dynamics in public, though I've been known to play around the parameter of "wth?" But I always did like those Fluxus performance art pieces, and it's more like that and for those reasons.

Now we have every sexuality under the sun being marketed back to us, but we're still trying to curtail people's rights to share property. Something went off course.

Netzach said:

Reliance on "open-ness" might be misguided, versus emphasis on *rights* and *privacy*
I can be proud and secure and happy in my sexuality without seeing it reflected back on TV in an ad, and if there's going to be a dialog on it, I'd prefer it be written by people who know ass from elbow. I agree with Velvet on this, I don't think there's much upside to context-less displays of my power dynamics in public, though I've been known to play around the parameter of "wth?" But I always did like those Fluxus performance art pieces, and it's more like that and for those reasons.

Now we have every sexuality under the sun being marketed back to us, but we're still trying to curtail people's rights to share property. Something went off course.

Click to expand...

It's pretty nutty, right?

I had a tough time figuring out that I might not want a perfectly equal romantic relationship, in the same way I want to be an equal in the workplace. We do tend to demonize the large and in charge partner, without considering that maybe it works for them. I wouldn't want that to become a justification for giant assholes though.

Netzach said:

Now we have every sexuality under the sun being marketed back to us, but we're still trying to curtail people's rights to share property. Something went off course.

Click to expand...

So I get into a discussion on gay marriage the other night. In the room is fairly liberal gay man with a strong victim mentality, a fairly hard-right guy with a military background, and a moderate naturalised American. Within hearing distance is a very opinionated hard-right social conservative.

Liberal gay man - Prop 8 will get passed, and they did it legally enough
Former sailor - That's insane, and I've written letters to the CA legislation to get that referendum smacked down. Gays should have the right to marry just like I do.
Moderate - Do away with all marriage for legal purposes, and civil unions too. Why should the govt recognise some social coupling and allow benefits to arise from it?
Social conservative - *shrugs and continues to play on the computer* He only spoke up when we got to talking about Mumbai.

The world has gone mad.

--

I am perfectly happy to discuss my sexuality with people that are open-minded enough to respect my choices. Not so easy to find those folks though.

Homburg said:

So I get into a discussion on gay marriage the other night. In the room is fairly liberal gay man with a strong victim mentality, a fairly hard-right guy with a military background, and a moderate naturalised American. Within hearing distance is a very opinionated hard-right social conservative.

Liberal gay man - Prop 8 will get passed, and they did it legally enough
Former sailor - That's insane, and I've written letters to the CA legislation to get that referendum smacked down. Gays should have the right to marry just like I do.
Moderate - Do away with all marriage for legal purposes, and civil unions too. Why should the govt recognise some social coupling and allow benefits to arise from it?
Social conservative - *shrugs and continues to play on the computer* He only spoke up when we got to talking about Mumbai.

The world has gone mad.

--

Click to expand...

(This is why I think repeal of DADT is more urgent than marriage equality, free your mind and your ass will follow usually is the rule, and large swaths of the military are already hoping for a repeal for practical reasons.)

intothewoods said:

It's pretty nutty, right?

I wouldn't want that to become a justification for giant assholes though.

Click to expand...

hahaha, totally. Sadly it already often is.

SinfulSailor said:

I'm not going to take issue with the proposition that there is no uniform, global BDSM culture. I will, however, take issue with the extent to which your assertions embrace the concept.

There is a common dictionary. It is called the dictionary. Whether compiled and published in the name of Webster, Oxford, Cambridge, "free online" or whatever, the differences are small enough to call them all "the dictionary". In the dictionary, you will find virtually all the terminology we employ in our bdsm subculture. Whip, flog, clamp, torture, slave, master, mistress, anal, dildo, power, submit, dominate, own.... and so on.

Where I *do* agree with you wholeheartedly is in deploring the on-a-mission-from-god efforts by some (many?) to take unbelievably broad liberties with the dictionary. For example, it is exceedingly common to hear or read a person saying "I can define submission any way I want." No. Submission is what submission is. Anyone can decide the ways and lengths to which they submit and define that as the way they submit. Fine. But if we want to be understood when we communicate with each other, then submission is what it is.

I also have observed, like you, self-defined, self-important individuals and "stylized groups". Like you seem to do, I deplore these individuals and groups.

So to that extent, we are in complete agreement and what you write, the conclusions you have reached, are dead-on, IMO.

Unlike you, however, I note that there *is* a natural "cultural framework" regarding sadomasochism and also regarding dominance and submission. A review of early Chinese, Indian, Japanese, European, Greek/Roman, or most any culture you like to explore will uncover amazingly similar practices in s/m and d/s. It seems clear to me that these similarities are too many, too consistent and too widespread to be ignored.

So, if someone talks about kinky practices, theories and activities that are recurring throughout history and span cultural divides, then that is a meaningful discussion to me. There is nothing presumptuous or "stylized" about it. (By the very definitions of the words.)

Also, if someone (or some group) follows those time-tested and cross-culturally accepted and adopted practices - while I (like you) would consider it a stretch to call these things "the one true way", at the same time I do recognize the relevance of the test of time and culture. It seems both reasonable and wise to me to recognize that relevance.

To throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, by broadly dismissing any and all broadly accepted/practiced s/m or d/s practices as "stylized" is, in my view, staying on the pendulum a little too long and getting a bit too far out there. I think we can correct the self-important, stylized people and groups without going quite so far in the other/opposite direction.

Click to expand...

I don't want to go round & round with you again, SS, but you have misunderstood my position so completely that I feel compelled to explain.

It isn't accurate to say I deplore stylized groups or their members. The culture simply does not appeal to me. "Stylized" is not a word that I am using in any sort of pejorative sense. I am merely trying to distinguish between those who embrace certain conventions, language and symbols, and those who do not. If you call yourself "Master" and put a collar on the one you say you "own", then you are part of stylized BDSM (per my use of the phrase on this thread).

As for the dictionary - you're right, we've got one, in the mainstream sense. But the applicability of Webster to kinky or power-based relationships is up for interpretation, at best.

I can look up the word "Master" and find: "one who owns a slave" among the various definitions of that word. I can then look up "own" and find: "to have or hold as property." I can look up "property" and find: "something to which a person or business has a legal title." Legal title? I think you know where I'm going with this.

I have visited clubs where "Master" was anybody who declared himself as such, and showed up with a woman on a leash, who kept her eyes downcast and only spoke when spoken to.

I have read websites, like Castlerealm, where the entire concept of BDSM reads like a Harlequin romance novel, and the "Master's" duties for coddling his "slave" almost make the dynamic appear to be flipped.

I have visited kinky groups where "Master" was a title of honor, bestowed upon a Dominant by vote of those who were already so titled, according to a set of standards (some concrete, some not).

I have spoken to a lot of people who started calling each other "Master" and "slave" because it turns both of them on and fits the way they perceive their own relationship.

I have spoken to a lot of people who define "Master" as a guy who owns a woman as property, but then go on to give descriptions of what it means to be "owned property" (in an M/s context) that range widely. You are new to the board and may therefore be unaware of this, but there are nearly as many descriptions of owned property as there are people here who ID as M/s.

Whatever your interpretation of "Master" is - I don't have a problem with. Nor do I have a problem with you studying other countries and eras, and basing your relationships off of your perception of whatever went on in those places & times. Your ideas as to what being a "Master" means in 2008 America are no less valid than anyone else's. But they are no *more* valid, either.

Homburg said:

You've said before that you are a private person. Are you talking kink with that many people openly?

Again, not trying to grill you. Trying to learn. I know which ones of my friends that I feel like I can talk to about this. Just trying to figure out where you are coming from, as previous posts have made it sound like you have kink-friendly cookouts each month or something.

Click to expand...

Intimacy, to me, is just that. Intimate. I am not a kiss-and-tell kind of a guy. Nor am I an exhibitionist, a fan of public play, or a guy who shares emotions with all & sundry. In this sense, I am an exceedingly private person. But I am also a very social guy. I enjoy being out & about, and have spent most of my life actively engaged with others.

It is possible to discuss the broader concepts of s/m without discussing the intimate details of one's own relationships. In my experience, the best conversations are one-on-one, with no audience, and with someone whom you know is not an uptight dick.

There are many reasons for having conversations about kink. Back in the day, I appreciated the exchange of ideas, and also the relief from guilt, that came from many of these connections - very similar to reasons why some might come to Lit today. As time went on, my motives shifted. I am not a hide-in-the-closet kind of a guy. Notwithstanding the very fine efforts of the NCSF, I don't see much hope for the future unless power & pain are accepted as natural, non-threatening aspects of human sexuality by a significant chunk of the population.

As for control issues outside the bedroom, keep in mind that I came of age in the 70's. It was a time of great social upheaval, in which even the simplest acts - opening a door, for example - were fodder for political debate. It was perfectly natural for me to discuss who's in charge, how do you know, is that fair, and so on. For me, debate over the power dynamic of relationships is part of an ongoing discussion that has just never stopped.

JMohegan said:

Intimacy, to me, is just that. Intimate. I am not a kiss-and-tell kind of a guy. Nor am I an exhibitionist, a fan of public play, or a guy who shares emotions with all & sundry. In this sense, I am an exceedingly private person. But I am also a very social guy. I enjoy being out & about, and have spent most of my life actively engaged with others.

It is possible to discuss the broader concepts of s/m without discussing the intimate details of one's own relationships. In my experience, the best conversations are one-on-one, with no audience, and with someone whom you know is not an uptight dick.

There are many reasons for having conversations about kink. Back in the day, I appreciated the exchange of ideas, and also the relief from guilt, that came from many of these connections - very similar to reasons why some might come to Lit today. As time went on, my motives shifted. I am not a hide-in-the-closet kind of a guy. Notwithstanding the very fine efforts of the NCSF, I don't see much hope for the future unless power & pain are accepted as natural, non-threatening aspects of human sexuality by a significant chunk of the population.

As for control issues outside the bedroom, keep in mind that I came of age in the 70's. It was a time of great social upheaval, in which even the simplest acts - opening a door, for example - were fodder for political debate. It was perfectly natural for me to discuss who's in charge, how do you know, is that fair, and so on. For me, debate over the power dynamic of relationships is part of an ongoing discussion that has just never stopped.

Click to expand...

As someone who is not a concrete thinker, it's difficult for me to have conversations about most relationship and personal topics without talking about my own relationships in personal detail. It's possible, but my natural tendency is to start telling personal stories. I'm not sure if Homburg is like me, but it can be difficult to imagine having conversations about pain and power with people in the abstract. Frankly, when the women I know get together, all we talk about is ourselves anyway. It's just not in my nature to place the boundaries there. One thing that is nice about Lit, I suppose, is that we do discuss things more in the abstract.

intothewoods said:

As someone who is not a concrete thinker, it's difficult for me to have conversations about most relationship and personal topics without talking about my own relationships in personal detail. It's possible, but my natural tendency is to start telling personal stories. I'm not sure if Homburg is like me, but it can be difficult to imagine having conversations about pain and power with people in the abstract. Frankly, when the women I know get together, all we talk about is ourselves anyway. It's just not in my nature to place the boundaries there. One thing that is nice about Lit, I suppose, is that we do discuss things more in the abstract.

Click to expand...

I often turn conversations around, focusing on the other guy, which helps a lot in giving him points of reference.

So, for example, if I say: "I'm a sadist" and the guy covers his surprise with something like: "A what?" and I say: "You know, aroused by inflicting pain on a partner" and he says something like: "Dude, that's so wrong" then I reply with something like: "Nah, not really. I'd put money on YOU being a bit of a sadist, too" and he says: "You'd lose that bet" and I say: "C'mon, man, think about it. Haven't you ever felt that extra jolt after coppin' a squeeze, twist, or thrust?" and he'll say: "Well, yeah" and I say: "There ya go!"

And he'll usually laugh (not sure if I'm kidding or not), so I'll steer the conversation to something generic like the physiology of impact play for a while (and half the time, the guy will say something like: "Oh, well of course I like spanking" and occasionally he'll get a bit nervous at this point, and I'll find out later that he likes *being* spanked), and then I'll ask him if he's ever had a woman kneel at his feet, doin' the obvious and lookin' up with those vulnerable but turned on eyes, and of course he'll say yes and I'll ask: Wasn't that hot? And of course he'll say: FUCK YEAH. And if I ask if he's ever experimented with restraints (makeshift of otherwise) the answer is almost always: yes. And wasn't that hot? Of course.

Now we have a common reference for the erotic nature of power and pain, and everything else is just a matter of scale. It's not always this easy, but such conversations are far from uncommon. Sometimes he'll be inspired to embrace power and pain more extensively in the bedroom; oftentimes, not. Either way, I'm not interested in recruitment or conversions. Just trying to increase understanding and acceptance for alternative sexuality in the population at large.

I would say that most people are turned on by certain aspects of kink. I would also say that in no way does that mean their enjoyment of those aspects can be extrapolated to include the harder aspects of S&M or power exchange.

For example, most of my friends know exactly what kinds of things I'm into. I have one in particular who raids my toybox on a fairly regular basis. She uses my strap-on on her husband. They've experimented with some of my restraints, my gags, my dildos, my anal toys, etc. This same girl will never try my nipple clamps because she thinks they're silly and sound painful, and she still looks at me funny when I have to wear shirts with high necklines to hide bruises.

We can safely assume that even otherwise "vanilla" people may enjoy kinky sex from time to time. But I think there's a world of difference in kinky sex and what this thread was originally about, and then a huge area in between. I don't believe you can easily divide people into two neat little groups.

BiBunny said:

I would say that most people are turned on by certain aspects of kink. I would also say that in no way does that mean their enjoyment of those aspects can be extrapolated to include the harder aspects of S&M or power exchange.

For example, most of my friends know exactly what kinds of things I'm into. I have one in particular who raids my toybox on a fairly regular basis. She uses my strap-on on her husband. They've experimented with some of my restraints, my gags, my dildos, my anal toys, etc. This same girl will never try my nipple clamps because she thinks they're silly and sound painful, and she still looks at me funny when I have to wear shirts with high necklines to hide bruises.

We can safely assume that even otherwise "vanilla" people may enjoy kinky sex from time to time. But I think there's a world of difference in kinky sex and what this thread was originally about, and then a huge area in between. I don't believe you can easily divide people into two neat little groups.

Click to expand...

The last couple of pages definitely represent a divergence from the original topic of the thread. If Sun minds, I'm sure she'll speak up and say so.

I agree completely with your last sentence. It's a not a question of neat little groups, but rather a matter of scale.

JMohegan said:

The last couple of pages definitely represent a divergence from the original topic of the thread. If Sun minds, I'm sure she'll speak up and say so.

Click to expand...

I just think it's funny that the "marks of a slave" thread has been dominated by a group of dominants.

It speaks volumes.


P.S. And for that reason alone, I don't mind at all.

eastern sun said:

I just think it's funny that the "marks of a slave" thread has been dominated by a group of dominants.

It speaks volumes.


P.S. And for that reason alone, I don't mind at all.

Click to expand...

Heh heh. Nice one.

Netzach said:

(This is why I think repeal of DADT is more urgent than marriage equality, free your mind and your ass will follow usually is the rule, and large swaths of the military are already hoping for a repeal for practical reasons.)

Click to expand...

Also because the military has often been the bleeding edge for social equality anyway, odd as that may sound. Black men served beside white men in the army far before they worked beside him in an integrated fashion in the workplace. Black men sat beside white men in chow halls far before they were given the same space at lunch counters. If the military would ditch that DADT silliness (which just about every serviceman or woman I've talked to says is trash, whether they personally like gays in the military or not), I would call it a major step.

--

intothewoods said:

As someone who is not a concrete thinker, it's difficult for me to have conversations about most relationship and personal topics without talking about my own relationships in personal detail. It's possible, but my natural tendency is to start telling personal stories. I'm not sure if Homburg is like me, but it can be difficult to imagine having conversations about pain and power with people in the abstract. Frankly, when the women I know get together, all we talk about is ourselves anyway. It's just not in my nature to place the boundaries there. One thing that is nice about Lit, I suppose, is that we do discuss things more in the abstract.

Click to expand...

Depends. Sometimes I do as JM says, and turn the conversation to the other person, sometimes it will be about me, sometimes it will be about a third party. All depends on the effect desired, comfort level, what my aim is in the overall conversation, etc.

I do tend to talk about my own relationships more often though. Easier.

--

eastern sun said:

I just think it's funny that the "marks of a slave" thread has been dominated by a group of dominants.

It speaks volumes.


P.S. And for that reason alone, I don't mind at all.

Click to expand...

*snort*

--

JMohegan said:

*snip*
As for control issues outside the bedroom, keep in mind that I came of age in the 70's. It was a time of great social upheaval, in which even the simplest acts - opening a door, for example - were fodder for political debate. It was perfectly natural for me to discuss who's in charge, how do you know, is that fair, and so on. For me, debate over the power dynamic of relationships is part of an ongoing discussion that has just never stopped.

Click to expand...

Thank you for explaining that, especially this last part.