D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion

D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

EbonyPhoenix68 -> D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/7/2007 5:19:52 PM)
I've thought about something that leaves me a little bit confused when it comes to D/s & M/s relationships:Why do some submissives have a Master and some Doms have a slave, when I was under the impression that the idea of a D/s or M/s relationship is that it is Dom/me and submissive or Master/Mistress and slave? To me, when some go against the "tradtional"grain of a D/s or M/s relationship, it leaves me scratching my head in terms of what I desire as a Dominant. Any thoughts on this?

CutieMouse -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/7/2007 5:25:25 PM)
Because people tend to label themselves however they see fit, and all of the terminology is somewhat subjective. One person's idea of "Master" might be another's idea of "Dominant" (and vice versa); one person's definition of "submissive" might equate "slave" (and vice versa). It's just a word. IMO, the actions behind the word are far more important.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/7/2007 5:26:24 PM)
Give up the false idea that there are actual traditional grains, and that people will actually follow them. We all just do what works for us. There are also slaves who are dominants to subs. Trying to make people fit into clear cut boxes or labels WILL make you confused. Just letting people be people will make everyone happier.

Prinsexx -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/7/2007 5:30:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EbonyPhoenix68 To me, when some go against the "tradtional"grain of a D/s or M/s relationship, it leaves me scratching my head in terms of what I desire as a Dominant. Any thoughts on this? Yes my first thought is why would someone else's 'anti-grain' have you scratching your head?

LaMistressa -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/7/2007 5:33:56 PM)
Don't get hung up on taxonomy. Find the dynamic that works for you.

kirii -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/7/2007 6:11:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EbonyPhoenix68 I've thought about something that leaves me a little bit confused when it comes to D/s & M/s relationships:Why do some submissives have a Master and some Doms have a slave, when I was under the impression that the idea of a D/s or M/s relationship is that it is Dom/me and submissive or Master/Mistress and slave? To me, when some go against the "tradtional"grain of a D/s or M/s relationship, it leaves me scratching my head in terms of what I desire as a Dominant. Any thoughts on this? Define ‘traditional’ first. After you have defined traditional, you then have to find out if every single person defines it the same as you. Since it is safe to say that you will be lucky to have one with the exact same definition; I think that it is safe to say that what you view as traditional, is not what others would view as traditional. Because of this, no one is going against the ‘traditional grain’; they are only not conforming to YOUR traditions.

MadRabbit -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/7/2007 6:52:59 PM)
I dont like the word Master

goodgirl85 -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/7/2007 6:53:14 PM)
Labels are labels. Some may prefer a sub to call Him Master just because he likes the word. I refuse to be called a slave. (no offense to any that like the terms and/or consider themselves slaves)...to be called a slave actual sends chills of ...something... through me. I just dont like that label. Though many have told me that I have many "slavish" tendacies. Sir can call me anything he wants: slut, submissive, toy, whore, cunt, etc. But to call me slave would be pushing a very hard limit. And I happen to like Master more than I like Sir, because as a show of respect to all respectfull Dom's I used to call them Sir when greeting, or thanking or whatever. I don't anymore because Sir requires I call Him Sir. He has not yet collared me, so I may not call Him Master. In some ways it bothers me that others may be calling Him the same thing as I, as petty as it may seem. Nothing in lifestyle or anything lifestyle is "traditional" by any means, just like the only normal is not normal. just my thoughts and ideas girl

Phin -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/7/2007 6:56:55 PM)
whas does D/s, M/s have to do with an old Genisis song that Disturbed covered? [:D]

Bobkgin -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/7/2007 7:28:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EbonyPhoenix68 I've thought about something that leaves me a little bit confused when it comes to D/s & M/s relationships:Why do some submissives have a Master and some Doms have a slave, when I was under the impression that the idea of a D/s or M/s relationship is that it is Dom/me and submissive or Master/Mistress and slave? To me, when some go against the "tradtional"grain of a D/s or M/s relationship, it leaves me scratching my head in terms of what I desire as a Dominant. Any thoughts on this? Went through a thread on this a ways back. Turns out words like "submissive", "slave", "master", etc are all meaningless now: they can mean whatever a person wants them to mean. So you can have "slaves" tying up and beating "masters", ordering them around etc. Just depends upon what label you want to pick (not that it will mean anything to anyone but you). Hope that clears this up for you. [;)]

TemptingNviceSub -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/7/2007 7:31:37 PM)
To the OP, Labels are simply meant to be a starting point, a vague idea of what is underneath..That is why I call this a journey, it is a journey to see with each and every person that crosses my path to what is going on, past, that initial label..Tempting

Celeste43 -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/7/2007 7:33:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit I dont like the word Master As it happens, I dislike intensely the word slave. The Man views a master as someone who micromanages and he's too busy to do that. Not that he doesn't do that on occasion anyway...

mischievousone -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/7/2007 7:37:57 PM)
Each relationship has their own preferences as to what they would like to be called. None is necessarily right or wrong. Where else can you make your own labels for yourself!

littlebitxxx -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/8/2007 3:09:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EbonyPhoenix68 I've thought about something that leaves me a little bit confused when it comes to D/s & M/s relationships:Why do some submissives have a Master and some Doms have a slave, when I was under the impression that the idea of a D/s or M/s relationship is that it is Dom/me and submissive or Master/Mistress and slave? To me, when some go against the "tradtional"grain of a D/s or M/s relationship, it leaves me scratching my head in terms of what I desire as a Dominant. Any thoughts on this? Dom Master Mistress sub slave switch = Joey Bobby Susie Mikey Annie Mary A name is a name is a name and a label is a label. Ya find what suits and stick it on.

RRafe -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/8/2007 3:17:26 AM)
Rigid mindsets are made to be broken.

Cyntilating -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/8/2007 3:23:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaMistressa Don't get hung up on taxonomy. Find the dynamic that works for you. ::looking up the word "taxonomy" :: : )

beargonewild -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/8/2007 4:43:08 AM)
It seems for many people, they have this impression that a D/s and a M/s relationships are governed by a standard set of rules or traditions. With time and further understanding, we come to realize that this isn't the case. How we percieve another's relationship may appear to buck "tradition" yet what is actually happening is they are creating their own tradition or rules to suit their needs. I confess I had done the same thing myself. What I realized is not every D/s or M/s relationship follows a set pattern, if you will, on how it proceeds. Whether a person calls themself a Master, Dom, Domme, Mistress, sub, slave, boy or boi; that is up to that individual. In any relationship, how the individuals are labelled is then further defined in many cases. This can be Master/slave, Master/sub, Mistress/boi, Dom/sub, Domme/pet, or any number of variations. What is mostly important is what labels you and your s/o want to set for yourselves. As mentioned by several posters, there are certain labels they eithr hate or they are totally comfortable using.

Bobkgin -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/8/2007 4:44:22 AM)
To the audience at large: Since labels no longer have any meaning, beyond what is personally assigned to them, does that mean there's no such thing as a "wannabe" because no one chooses that label? No such thing as a "liar" or "fraud" because no one chooses those labels either and it is incorrect to apply a label to someone which they did not choose for themselves? If someone wants to self-identify as "doctor" or "rich" that's okay regardless of what they do or how much money they have, because they are free to label themselves as they wish and the 'community' encourages self-labelling? If a man self-labels himself as a "female" and answers the ads of straight men by claiming to be "female" that's cool with the 'community' that advocates self-labelling? I just want to be sure I understand this self-labelling concept clearly. [;)]

AquaticSub -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/8/2007 4:46:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EbonyPhoenix68 Why do some submissives have a Master and some Doms have a slave, when I was under the impression that the idea of a D/s or M/s relationship is that it is Dom/me and submissive or Master/Mistress and slave? To me, when some go against the "tradtional"grain of a D/s or M/s relationship, it leaves me scratching my head in terms of what I desire as a Dominant. Any thoughts on this? Because it isn't about what makes sense to you or even what is traditional. It is about what suits and works for the relationship in question.

kirii -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/8/2007 4:52:28 AM)
Bobkgin, I find your attitude interesting; especially since you have spent vast amounts of time trying to convince others that what you do, how you do it, and what you call what you do is right. Labels are simply that. Labels. Dictionaries list ‘different’ definitions for words; no definition is the same. They may follow the same general idea; but they are not the same. If a man chooses to call himself a woman; who has the right to challenge such a claim? You? Me? Everyone who decides that because they see a man, then he must be a man? If that is the case, then transvestites and cross dressers would have no identity in which to address themselves within the general scope. You claim that you are a dominant male. Who has the right to challenge that? I could sit here and argue semantics with you all day over that claim; it will not change what you choose to call yourself; nor will it change the fact that this is how you see yourself. Labels are good things; personalizing a label to suit yourself is even better as long as the person doing the personalization has a clear idea in their own head of what it means.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875