RE: Does your BDSM relationship have to include pain, discomfort and restraint in order to still be BDSM (Full Version)

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



Message

laurell3 -> RE: Does your BDSM relationship have to include pain, discomfort and restraint in order to still be BDSM (12/17/2007 7:42:14 PM)

Well while this article may appear to be somewhat limiting and saying one MUST do these things,  the words bondage, discipline, sadism, masochism...imply that these statements have some basis in fact.  If one is talking strictly about bdsm (keeping in mind that d/s and bdsm are not the same thing), I am somewhat hard pressed to think of activities that don't at least involve mental bondage or some type of discomfort within the BDSM realm. Although there are things that I no longer find "painful" that certainly fall within the realm of BDSM, I'm not sure pain that is translated to pleasure doesn't include the overall category of pain (if that makes sense).

I'm not sure the statement that every submissive has to be into these things is true as there are plenty of dynamics that are service based and incorporate d/s without bdsm type play.  BDSM alone doesn't define the term submission in my opinion.

For me personally, I can't imagine my relationships not incorporating all of those things so it's somewhat of a nobrainer.



YourhandMyAss -> RE: Does your BDSM relationship have to include pain, discomfort and restraint in order to still be BDSM (12/17/2007 7:43:06 PM)

opinions are like assholes, every one has one.No one person is qualified to speak for every one on earth about what bdsm is or isn't, and I think it's just pompous and postureing of the author to think he's qualified to speak about other people's relationships. that aside.

My relationship doesn't have bondage discomfort, or pain.


* well except mild pain from spankings and floggings*

BDSM typically stands for bondage domination sado masochisim, so if I went by that definition not entirely,, cause he's not a sadist, or into sadisim, and I don't like bondage.
He does dominate me however.


No. I do not think I need to be into any of the said a bove to be a submissive to him, nor to be who I am. I don't really care how we fit in, even if we don't, and we have kinks just not pain bondage* he's interested I am not* or discomfort.





quote:

ORIGINAL: LittleWench

I read an article on understanding submission by Peter Masters, the following is an excerpt.  The full document can be found at:-http://www.peter-masters.com/understanding_submission/undersub.html#whatmakes

quote:


A submissive gives her dominant control over her. This control extends to inflicting some form of pain, discomfort or restraint on her.
  1. BDSM activities all involve some form of pain, discomfort or restraint. If there is none then it's not BDSM.

. It is not the case that every submissive is "into" every form of pain, discomfort or restraint. It is that every submissive must be "into" at least one.
The two parts that I highlighted in red, are the parts that interest me most, the rest is included mostly for context.

 
Is there anyone who has a relationship that doesn't include pain, discomfort and restraint (either physical or psychological) that would still consider they have a BDSM relationship?  If so, why?
For submissives, do you agree that you must be into at least one form of pain, discomfort or restraint?  If not, how do you feel that your relationship fits into the BDSM circle of energies?
I am curious about the conundrum, it is said that kinky sex itself does not put a relationship into the BDSM category (indeed it is recognized that sex is not a necessary part of BDSM at all), yet to me it seems that a power exchange relationship without some form of kink is just an old fashioned vanilla relationship, the type my grandmother had.




LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Does your BDSM relationship have to include pain, discomfort and restraint in order to still be BDSM (12/17/2007 9:15:15 PM)

Well for me BDSM literally means Bondage (restraint of some sort there) Discipline (controlled behavior) Sadism (enjoying someone else in pain) Masochism (enjoying pain directly as pleasure)

So I'd say discipline at least does not HAVE to be restraining or painful, unless you want to say their behavior is restrained because they are showing good discipline.

This is also why I rarely use the term "bdsm" it's really limiting and doesn't begin to cover a fraction of stuff that goes on in the "kink" world.  So why waste so much time trying to prove what it must or must not involve? 



DesFIP -> RE: Does your BDSM relationship have to include pain, discomfort and restraint in order to still be (12/17/2007 9:22:07 PM)

Pain and discomfort are part of s & m. There are plenty of people who enjoy s & m who don't like power unequal relationships. Restraints come under the heading of bondage, there are a lot of people who enjoy bondage who don't go for power relationships.

For me pain and discomfort are unwanted. Restraints however are cheefully accepted. I'm a bondage bottom, he's a bondage top. We were friends, lovers and bondage playmates before I began submitting to him. The d/s was not something I was looking for or that he expected to find. We met because we were both looking for friends to have hot sex and bondage play with. Friends, sex and bondage was required, not the d/s.

The d/s came about from me learning about him over time, learning to trust him, seeing that he was capable and competent to make decisions and that he sought not just the rights but the responsibilities that came with such a position. He takes on responsibilities that I don't think he should have to burden himself with but I am grateful he does.



juliaoceania -> RE: Does your BDSM relationship have to include pain, discomfort and restraint in order to still be (12/17/2007 9:55:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

Well for me BDSM literally means Bondage (restraint of some sort there) Discipline (controlled behavior) Sadism (enjoying someone else in pain) Masochism (enjoying pain directly as pleasure)

So I'd say discipline at least does not HAVE to be restraining or painful, unless you want to say their behavior is restrained because they are showing good discipline.

This is also why I rarely use the term "bdsm" it's really limiting and doesn't begin to cover a fraction of stuff that goes on in the "kink" world.  So why waste so much time trying to prove what it must or must not involve? 


That was what I was thinking, discipline does not have to involve discomfort or restraint or pain



LittleWench -> RE: Does your BDSM relationship have to include pain, discomfort and restraint in order to still be (12/17/2007 10:16:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IrishMist

I am curious as to why you think sex has anything to do with power exchange?



I am not sure I can explain what I said in another way.  I did not say that sex has anything to do with a power exchange relationship, I specified either kinky sex or other BDSM activities that were non sexual (acknowledging that not everybody who is kinky believes it to be a sexual enterprise even though I do).  I did say that an example of a power exchange relationship, without kink, this relationship appears to be a plain vanilla marriage such as my grandma had, and wondered why such a relationship would be considered to be BDSM?  It seems like you are picking up and highlighting my use of the word sex, when I explained that I specifically meant kink.

Another example perhaps of a power exchange is a boss/employee relationship, which also does not pertain to kink (well usually!).  This is never thought to fall within the BDSM realm, even though at the juncture of creating the relationship the lines of power are clearly drawn.  So why is this not a BDSM relationship, yet a non kink marriage is?

My understanding of the BDSM title is that it encompasses Bondage, Discipline, Sadism, Masochism and Domination, Submission.  The D and S in there get a double workout... at least that is how I have read it explained in many different places.

I loved this quote, it was so cute [:D]

quote:

My relationship doesn't have bondage discomfort, or pain.

* well except mild pain from spankings and floggings*


Mild pain is still pain.  [:)]

This question is in part sparked by reading the passage I quoted, and also from reading hundreds of posts over the years.  Many people say they do not incorporate pain, punishment, restraint, humiliation and lots of other factors into their relationship, yet they still hold that their relationship falls within the parameters of BDSM.  So what are the parameters of BDSM?  The original passage I quoted seemed to be a great way to explore that and get input on the subject from others.





TMaster2 -> RE: Does your BDSM relationship have to include pain, discomfort and restraint in order to still be (12/18/2007 5:58:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IrishMist

Her statement was as follows
quote:

   I am curious about the conundrum, it is said that kinky sex itself does not put a relationship into the BDSM category (indeed it is recognized that sex is not a necessary part of BDSM at all), yet to me it seems that a power exchange relationship without some form of kink <no sex mentioned here, just kink> is just an old fashioned vanilla relationship, the type my grandmother had.

I never really thought she said what you questioned in the first place, but I based my reply on your question, nonetheless.

And it is not "[My] opinon that sex is all about power exchange" but rather that a true power exchange will also involve sex, to some degree.






RCdc -> RE: Does your BDSM relationship have to include pain, discomfort and restraint in order to still be BDSM (12/18/2007 6:18:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LittleWench

The two parts that I highlighted in red, are the parts that interest me most, the rest is included mostly for context.
Is there anyone who has a relationship that doesn't include pain, discomfort and restraint (either physical or psychological) that would still consider they have a BDSM relationship?  If so, why?


I simply have a relaionship where I am submissive.  BDSM is what I do within that relationship.

quote:

For submissives, do you agree that you must be into at least one form of pain, discomfort or restraint?  If not, how do you feel that your relationship fits into the BDSM circle of energies?

No I do not agree at all.  Submission is state.  BDSM is an action.  You can be submissive without BDSM involvement.  There are many submissive who are sadists and who are not masochists either and although that has a form of pain, it is in giving and not receiving.  I happen to be both and BDSM is part of my relationship, but it's not like that for everyone. Discipline isn't an act of pain or discomfort necessarily.

quote:

I am curious about the conundrum, it is said that kinky sex itself does not put a relationship into the BDSM category (indeed it is recognized that sex is not a necessary part of BDSM at all), yet to me it seems that a power exchange relationship without some form of kink is just an old fashioned vanilla relationship, the type my grandmother had.

Submission and domination is some you do and indeed are - BDSM is action and practise.  You can have one or all four in the Ds relationship - or indeed none of them.  I simply see a relationship and not some qualifying markers that make it anything but a relationship.  It's life.
 
the.dark.
(.edtcozmyboxesuck.)



hardbodysub -> RE: Does your BDSM relationship have to include pain, discomfort and restraint in order to still be (12/18/2007 7:33:38 AM)

My only comment at this point is that most of the people who say they disagree with the author are not disagreeing with anything he actually wrote. They have twisted his words around in some way, to make it seem as though he said something he didn't, and then they disagree with that.



YourhandMyAss -> RE: Does your BDSM relationship have to include pain, discomfort and restraint in order to still be (12/18/2007 12:11:57 PM)

Yup, it is, but it's not severe or unpleasent, unless I hit space dureing  then I sometimes do ask for the hits to be harder stingier thuddier more severe. to me when I think of pain I think of the more extream things.

Perhaps some people lable it bdsm cause they don't know any other lable to use? I do say bdsm sometimes when talking to others, even though we do not do bondage or sadisim.
quote:

ORIGINAL: LittleWench

quote:

My relationship doesn't have bondage discomfort, or pain.

* well except mild pain from spankings and floggings*


Mild pain is still pain.  [:)]






adoracat -> RE: Does your BDSM relationship have to include pain, discomfort and restraint in order to still be (12/18/2007 12:29:43 PM)

i'm in a submissive relationship to my husband.  he is vanilla.  i wouldnt call that BDSM at all.  [:)]

i'm Daddy's slave.  period.  there are times when our visits are fairly vanilla in retrospect...that doesnt make me any less his slave. 

i dont really think it matters what labels are on the relationships, except if it makes it easier to  know where you are in it.

kitten



Peridot -> RE: Does your BDSM relationship have to include pain, discomfort and restraint in order to still be (12/18/2007 2:28:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LittleWench

I think the crux of his argument is that without some form of "displeasure or discomfort" that it can't be considered submission, just as without some form of domination it can't be considered submission... and if your dom is asking you to do things that you only enjoy doing, is that then just symbiotic kink, or is it BDSM?



I agree that full submission includes things that the submissive does not enjoy.

I'd like to quote another CM member: "blah blah blah"  I hope they don't mind.








MasterFireMaam -> RE: Does your BDSM relationship have to include pain, discomfort and restraint in order to still be (12/18/2007 2:42:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterFireMaam

I disagree on the principle that I distinguish between a bottom, a submissive and s slave. Why? Because Masters can bottom and slave can Top. I also disagree that the transfer of authority has to incude BDSM. I know a few Ms couples who aren't BDSM.

Master Fire



Could you say then that a relationship with a "pussy whipped" husband is a BDSM relationship, even though neither party does anything kinky?  Is the the femdom and he's the submissive then?

Akasha



No. If it doesn't contain BDSM, it's not BDSM. I'd call that kind of relationship a Ds one (I consider BDSM to be physical even though, technically, it contains Ds)...but not necessarily healthy if it's done without consent and proper intent.

Master Fire




MasterFireMaam -> RE: Does your BDSM relationship have to include pain, discomfort and restraint in order to still be (12/18/2007 2:54:37 PM)

Yeah, but the Top from the bottom. ;-)

Master Fire



CuriousLord -> RE: Does your BDSM relationship have to include pain, discomfort and restraint in order to still be BDSM (12/18/2007 2:56:42 PM)

My relationship's M/s.  There's no sadomasochism and very little bondange involved (the extent to which is not at all unusual in the vanilla world).

This said, is it BDSM?  I don't think so.  But, meh, BDSM has M/s in it, as part of it, so I still share things in common with some members of this community.



BondageSlaveMN -> RE: Does your BDSM relationship have to include pain, discomfort and restraint in order to still be (12/18/2007 3:03:10 PM)

This is one of those debates that can be settle only if everyone is looking at the problem from the same angle. I could make an equally convincing argument for both sides and will attempt to do so now:

BDSM necessitates at least some degree of pain, discomfort or restraint. The obvious example includes those of inflicting and receiving physical pain (as in sado-masochism); placing or being placed into physical discomfort (as in bondage); and restraining or being restrained physically (again with bondage). Discipline is the key to the main premise of this argument. If the dominant places psychological controls in place to alter the behavior of the submissive, then one could say the submissive has been restained. This form of restraint does not include the traditional idea of what restraint, pain and discomfort are.

The counter-argument is equally as convincing. If we are to assume that placing a psychological control on a subject is a form of BDSM, then we must assume that all relationships of every varying degree of intimacy are classified as BDSM relationships. This can be seen in a simple workplace environment. If the worker displeases their boss, there will be consequences to pay, namely that the boss will look unfavorably upon the worker. This psychological control will alter the workers' behavior and is thus a true form of control. Most employees would probably prefer to sit in their cube and fool around all day, or better yet, not even come to work in the first place. These employees are restrained in the sense that they cannot do what they prefer. Take a vanilla relationship into consideration where there is no presumption of a power framework; that is no one is boss and no one is employee. If one partner wishes to spend money on one thing and the other does not, there exists a disparity between desires. If the first partner spends the money regardless of the other's wishes, the first partner will then suffer the anger of the second. As such, the first partner may decide to save the money instead even though they would rather spend it. This, is again, an example of control being exerted. So then we must conclude that either all relationships are BDSM or none are.

I personally subscribe to the first line of thought in the following manner. A BDSM relationship is one in which the control (pain, discomfort or restraint) is emphasized. In a normal vanilla relationship, consequences may be considered when making decisions, but they are not the focus of the relationship. This may seem a dismal perspective to take, but it is in fact not. It is simply another angle at which we can view the problem.

Edited for typo



DesFIP -> RE: Does your BDSM relationship have to include pain, discomfort and restraint in order to still be (12/18/2007 4:04:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LittleWench

and if your dom is asking you to do things that you only enjoy doing, is that then just symbiotic kink, or is it BDSM?



Actually, I would define that as a relationship with an unusually high degree of compatibility.



YourhandMyAss -> RE: Does your BDSM relationship have to include pain, discomfort and restraint in order to still be (12/19/2007 9:49:29 PM)

What id you don't do dominance slave, or Dominance submission,as D/s typically means either? I guess you could just dispence with lables and say we're kinky plain and simple?* grins



juliaoceania -> RE: Does your BDSM relationship have to include pain, discomfort and restraint in order to still be (12/19/2007 9:58:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hardbodysub

My only comment at this point is that most of the people who say they disagree with the author are not disagreeing with anything he actually wrote. They have twisted his words around in some way, to make it seem as though he said something he didn't, and then they disagree with that.


I did not see that, perhaps you care to elaborate?



MystressDream -> RE: Does your BDSM relationship have to include pain, discomfort and restraint in order to still be BDSM (12/20/2007 12:24:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

My relationship's M/s.  There's no sadomasochism and very little bondange involved (the extent to which is not at all unusual in the vanilla world).

This said, is it BDSM?  I don't think so.  But, meh, BDSM has M/s in it, as part of it, so I still share things in common with some members of this community.


It amazes me over the years how people have struggled over defining who they are and what they do.  I agree with general lables, per se, when you first start talking to a potential partner, as it helps to know which way the rest of the conversation will go, but, if I am talking to someone, it doesn't take long to figure out where they are within all of this.  One or two questions is all it takes.
 
FOR ME... I have always believed something similar to what LA has said...unless I have misunderstood her.
 
BDSM... bondage/discipline/sadism/masochism
 
It wasn't until much later that some decided to lump D/s into there just because the two letters also show up in the BDSM acronym. 
 
FOR ME... D/s is completely seperate.  D/s and M/s are who and what we are.  BDSM is activities some of us enjoy.  Simple as that.
 
As far as the comments about "isn't D/s without BDSM just a vanilla relationship?", well, kind of.  Think of the 50's lifestyle that many refer to.  Technically, my parents had the classic D/s relationship.  Dad ruled the house, supported the family, it was a patriarchal household.  Mom waited on him, took care of the home, and made sure all of his needs were met.  What Dad said, was the way it was.  No arguing.  Were they D/s?  As I have said, technically, yes.  But, no hint of BDSM existed.
 
As Master Fire has stated...... in a D/s or M/s relationship, the sadist and/or masochist can wear either power exchange lable or both.
 
I think the mass confusion comes in when people try to lump D/s into the BDSM acronym... thus, refer to everyone in this lifestyle as being in a BDSM lifestyle when, in fact, that may not be true.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125