new to site, new to idea of bdsm

[LegsOpenedWide]

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

 

[katalynn]

Just need to figure out what you like and don't like. Set your limits of what you are interested in and things that are strictly no. Not really sure if this is what you are asking, but being submissive doesn't mean you have to submit to every thing out there. (less of course that's what you are into)

For me, I don't do blood play, Yet I love knife play as long as it doesn't cut.

It's all about setting your limits and finding out what you like and don't like. Figuring out things that you are willing to try as well.

Hope that helps a little.

 

[breakstoys]

The great thing about bdsm is that there are infinite ways to do it. Do what works for you; if you don't know what that might be then just be clear with partners that you are exploring and try out whatever you feel drawn to. The only real bdsm rules are that you play safe and communicate clearly so that consent and boundaries are known and respected. Outside of that, it's up to you and your partners what kind of activities and dynamic to engage in. I recommend joining FetLife to find local events like munches and workshops, they are lots of fun and the people are typically very welcoming.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Read the essay linked in my signature, and see if it triggers any questions for you-- don't hesitate to ask them!

 

[DarlingCunt]

Lit might not always be the best example of BDSM, so be sure to always follow your intuition! It's not uncommon to see a lot of people who deem themselves above others, based purely on their "title." The biggest thing that I can convey is that whether you're dominant or submissive, you are a partner in a relationship! That means you have just as much of a say as the other person! Safe words are important, and don't ever let someone try to pressure you into something you don't want to do. (Pushing boundaries a little can be okay, but don't be afraid to stand your ground!) Also, it's totally okay to not be into every aspect of BDSM that you've seen! Every D/s relationship is different, so don't be afraid to adapt to what works for you! I'd say that most people don't have 24/7 hardcore D/s relationships, and for the most part, BDSM is a very open and communicative relationship! Feel free to message me if you have any questions!

 

[StrayKat]

well I'm not even sure if it is bdsm that I'm interested in?
I like the idea of being submissive in some regards but not all. Can you have some without the other?

You can have anything you want to. If you are not sure, read, try, experiment, see what suits you. Then talk to your partner and adjust. There is no "proper" definition of BDSM and there are even less "proper" definitions of people who enjoy any aspect of it. If you like something and think its BDSM, go for it, more power to you and dont let anyone else dictate your definitions and tastes.

 

[TamLin01]

Of course you can. There's no "right" way to do it. It depends on your relationship.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Of course you can. There's no "right" way to do it. It depends on your relationship.

Or, if you have no relationship, it depends on what you want to do possibly with a future partner. Or all those playmates you hope to have some day.

 

[NickSatan]

nicksatan

Lit might not always be the best example of BDSM, so be sure to always follow your intuition! It's not uncommon to see a lot of people who deem themselves above others, based purely on their "title." The biggest thing that I can convey is that whether you're dominant or submissive, you are a partner in a relationship! That means you have just as much of a say as the other person! Safe words are important, and don't ever let someone try to pressure you into something you don't want to do. (Pushing boundaries a little can be okay, but don't be afraid to stand your ground!) Also, it's totally okay to not be into every aspect of BDSM that you've seen! Every D/s relationship is different, so don't be afraid to adapt to what works for you! I'd say that most people don't have 24/7 hardcore D/s relationships, and for the most part, BDSM is a very open and communicative relationship! Feel free to message me if you have any questions!

Rubbish!. I am an online dominant male slave master, and my slave has no say whatsoever in her treatment or tasks. She does as she is told or else. A slave has no say as to what their master demands of them. It would not be slavery otherwise

 

[MeekMe]

Rubbish!. I am an online dominant male slave master, and my slave has no say whatsoever in her treatment or tasks. She does as she is told or else. A slave has no say as to what their master demands of them. It would not be slavery otherwise

That's YOUR relationship. Not everyone does it the same way. Also, OP is talking about being submissive which does not automatically mean slave.

When entering into the relationship both parties are hopefully discussing their limits. So yes, a slave has a say if they've set hard limits.

Or else? What are you going to do if they say no?

 

[Hard_Rom]

Rubbish!. I am an online dominant male slave master, and my slave has no say whatsoever in her treatment or tasks. She does as she is told or else. A slave has no say as to what their master demands of them. It would not be slavery otherwise

BDSM is not just Master/slave. That is almost an extreme example. A girl who likes a spanking is engaging in light BDSM. Your partner may like being tied down, blindfolded and tickled. But if you tried to stick something in their ass, you may have to learn to sleep with one eye open or get used to sleeping alone.

An abusive husband or bf can total control over their woman. Does not make it a BDSM relationship. In fact is punishable under law.

A woman who lives as a, probably not so, stereotypical wife of the early 1950's depicted in various "How to Keep Your Home Clean and Your Man Satisfied" magazines could be in a D/s relationship. Sex could be quite vanilla from separate single beds.

Nuns are brides of Christ and submit to God. Plus they wear fetish outfits 24/7. D/s?

 

[KoPilot]

That's YOUR relationship. Not everyone does it the same way. Also, OP is talking about being submissive which does not automatically mean slave.

When entering into the relationship both parties are hopefully discussing their limits. So yes, a slave has a say if they've set hard limits.

Or else? What are you going to do if they say no?

Based on his previous posts, I'm highly doubtful that he actually dominates anyone.

 

[MeekMe]

Based on his previous posts, I'm highly doubtful that he actually dominates anyone.

I was thinking the same. And he doesn't care for consent.

 

[Esem]

You don't have to put a label on what you like. I find that as long as you and your partner communicate you can start slow and see what you both enjoy. Take your own journey.

 

[cookiecat]

well I'm not even sure if it is bdsm that I'm interested in?
I like the idea of being submissive in some regards but not all. Can you have some without the other?

I think a lot of people starting out love the idea of a million kinky things. 50 shades of something. Make me do bad stuff that feels so good. Make me be dirty. Make me do it online so I can stay in my pj's and pick and choose what I actually want to do.

Online is a great place to start exploring. After a time, you decide if you want to make the leap to real life or hang out here in interweb space.

After looking at the OP's posts, my sense is she had a horny few days and found some, ummm, satisfaction in other forums.

 

[SinfulSailor]

Read the essay linked in my signature, and see if it triggers any questions for you-- don't hesitate to ask them!

This is the right track. The essay suggests understanding terminology.

However! The references suggested in the essay.... none of them are about relationships. Nor are any of them about dominance or submission. They are all about how to do SM in "play", i.e., contrived, pretend "scenes" in which dominance and submission are emulated through topping and bottoming.

That is to say, they are all about "topping" and "bottoming".

If that's what you're after - Great!

But in spite of what some people want to tell you above - No. You can not "have it all, baby". That is a myth. In life there are always trade-offs. No one gets to have it all.

There is no submission without submission.

Why does it matter? Well.... Why does communication matter? For many obvious reasons. If you say to someone you want to submit when what you really want to do is bottom - it's not likely to work out great for either person.

People rant about "labels" but that is a bullshit rant. Being able to communicate is priceless.

I could write more, but it's late and I'm tired. Just look up submission in the dictionary. (But bottoming is probably what you're after.)

 

[Stella_Omega]

I could write more, but it's late and I'm tired.

That is obvious.

 

[Netzach]

This is the right track. The essay suggests understanding terminology.

However! The references suggested in the essay.... none of them are about relationships. Nor are any of them about dominance or submission. They are all about how to do SM in "play", i.e., contrived, pretend "scenes" in which dominance and submission are emulated through topping and bottoming.

How is that exclusive of a relationship?

Social dance is about as contrived an activity as possible to think up. Married people do it together. People who have never met one another do it together. The activity itself doesn't imply fake or real anything.

 

[SinfulSailor]

How is that exclusive of a relationship?

Let's read what I wrote. (Even though it was late. )

I wrote:

The references suggested in the essay.... none of them are about relationships.

And those references are not "about" relationships. They are either predominantly or exclusively "about" SM play. How to do it, how to lead up to it. Why people enjoy it. How to be safe about it. And so on.

I did not take the position that SM play is exclusive of a relationship, so I'm not going to try to explain that position.

Social dance is about as contrived an activity as possible to think up. Married people do it together. People who have never met one another do it together. The activity itself doesn't imply fake or real anything.

It is not clear to me what you're getting at here. I think perhaps, like misreading me above, you are reading something into what I wrote that is not there.

At the same time, for the sake of discussison, I encourage you to look up the definitions of "play" and "scene". I think it would be very difficult to support a position that attempts to treat words like "play" and "real" as synonymous.

And certainly (see the references provided in the essay as well as your dictionary) the words "dominate" and "top" are not synonyms either. Nor are the words "submit" and "bottom".

If one person submits and standing next to that person, another person bottoms and they are both being flogged.... Yes, they are both being flogged. At the same time, different things are happening that are not shared by each, and in fact, there are things happening to each that are often diametrically opposed.

 

[Netzach]

Let's read what I wrote. (Even though it was late. )

I wrote:



And those references are not "about" relationships. They are either predominantly or exclusively "about" SM play. How to do it, how to lead up to it. Why people enjoy it. How to be safe about it. And so on.

I did not take the position that SM play is exclusive of a relationship, so I'm not going to try to explain that position.



It is not clear to me what you're getting at here. I think perhaps, like misreading me above, you are reading something into what I wrote that is not there.

At the same time, for the sake of discussison, I encourage you to look up the definitions of "play" and "scene". I think it would be very difficult to support a position that attempts to treat words like "play" and "real" as synonymous.

And certainly (see the references provided in the essay as well as your dictionary) the words "dominate" and "top" are not synonyms either. Nor are the words "submit" and "bottom".

If one person submits and standing next to that person, another person bottoms and they are both being flogged.... Yes, they are both being flogged. At the same time, different things are happening that are not shared by each, and in fact, there are things happening to each that are often diametrically opposed.

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.

M/s strikes me as the hierarchy of method acting among all of life's poor players, as opposed to anything else. None of us are actually slaveowners, newsflash.

 

[IrisAlthea]

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.

This.

This is the right track. The essay suggests understanding terminology.

However! The references suggested in the essay.... none of them are about relationships. Nor are any of them about dominance or submission. They are all about how to do SM in "play", i.e., contrived, pretend "scenes" in which dominance and submission are emulated through topping and bottoming.

That is to say, they are all about "topping" and "bottoming".

If that's what you're after - Great!

But in spite of what some people want to tell you above - No. You can not "have it all, baby". That is a myth. In life there are always trade-offs. No one gets to have it all.

There is no submission without submission.

Why does it matter? Well.... Why does communication matter? For many obvious reasons. If you say to someone you want to submit when what you really want to do is bottom - it's not likely to work out great for either person.

People rant about "labels" but that is a bullshit rant. Being able to communicate is priceless.

I could write more, but it's late and I'm tired. Just look up submission in the dictionary. (But bottoming is probably what you're after.)

The word I bolded are rather value-laden in a way that suggests that you don't see it as that great.
This grated a bit at me and made me wonder about what you really wanted to say with your post.
As I read Stellas essay, it's about informing the curious beginner that you don't have to squeeze into the role of submissive, dominant or the everfeared swich, because it's easy to get that impression.

I think you are right about noone getting to have it all, but there is still a wide variety of relationship styles and non-relationship ways to do BDSM to choose from.

I don't know what you mean about the lable rant, because it confuses me when you follow up with a stating that comunication is priceless.
Did you mean that lables are good or did you mean that they are no substitute for in depth discussions?

 

[KoPilot]

Super grimdark serious M/s is the one twue way, you guise. Everything but twue submishun is contrived and fake and silly.

 

[moonbeam17]

Super grimdark serious M/s is the one twue way, you guise. Everything but twue submishun is contrived and fake and silly.

...Forget the power of thesaurus' and etymology, for so much has been forgotten, never to be re-learned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war in the lit forum. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods as we all bicker to define BDSM...

O_O

 

[SinfulSailor]

I don't know what you mean about the lable rant, because it confuses me when you follow up with a stating that comunication is priceless.
Did you mean that lables are good or did you mean that they are no substitute for in depth discussions?

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.

 

[SinfulSailor]

M/s strikes me as the hierarchy of method acting among all of life's poor players, as opposed to anything else. None of us are actually slaveowners, newsflash.

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.