A Master's 'right' to play with others

[Black_Bunny]

This is how I personally prefer to see it. Yes, it requires more words, but there is no real ambiguity. No, I don't think it is the only way one can express self-labeling, but it sure beats confusion in my book.

I've often been accused of going into way more detail than necessary, so I imagine I'd do the same when introducing myself to another BDSM couple; I'd much rather have someone think I'm weird for giving so much detail than have someone hurt by my lack of explanation.

Oh the sexual aspect is huge and undeniable. Enormous. It is a sexual encounter, regardless of whether orgasms/penetration are involved or not.

That's the way I thought of it too... and then everyone started saying it's not sexual for them at all

 

[sb2009]

I think it comes down to people even use the term "sexual" in ways that differ LOL

CAN WE ALL SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE PEOPLE?

Just kidding....

Also, I think as people grow and change views can really differ.

My husband and I were actually talking yesterday about something that happend really early in our relationship. Had been totally honest with me that he dated other people. Didn't use big words like "poly" because we didn't know about that sort of thing..I think he felt he was sort of being a jerk but he also does what he wants when he wants....

I was fine with it, totally fine. Until I SAW him with someone. I became the typical jealous girlfriend. I acted like a cunt and we didn't see each other for almost a year. I had managed to get a handle on my emotions and he was ready for monogamy, with me.

Now, 15 years later, I'm very different. Lots of reasons, but we are both now open to being with other people - wether for play or sex or in between. We are talking about it, not rushing into anything, just working out our feelings.

 

[intothewoods]

The reason I don't like labels is because of the risk of offending others. I'll say what I want in my own private home, but online and when meeting other couples it's like I have to tiptoe around and be careful what I say in case someone goes "hey! you're not a slave!" or "oh, so you think you're better than me because I'm a bottom and you're a submissive". I wish there was some way of having some blanket terms that everyone agreed on, but I'll guess there will always be disagreement, much like my friend who has parents of different nationalities, she identifies as Aboriginal but because she has white skin, the world looks at her and tells her she's wrong.



I'm very interested, how do they 'play' without fucking?



I can see why some would find T/b labels insulting if it was said to them with disdain, as in "you are JUST a bottom" or "you are ONLY a Top". The labels themselves I don't have a problem with, but I know my personal life better than you and I know how much of my non-sexual life involves dominance and submission better than you. (Not you personally ownedsubgal, I mean someone who might be pointing their finger at me telling me the label I identify with is wrong ) I can see the problem of being unsure how others relationships work when getting to know people, I would think it wouldn't be all that difficult for the new party to explain themselves a bit with their introduction, of for you to ask a few questions in order to clarify.

Rope play, play piercings, fire play, floggings, public scenes, pony play, boot licking, wax play, furniture play...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Play_(BDSM)
http://web.archive.org/web/20071016052316/ms.ha.md.us/~tammad/over21/bondage/sub-checklist.html

Others have already answered this, but if you have more intimate play partners, there are sometimes some issues about where to draw the line. But it's perfectly possible to go in for a flogging session or whatever, and just do that.

 

[sb2009]

When I went to the Dungeon 101 at the Crucible, the guy at the wax table (Wax Guy LOL I can't remember his name) did my first real wax play and while it wasn't *sexual* it was sensual...it felt amazing, but I wasn't sexually aroused (any more than I was at the idea that I was in a BDSM club for the first time ;-)

I'm sure he really enjoys rubbing wax on boobs but he wasn't standing over me with a boner or anything.

 

[Etoile]

Ah, the Crucible...back before they were complicated!

 

[sb2009]

is it complicated now? We have gone twice and I'm trying to clear our schedule for a visit this month...don't tell me it's going to go bad on me :-(

 

[Etoile]

is it complicated now? We have gone twice and I'm trying to clear our schedule for a visit this month...don't tell me it's going to go bad on me :-(

If you've been recently then you're fine - I'm remembering back 10-12 years to when there were no membership fees, etc.

 

[sb2009]

oh right, I see! We paid a fee to get into a Sunday even, it was $10 or $20 each (I think?) and then when I was talking with one of the employees (it's hard to tell who is there for fun and who is an employee LOL) she said that it we each paid $10 more we could be members, so we did that.

Then I got pink eye the next day and my husband said it was from the dirty dungeon :-( but my kid got it too so I think it was from my dirty kid. Damn kids.

 

[Black_Bunny]

I wanna go to a dungeon... I don't think they even exist in Adelaide

 

[00Syd]

I see this thread turned into a minor label debate.... how familiar

 

[00Syd]

I wanna go to a dungeon... I don't think they even exist in Adelaide

You might be surprised. Dungeons turn up in the strangest of places. And if there isn't a public dungeon, then likely there's a private one, which might be invite only or who knows what. When there isn't the space to have public parties, people hold private ones in their homes. If you find the scene (and there's always a scene, if not in your town, than in the nearest big town or city) and get involved, you'll discover whats out there.

 

[Black_Bunny]

I live in the capital city... how do I find this scene? I thought the internet held the answer to everything but this time it seems to have failed me

 

[JMohegan]

Errrr. You can only deviate so much from a word's generally understood meaning. I mean, I could label myself an African American man too.

The difference between 'African American' or 'man' on the one hand, and relationship ID labels (sub, slave, bottom, Top, Dom, Master) on the other, is that the latter group are all fabricated meanings with no universal authority source (dictionary, Guidebook to the One True Way of Alternative Lifestyles, or whatever) to back them up.

I understand why people who belong to a specific club or cultural group would want to establish rules or standards within that setting. I also understand why supersessionism would bug some leather folks.

But in general, I think it's ridiculous for people to talk about poser Doms, wannabe subs, fake-label slaves, or misapplied Master titles. If there's no "true" anything in kinky relationships, then there's no fake anything, either.

Labels mean things to people. And other people's assessments of those labels are very meaningful. Look at me, all bristly because some of you seem to be denigrating SM and physical play...

I'm thinking to myself; "yeah, she says she honors my choices, but I can tell she doesn't..."

And that on very little actual evidence, you understand.

We label ourselves, and woe betide the person what ain't impressed with our label.

Intimate erotic applications aside, I think of SM physical play as a sport or artistic endeavor, like basketball or painting. I admire skills, and some skills I admire greatly. But there's nothing inherent in the activity itself that I find respect-worthy or noble.

A separate issue is the personal character of individual players. Relationship ID has nothing to do with it, and the notion that people who embrace D/s or M/s should somehow be held in higher esteem is a notion I find laughable. The idea that D-types in particular are inherently worthy of respect by non-partners is one I find truly ludicrous.

 

[00Syd]

I live in the capital city... how do I find this scene? I thought the internet held the answer to everything but this time it seems to have failed me

http://www.domsubfriends.com/cgi-lo...try=AUSTRALIA&view_records=View+Records&ww=on

DSF to the rescue!

 

[satindesire]

But in general, I think it's ridiculous for people to talk about poser Doms, wannabe subs, fake-label slaves, or misapplied Master titles. If there's no "true" anything in kinky relationships, then there's no fake anything, either.

Yes. I agree with this, for sure. If there's no standard for realistic, there shouldn't be a standard for not, it just isn't logical.

 

[Etoile]

In Adelaide:
http://www.purplepalace.com.au/

 

[Black_Bunny]

http://www.domsubfriends.com/cgi-lo...try=AUSTRALIA&view_records=View+Records&ww=on

DSF to the rescue!

Thank you!.. I've just discovered the wonders of Fetlife... and found many events in Adelaide already! Lifesaver!

In Adelaide:
http://www.purplepalace.com.au/

I had seen that one, and while it looked good it seemed to be only Mistresses.

 

[Etoile]

I had seen that one, and while it looked good it seemed to be only Mistresses.

They mention having events there though, you could ask when they might have a general public time or something.

But yeah, Fet rocks!

 

[00Syd]

Thank you!.. I've just discovered the wonders of Fetlife... and found many events in Adelaide already! Lifesaver!

Yeah, the great wonder of fetlife is it's ability to connect people to their local scene. It was my lifesaver a couple of years ago.

 

[Homburg]

Well, it's fairly subjective, but I think we all know of people whom we admire for their skills in the community? You get enough bottoms speaking admiringly of someone's whip hand, and the term "master" comes to mind fairly easily. it's a matter of consensus. And sometimes, of course, of someone's swollen ego. Well like I said... You tie knots long enough, with enough heart and soul and passion, and at some point you will have to own your title...

Eh, I doubt I will. It's just too subjective, and it's not really in me. I've been running RPG's for three decades now, and could probably be called a master storyteller, but I'd never do it. It's just not in my personality.

--

That's the way I thought of it too... and then everyone started saying it's not sexual for them at all

I think it is more that it does not have to be sexual.

--

I see this thread turned into a minor label debate.... how familiar

Except that there's no rancor this time around. For whatever reason, the butthurt is not in the room.

 

[00Syd]

Except that there's no rancor this time around. For whatever reason, the butthurt is not in the room.

Hooray for no butthurt!

 

[Homburg]

Yes. I agree with this, for sure. If there's no standard for realistic, there shouldn't be a standard for not, it just isn't logical.

It can be logical within an internal system. In this case, the semantic weight of "true dominant", to pick an example, is some rarified and specific list of characteristic. It is inherently an exclusionary term. "False dominant", again by semantic weight within the culture, does not refer to someone lacking those traits per se. It tends (in my experience) to refer to someone who poses as a dominant in order to attract a partner. The idea of a fake going for "easy" submissive pussy or someone that he feels he can abuse due to their psychological profile.

I don't necessarily agree with the wording, but, in this case, "true" whatever and "false" whatever are not necessarily polar opposites. The colloquialisms in total have unrelated meanings regardless of how the modifiers may be related.

 

[Etoile]

There is no true anything when it comes to this. It's like saying there's a true cat. Well, yes, there are animals that walk on all fours and have whiskers and tails and say "meow" but there are Persians and Rexes and Siamese and Sphynxes. They all have different fur. Are they all cats? Of course! But none is the true cat. Same for this.

 

[ownedsubgal]

the best way to deal with these issues imo is what Black_Bunny mentioned...be very very specific with your language, and don't rely solely on the fast and easy labels. say "i'm submissive," to the average person, vanilla OR kinky, and they tend to assume you mean you like being tied up and spanked. so instead i might say "i have a submissive personality," or "i naturally defer to others." like Homburg said, it takes more words but it's worth it for the sake of clarification.

 

[JMohegan]

It can be logical within an internal system. In this case, the semantic weight of "true dominant", to pick an example, is some rarified and specific list of characteristic. It is inherently an exclusionary term. "False dominant", again by semantic weight within the culture, does not refer to someone lacking those traits per se. It tends (in my experience) to refer to someone who poses as a dominant in order to attract a partner. The idea of a fake going for "easy" submissive pussy or someone that he feels he can abuse due to their psychological profile.

I don't necessarily agree with the wording, but, in this case, "true" whatever and "false" whatever are not necessarily polar opposites. The colloquialisms in total have unrelated meanings regardless of how the modifiers may be related.

I agree that "fake" is an accurate descriptor, if someone is intentionally lying about personal proclivity.

However, recent discussion on this thread has focused on folks in established relationships, using labels to describe their personal sexual ID or relationship flavor. In that context, "true" and "false" are indeed semantic opposites. You can't talk about one without implicitly referencing the other.