why the stereotype?

[justgem]

.

 

[WriterDom]

Humans have punished each other by whipping since the beginning of recorded history. The idea that whipping type play can be pleasurable is very foreign to the majority of people. Couple that with all the domestic abuse that goes on and the role of the media in portraying Doms as leatherclad murderers, it's no wonder it is stereotyped. Would you expect anything else?

 

[SexyChele]

Actually, take a look at a cross-section from this very board. When the mention of "leather clad, whip carrying" Doms comes up, no one blinks an eye. It's accepted. (For me, personally, it's a turnoff)

And, there are many within the lifestyle that perpetuate this image. The Doms that I met with when I was actively looking all wore......black. Nothing else but. B-O-R-I-N-G!!! I even when out with a Dom for a couple of monts, and I swear he wore nothing else but the same black jeans, black shirt, and black boots. It was part of the reason why I eventually broke it off. Would have been nice to see in some other color!

Leather seems to be "big" within the BDSM community. Why? I've not a clue. Even clothing sold through BDSM sites are almost exclusively leather.

I don't think it is necessarily those on the "outside" that are perpetuating these stereotypes. I think that there are a fair share that are involved within the community that standing firm on them as well.

But, hey, it can be sort of fun when people look at a person who seems ultra-conservative, when deep within they are more than just a bit pervy.

 

[Ebonyfire]

I love black

I have lots of black outfits, and in fact I usually where black when out formally.

I have a black leather suit; jacket and skirt, and I just bought a pair of leather jeans.

I just like it. I have lots of pairs of black boots too.

However I have worn all kinds of things, other than black.

People will stereotype everything, but I wear what looks good on me, and outside opinions be damned.

Eb < wearing basic black, a simple strand of pearls...and a crop!>

 

[justgem]

.

 

[Ebonyfire]

how do you apply, see, interpret, s/m as related to D/s?

A good question gem. In my case, I look at the whole sub. I have to get to know him as a person first, before I can make him an object (enslave, if you will).

I do not make a separation cause they know from the beginning I am not a sadist. If that is what they are looking for, then they need to look elsewhere. I desire a submissive who has service on his mind. If his motive is to find someone to beat him, then he is barking up the wrong tree.

There is no need to interpret (at least not in my case), because I require the completion of a BDSM checklist that I use as a baseline.

It makes no difference to me if a sub is masochistic or not. The deciding factor for me is his desire to serve.

Eb

 

[SexyChele]

I apologize for getting off on the tangent of clothing, but I do think the idea speaks as a whole to the community. Yes, there are "outsiders" who have a view of a D/s relationship as being something it not necessarily is. However, there are those within the community who perpetuate this.

Okay, examples - and there are a lot to choose from right here at Lit! A sub is talking on one of the boards, she speaks of displeasing her Dom in some way, and that he spanked her. Then she does the computer equivalent of laughing. Not saying that this is a bad thing - to each their own. But to an "outsider" reading this, it appears that 1. the sub had no freewill or say in the matter, and 2. that the Dom's first instinct was to inflict some sort of physical "punishment".

Now, this doesn't mean that Doms and subs should go around watching every word they utter because some one somewhere will take them wrong. But there should be kept in mind that if that is what some one sees, that is what they think of as "norm".

And I think one also has to consider what most people think of when they hear the word "submissive". To most people, it conjurs up a person so willing to give up their own person that they become a non-entity. Most people will say that a person who is submissive is some one who can't or won't think for themselves and is willing to do whatever another person tells them to do. Again, in many ways, this is played out by subs themselves.

I've been told that I am not truly "submissive" because I am too strong-willed. I'm beginning to think that is more true than I had first given it credit for. And this questioning is causing me to take a long, hard look at the world of BDSM and how it may or may not relate to me. I've met a lot of great people within the community. But I've also seen a lot of "why do outsiders view me as such", when their own actions and words are what is giving that impression to others.

S/M, for me, is not necessarily a part of D/s. In some relationships it never is. In others, it is a huge part of the make up. Then again, there are people who practice S/M, but who do not follow D/s. But I think that the only way to know and make these distinctions is through study, reading up on the subject. If some one is truly interested in the topic, they will do just that. If not, they will be happy believing what they believe. How to change that image? I don't think it's possible. There are too many people in the community who like and live the stereotype for it to change. And as long as this is kept up within the community, it is how others will continue to see anyone associated with BDSM, and any of its components.

Well, at least that is my opinion.

 

[Ebonyfire]

<snip>But I think that the only way to know and make these distinctions is through study, reading up on the subject. If some one is truly interested in the topic, they will do just that. If not, they will be happy believing what they believe. How to change that image? I don't think it's possible. There are too many people in the community who like and live the stereotype for it to change. And as long as this is kept up within the community, it is how others will continue to see anyone associated with BDSM, and any of its components. Well, at least that is my opinion.

Piggybacking.....

As long as people use the behaviour of individuals and generalize it to a larger group of people, stereotypes will prevail. This is true in regards to society as a whole.

But if people take the time to educate themselves, they can make their own decisions on what is right for themselves.

Eb

 

[Pure]

Hi Chele,

you said, having given an example:


And I think one also has to consider what most people think of when they hear the word "submissive". To most people, it conjurs up a person so willing to give up their own person that they become a non-entity. Most people will say that a person who is submissive is some one who can't or won't think for themselves and is willing to do whatever another person tells them to do. Again, in many ways, this is played out by subs themselves.

========

Just going by the postings here, I can't entirely agree with you: while there are those that fawn and appear helpless and hapless, there are those regularly posting subs who are obviously well-spoken, extremely assertive, even formidable. I can't read an 'outsider' or visitor's mind, but he or she might well read and be quite afraid ever to 'cross' one of a number of intelligent subs here; they all have, to some degree, shall we say, a "dominating" presence.

 

[SexyChele]

Hi Chele,

you said, having given an example:


And I think one also has to consider what most people think of when they hear the word "submissive". To most people, it conjurs up a person so willing to give up their own person that they become a non-entity. Most people will say that a person who is submissive is some one who can't or won't think for themselves and is willing to do whatever another person tells them to do. Again, in many ways, this is played out by subs themselves.

========

Just going by the postings here, I can't entirely agree with you: while there are those that fawn and appear helpless and hapless, there are those regularly posting subs who are obviously well-spoken, extremely assertive, even formidable. I can't read an 'outsider' or visitor's mind, but he or she might well read and be quite afraid ever to 'cross' one of a number of intelligent subs here; they all have, to some degree, shall we say, a "dominating" presence.

Pure, I can see where you are coming from. However, the statement that I made above was directed at how people "in general" think of the word "submissive", not from any examples posted here.

However, there are subs that will state they do not have the "permission" of their Dom to do or not do a certain activity. Now, those who understand the dynamics of this type of relationship know where the sub is coming from. An outsider, hearing that a sub doesn't have permission to do something, might make the assumption that I stated above.

Anytime one spends enough time within a group of people who are commonly stereotyped, that person will come to learn what the true dynamics are and how many of those stereotypes are not necessarily as they would appear.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Sexy Chele

great posts on this thread! Thank you.

 

[justgem]

.

 

[justgem]

.

 

[Ebonyfire]

i do want to address something else that you mentioned though regarding being too strong to be a submissive. (sorta wondering if that is a stereotype? lol) you are correct in your observation that often a weak image is perpetuated by submissives at times. but in my opinion it takes a very strong will to be submissive.

I will address this.


First of all, just because a man or woman is submissive, it does not mean they are weak.

And it really doesn't have anything to do with their position in their work either. You can be in charge in your worklife and be, dominant, submissive , switch, top, bottom, whatever. People do the things they have to to get over in life.

Dominants and submissives are strong, they just manifest their strength in different ways.

Why would I want a submissive who is weak? Of what value will the submission of a weakling be to Me?

Ebony

 

[justgem]

.

 

[Ebonyfire]

good points Ebonyfire, i certainly wasnt intending to exclude Dom/mes in my statement. it was my intention to encourage SexyChele to not see strength as a weakness or a barrier to being submissive.

there has been very well thought out posts here. ty.

bw
gem

I did not take offense. I was just adding my 2 cents worth.

Eb

 

[lark sparrow]

The majority of my clothing is black and I happen to love leather. I have also had both of these tendencies long before I knew what BDSM was. There is no unwritten rule that one must wear black and love leather. my Mistress doesn't wear black and She is not particularly into leather. Clothes or fashion preferences are just that - it is up to the individual to make their own choices. No costume necessary to be a part of BDSM - suit your personal tastes.

I don't think of this forum as a grandstand produced for those who don't understand. Certainly there are lots of lurkers who come to learn and that is wonderful. But it is not as though this is the only place where BDSM information can be sought and understanding can be had. There needs to be places where people can just be themselves and not have their game face on or some political agenda or acting as an ambassador to the masses. When new people have questions there are always plenty of people around to tackle them in ways that can be understood for the beginner.

Could it be to a certain extent that with the mainstreaming of BDSM the face is changing? There is less uniformity, more variables? A greater range of people stepping into the community who would not have identified as being "into BDSM" in the past?

There is of course also the media portrayal, which is often all the extremes and negatives a mind can conjure about BDSM.

It creates a sense of "other", though many of the ideals in a D/s relationship have some strong parallels to the very traditional husband/wife values, and at least 15% of the population explores kink in the privacy of their bedroom: light spanking, bondage, etc.

That sense of stereotypes and "other" is also seen towards the gay community - gay men as flamboyant sissies and lesbians as butch dykes. Not "normal" people, but seen and understood in extremes. Or trying to fit them into boxes they can easily understand such as one person in a homosexual coupling acting as the "male" and the other acting as the "female".

 

[SexyChele]

<snip>
i do want to address something else that you mentioned though regarding being too strong to be a submissive. (sorta wondering if that is a stereotype? lol) you are correct in your observation that often a weak image is perpetuated by submissives at times. but in my opinion it takes a very strong will to be submissive.

<snip>

its true too that s/m doesnt have to be a part of a D/s relationship. but i do wonder....when you examine it closely are there aspects of that there that we are not aware of to a certain degree?

Perhaps I need to just clarify some things for a few folks here. I didn't think anyone would be interested in this, but it seems it is clouding how I say things and that isn't good.

This past summer I started actively looking for a male dominant. I met quite a few through online ads, and a couple who were good potentials. However, I turned all down. I took down my ads, thinking I would put them back up at the beginning of the year. Now I'm having doubts about that as well. At this point, I can no longer say with assurance that BDSM, outside of an occasional kinky encounter, is what I want.

This has stemmed from my own thoughts and discussions with other submissives and in conversations with Dominants. The comment about being too strong willed had nothing to do with strength of character or the ability to run one's life. If I have learned anything in the past 6 months (over a year, if I consider learning from reading before actually meeting people) it is that people involved in BDSM - no matter which elements or all of it - are among the strongest people I've ever known.

My personal difficult arises from whether or not I am capable of being able to submit fully to a Dominant. The few times that have come up in the past few months have felt more like a role play to me. It was fun for a couple of hours, but I was a bit relieved when I could step out of "character" and go back to being me.

This is longer than I intended it to be, and I apologize for taking it off topic. The problem, for me only, is that I simply cannot say for certain that I could willingly and completely submit to another person without the idea in the back of my head that it was only "play" and not "for real". I think one has to be able to freely give themselves to another person, and that takes tremendous trust. I do not know if I have that within me, or if I am, in fact, capable of giving it.

I hope this clears things up for all.

 

[Ebonyfire]

The problem, for me only, is that I simply cannot say for certain that I could willingly and completely submit to another person without the idea in the back of my head that it was only "play" and not "for real". I think one has to be able to freely give themselves to another person, and that takes tremendous trust. I do not know if I have that within me, or if I am, in fact, capable of giving it.

I hope this clears things up for all.

And there is nothing wrong with that, chele. Take one step at a time. One thing I have learned is that, things change over time. How you feel today may not reflect your feeling 5 or 10 years from now.

So if you are happy with the encounters you have, and they meet your present needs, what is the harm?

Eb

 

[jon.hayworth]

I guess that I am the Dom within the relationship I am in.

However that statement is an over simplifacation. It is how it would appear to an outsider. My sub / slave is an independent woman, an artist. Outside our sexual relationship she takes no BS from me or anyone else. Within the sexual relationship she is apparently submissive.

I say APPARENTLY because when you analyse the Dom Sub contract (I am not talking about a written contract - although the way the UK law is being changed soon everyone may be asking for written consents before engaging in any sexual activity). It is the sub who declares what is off limits. It is Sub who has the power of veto when we set the broad parameters of our "activity". It is the Sub who can "pull the plug" - by using the Safe-Word.

I think that for many of us we are sort of METHOD ACTORS who live the roles in which we have cast ourselves. So like all actors we want to don the motley and play our roles, (maybe this is an explanation of A Desert Rose's signature).

Yes I do like wearing leather - I like the feel of leather - before I got disabled in a motorcycle accident I was a motorcycle messenger and wore leathers to work. I still wear leather but not simply as some sort of badge - that role is mine to turn on and off as I wish.

I think that all LIFESTYLE people BDSM, Bikers, whatever are usually rather one dimensional, and thus boring. There is always something else in life - sex is one aspect - important but only one aspect.

jon

 

[Pure]

Hi Chele,

You said


At this point, I can no longer say with assurance that BDSM, outside of an occasional kinky encounter, is what I want.

I think this approach and preference is not uncommon. The activities of 'bdsm' but as kink. Temporary. In a frame.


This has stemmed from my own thoughts and discussions with other submissives and in conversations with Dominants. The comment about being too strong willed had nothing to do with strength of character or the ability to run one's life. [...]

My personal difficulty arises from whether or not I am capable of being able to submit fully to a Dominant. The few times that have come up in the past few months have felt more like a role play to me. It was fun for a couple of hours, but I was a bit relieved when I could step out of "character" and go back to being me.

Again, the 'stepping out of role' is not uncommonly reported here: dishes get washed; kids taken to school; plans made for vacation.
Iow, it's my impression that _periods_ of d/s--say a couple hours--are not uncommon, with 'normal' everyday interaction in between.


This is longer than I intended it to be, and I apologize for taking it off topic. The problem, for me only, is that I simply cannot say for certain that I could willingly and completely submit to another person without the idea in the back of my head that it was only "play" and not "for real"

The question of 'could' submit is tricky. Maybe you are just unwilling, except in role play. There is, of course, nothing wrong with such inability/unwillingness: you don't get 'points' for degree of submission, if any; the numbers on some scales do not denote values, with 'higher degrees.'

I would say, my own thought is that maybe you're lucky to have a somewhat chaotic set of inclinations and leanings; that it's good not to identify with one in your period of life. It's like a religion:
in one sense it's too bad if you can't say "I'm a Christian" or "I'm a Muslim"; life might be simpler. But, otoh, it's good to have cast loose from a set of social 'givens' and boxes that people(their thoughts, their feelings, and their actions) are put into.

Many basic decisions and identifications, even of such basic things as gay or straight, change a lot between 20 and 35. I'm sure you've seen this over the course of people's lives.

Just some thougts and speculations.

Best,