RE: Equality, Peace, Matriarchy and BDSM

RE: Equality, Peace, Matriarchy and BDSM (Full Version)

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

Message

RCdc -> RE: Equality, Peace, Matriarchy and BDSM (2/29/2008 4:31:34 PM)
It's great to discuss things, but if someone asks for clarification, it helps to clarify or answer a question directed to you? So I will ask again - what is peace to you - the ultimate goal? the.dark.

ownedgirlie -> RE: Equality, Peace, Matriarchy and BDSM (2/29/2008 4:42:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessGlory Ownedgirlie, that wasn't meant to be an insult, sorry you took it that way. I read it again, and don't see how it could have been taken as that. Again, my apologies No worries. "Can't" implies an inability and in the written context can be misinterpreted. I appreciate that your intentions were good. quote: This is a forum, I just wanted to know how you felt about subjects like these. Folk fight for "equality" everyday, are they fighting for something that doesn't exist? People are concerned about the possibility of peace all the time, are they concerned for nothing? I just wanted to know where that fit in with the BDSM community. I'm not looking for right answers, I not trying to prove anything, I just want people to think, chat it up, tell me what they think, learn and grow. Yes, they are fighting for something that doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean it is wrong to do so. I strive for perfection, while knowing and understanding that I will never reach it. But if we don't aim for excellence, then what? We accept mediocrity? And in many cases where inequality prevails, so does human injustice, and it is my belief that the overall goal in the fight for equality is the fight for humane and just treatment. The BDSM "community" (which in itself is an arguable concept!) is often misunderstood by those who do not engage in such a practice. A friend of mine, upon hearing some of the things I do for my owner, gasped and said, "You just set women back 100 years." What she does not understand is that I am practicing my right to submit to another. This country affords us equal human rights (or such is the concept). I have great appreciation for those rights, yet I waive my desire to practice them while in the ownership of my Master.

GoddessGlory -> RE: Equality, Peace, Matriarchy and BDSM (2/29/2008 5:32:52 PM)
Peace isn't the ultimate goal to me, because after we achieve peace we are still going to have to work at it. Peace doesn't mean the end, or humans living a boring lives, doesn't mean that hierarchy shouldn't/won't exist, doesn't mean that evil and violence will cease. It just means that we will have to physically work hard to respect each other, animals in the enviroment. It has to be collective practice, a lifestyle and a belief. We simply don't have peace because we don't believe in it. We don't believe in it because many of us has never experienced it... I don't know. I think D/s is a gem in society. We have a group of people who have learned to play with with power and control in a loving and consensual way. D/s allows submissive people to be submissive and dominant people to be dominant without societial imposed roles. D/s and BDSM is a way that people can experience pain and humiliation without hate and violence. If all of humanity would take on some D/s practices I think we will definitely come closer to peace on earth. But the problem with that is, don't take this the wrong way, but I a lot of people in the scene don't want to share BDSM with the outerworld because they feel it is thier lifestyle and believe that vanilla people aren't worthy, won't understand it, will abuse it or exploit it. Or folks want to make it out to be some sort of counterculture but in actuality s/m, D/s, kink and fetishism belongs to all humans. I think that there is an untapped power in D/s that can "save the world". I know, I may be a dreamer, a little naive but that's what I feel. I just want yalls views to help me sort it all out.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Equality, Peace, Matriarchy and BDSM (2/29/2008 7:14:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessGlory We have a group of people who have learned to play with with power and control in a loving and consensual way. Define this "we" I can point out at least a hundred examples in the past six months on this board alone where this is clearly NOT the case. quote: D/s allows submissive people to be submissive and dominant people to be dominant without societial imposed roles. Ummm and vanilla allows vanilla people to be vanilla. quote: D/s and BDSM is a way that people can experience pain and humiliation without hate and violence. For people who are into it. Many are not- even if they are kinky. quote: If all of humanity would take on some D/s practices I think we will definitely come closer to peace on earth. Isn't that you enforcing societal norms on everyone then? quote: But the problem with that is, don't take this the wrong way, but I a lot of people in the scene don't want to share BDSM with the outerworld because they feel it is thier lifestyle and believe that vanilla people aren't worthy, won't understand it, will abuse it or exploit it. Or folks want to make it out to be some sort of counterculture but in actuality s/m, D/s, kink and fetishism belongs to all humans. Or that Ds really is an orientation and not a universal one? What about switches? Are we allowed? Why would my vanilla sister need Ds to make her happy? How would that help save her life and relationship? Nothing to do with me thinking I'm too cool to share- simply the realization that she IS vanilla and forcing her to adapt particular relationship dynamics would be wrong, just as it would be for her to force her dynamics on me. quote: I think that there is an untapped power in D/s that can "save the world". I know, I may be a dreamer, a little naive but that's what I feel. I just want yalls views to help me sort it all out. You basically believe that Ds is cooler than non-Ds. The only difference is you want to bestow your great wisdom on the unwashed masses and you think most others want to keep it for themselves. What about Ds being just another type of relationship and that everyone has to and should have the right to find their own way?

AtlantisKing111 -> RE: Equality, Peace, Matriarchy and BDSM (2/29/2008 11:23:06 PM)
quote: Do you believe in peace is a possibility for humanity, the absence of war, poverty, racism, major violence and discrimination? If by peace you mean "the absence of war", no. Dictators and Warlords who exercise brutal control over their citizens have always existed and will always exist, and those Leaders who want to secure freedom for their citizens will always oppose the dictators and Warlords. If by peace you mean "no crime" then no. Crime has always existed and always will. Poverty will always exist because some people make bad choices, either knowingly or unknowingly. Even if everyone were given 1 million dollars, and inflation could be offset to make the money actually still worth the same, some would use it wisely and remain millionaires and some would use it foolishly and end up in the poor house. A certain level of racism will always be with us, though I think the majority of it can be eradicated. As for discrimination, I assume you mean things like racism. See the previous line for my answer on that. If by discrimination you mean "I don't want a child molester living within 1000 feet of a school" or "I don't someone who is NOT a member of my political party elected President" then I'd say yes, such feelings will always exist. quote: If so, what place do you believe BDSM have in possibility of world peace? Will BDSM be the same? (I ask this because a lot of fetishes and BDSM practices come from social taboo and roles. I believe if we lived in a more peaceful state most taboo ideas and imposed social roles will deminish therefore so-called fetishes won't have to be "fetishes" but normal sexual behavior based on your sexual development and taste. And our collective ideas of degradation, humiliation and punishment would probably change too.) World Peace is not possible. Moot question. To achieve world peace you would have to rid humanity of greed, ego, selfishness and the competitive spirit. Not going to happen. quote: Do you believe that humanity is a patriarchal? Usually, yes. These days, perhaps. If by patriarchal you mean "prefer men to be their elected leaders" then yes. With the majority of elected leaders being men, I'd say the evidence speaks for itself. If you mean "prefer the man as the head of the household" then it's not so clearcut. First world nations tend to subscribe to some notions of either gender equity or feminism and thus have internal struggles regarding the appropriate mixture of matriarchy/nuetrality/patriarchy, while second and third world nations subscribe to more patriarchal structures. quote: If so, do you think there will ever be a time when humans will become "matriarchal" or maybe a more equaliterian society? No. Men have been the majority of rulers for all of human history and will continue to do so. quote: Do you believe in equality? If by that you mean "should a woman receive equal pay for equal work" then yes, provided she goes after raises as vigorously as men do. One of the big eye openers for me was when I expressed my perplexity of male/female pay inequity to a female boss I had. If all positions are advertized at so-and-so dollars a year, I said, regardless of the gender that applies why is there a gender gap pay-wise. She clued me in; women in general (there are exceptions) do not fight for pay raises as strenuously as men. Thus OVER THE COURSE OF A CAREER, women fall behind men. There are other considerations too but that is a big one. quote: Do you believe in natural sexual superiority? If so explain why. Sort of. Men are in general superior to women at doing the things that men are designed to do, and women are in general superior to men at doing the things that women are designed to do. Each gender has it's own sphere that it excels in. However some people cross over to the other side at times. quote: Does dominant mean superior? No. Dominant is not superior to submissive. It's just different. quote: What is superiority? And what makes a person superior? Superiority is the state of being better able to accomplish a goal or goals. A polished diamond is better pleasing to the eye than one just pulled from the ground for instance. However one just pulled from the ground is better at being used to teach students the art of gem working. So superiority can fluctuate depending on the intended goal. A person is superior if they are better at doing something than another. quote: Is the Queen bee in bee society superior, more important, better than, smarter than any other bees in the society? Are male lions superior to female lions? Are alpha wolves superior to other wolves? Are bonobo females superior to male bonobos? (I believe that there is no such things as "superiority" in the animal kingdom. I believe that each species live the best life it can for the greater good of the whole ecosystem, not only the species. Just because a strong animal is able to overbear or kill another doesn't mean it has superior or it has won). I don't believe any gender is superior to the other in any animal species. Each has it's natural role. Also, I don't believe species live for the greater good of the ecosystem. They are not sentient enough for that. Most animals live only for themselves. In many species they live for their own biological family. In a few species they live for their pack members or colony members or symbiotes. But none live for the entire ecosystem. If one animal kills another then by definition it has won the hunter/prey game and has proven to be superior. quote: What's the different between a dominant person and a non-submissive person? Very little. Like the difference between positive numbers, zero and negative numbers. A non-submissive person can either be dominant or neutral. A dominant person can only be dominant. quote: Does there have to be degradation, humiliation and physical "abuse" in order for a person to dominate a slave (I'm thinking in terms of lets say American slavery and tactics that slave owners use to mentally enslave African slaves. Like rape, name calling, restrictions and whippings. What's the healthy difference between that and consensual slavery other than "abuse")? An interesting question. To Dominate means to impose ones' will on another. Imposition means preventing one from doing something they wish to do. If the dominated party ALWAYS submits right away then yes it is possible. In an ideal world. But in the real world ... hehehe. Some elements of degredation, humiliation or physical "abuse" will always exist. quote: What makes a dominant person dominant over another? Various reasons. The question is too vague to answer. quote: Does there have to be a subject to give power for a person to be dominant? It takes two (at least) to tango. You can't dominate your hammer or your book. quote: Do you agree that some BDSM is based off of societial sexual guilt? If so, why should BDSM players encourage the guilt through play? Shouldn't we be combating guilt and taboo? For example, why should a female slave who loves to fuck and suck be called a slut just because society brands a woman who likes to fuck and suck a slut? Or why should men with small penises be made to feel worthless because of their small penises by a dominant woman through play? Is it healthy just because it is "consensual" and the slave likes it? No I don't believe that BDSM is based off of societal guilt. quote: Do you ever think BDSM practices will be of the norm and not just a dark art or alternative lifestyle? No. quote: Do you think the rest of humanity would ever catch on to power play, power exchange, role reversal, consensual pain infliction and humilaition, practical slave owning, polyamorous relationships and so on? No. quote: Do you feel that the BDSM community should have the responsibility of sharing what we know about power, control and sex with the rest of the world or should we keep the fun to ourselves? Yes we should share it.

RCdc -> RE: Equality, Peace, Matriarchy and BDSM (3/1/2008 2:41:00 AM)
For peace to exists, you need war. You cannot have one without the other. Everything has it's equal opposite. That is how humanity evolves. Without both, there would be emptiness and a failiure for the need to strive. That is what makes humanity such a powerful force - when complacency occurs then you lose. Try to get it out of your head that BDSM is a gem or anything special in society. By doing that, you are creating a power dynamic that in reality doesn't exist and if it did, would be no differenct than what we have now. There is no utopia and nor should their be for it would exclude so many objects, people, places. It would deny freedom. To state people know how to 'play' with power and control in all the ways you stated is so wrongwrongwrong. Consent does not really exist, for one thing. It is a concept - a safety net - and a lie. Play? I don't play at authority control. I live it. Some people crave hate and violence - and if you are so loved up on consent - then surely they should be allowed to experience it? Otherwise you are forcing your ideals on others. Isn't that what you are wanting to avoid? And yes BDSM and kink does belong to everyone - but there are different levels and to achieve utopia all levels would be equal. So that kind of messes with the whole freedom of kink related activites. What you call a dream, would be anothers nightmare. There is no one true way. When you understand that, you can then understand why peace would be such a catastrophe. the.dark.

ownedgirlie -> RE: Equality, Peace, Matriarchy and BDSM (3/1/2008 2:57:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark Consent does not really exist, for one thing. It is a concept - a safety net - and a lie. Loved what you said, .dark. The concept of equal opposites is a fundamental belief of Taoism and one that attracted me to their philosophies. But I've seen you make the above comment about consent before and I don't understand it. Can you explain why you believe this? I'm quite interested.

RCdc -> RE: Equality, Peace, Matriarchy and BDSM (3/1/2008 5:55:09 AM)
I will try, OG. The thing I find with BDSM is that people try to defend it over and over - want to make it acceptable to everyone (in a sense, this op is a classic example of trying to do that - of thinking BDSM is better/brighter/more informed) - and want to deny that some people enjoy being hurt and enjoy being abused. And it is a fundemental flaw in any relationship. BDSM doesn't need defending - it stands on it own - but some people seem to think it is necessary to define boundaries for everyone in BDSM relationships - which should and can only be defined by the couple, or people, that exist within that relationship. So you get mantras and labels designed to defend ie - SSC - no abuse - consensual non consent - doormats - SAMs - and the good old topping from the bottom(TFTB). The list goes on. But the one single thing that stands out from all those scenarios is consent. The whole thing always comes down to consent and when someone asks 'is this right' - the first sentance often shouted is, if it's consensual. But not one damn relationship in this world occurs with total consent. There is always someone - somewhere - effected by other peoples relationships - whether that is children, parents, by-standers, neighbours, your best friend, your boss, your employees - everyone is touched by your relationships whether they consent to it or not. The relationship you have on your own and by yourself isn;t entirely 'consensual' so how can anyone make BDSM sound as if it is? Consent is oxymoronic. So when you walk down the road, wearing your consensual collar and people see it and they may not want to? - That is non consent. When you walk down the road and see two average people arguing and you don;t want to see that - that is also non consent. But people use the word consent and say - BDSM is ok because consent exists to protect themselves and the belief they hold. It helps keep out those that might be seen as 'abusive' - but why are they so damn bothered about other people and what they think. We - in BDSM circles - abuse each others and love it. Just because someone sees it as wrong, or because it breaks the law of a state or country doesn't mean it is wrong. We get people labelling themselves, we get mantras we get name calling and derogotory terms like 'vanilla' or 'doormat' because people are trying desperately to be different - yet acceptable(and if your not seen as a doormat - it's apparently cool), but at the same time, they want to conform and live a 'lifestyle' - be part of a 'community'. Consent is used when people are worried what other people think - it's an excuse and a lie and it is detrimental to BDSM. Hey my opinion - ya asked[;)] the.dark.

Padriag -> RE: Equality, Peace, Matriarchy and BDSM (3/1/2008 8:36:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessGlory Do you believe in peace is a possibility for humanity, the absence of war, poverty, racism, major violence and discrimination? No on all counts. These things are a function of life. quote: If so, what place do you believe BDSM have in possibility of world peace? Will BDSM be the same? None... BDSM is a catchall term for a variety of fetishes, kinks and styles of life practiced by a diverse and loosely associated group of individualist who frequently can't agree on even the most basic of labels or terms. Given that, I can just imagine some sort of world congress comprised of kinksters... you think the world is bad now... quote: (I ask this because a lot of fetishes and BDSM practices come from social taboo and roles. I believe if we lived in a more peaceful state most taboo ideas and imposed social roles will deminish therefore so-called fetishes won't have to be "fetishes" but normal sexual behavior based on your sexual development and taste. And our collective ideas of degradation, humiliation and punishment would probably change too.) So long as there are communities, societies and civilizations these groups will impose ideals, laws, taboos, etc. on their individual members... thus there will always be some form of social taboos, and those who contend against them. You'd merely be trading one set of taboos for another. quote: Do you believe that humanity is a patriarchal? If so, do you think there will ever be a time when humans will become "matriarchal" or maybe a more equaliterian society? Various civilizations throughout history have been either patriachal or matriachal. It seems likely this will continue in the future. I do not believe either is particularly innate though history demonstrates a clear tendency towards patriachal societies rather than matriachal ones. quote: Do you believe in equality? What sort of equality? Absolute equality... as in "that all men are created equal"? No, absolutely not. Equality before the law? As in individuals are treated equally in matters of the law regardless of social station, wealth, etc.? I believe in the ideal, I'm also very aware the reality is much different. To be absolutely equal we would all have to be the same in all regards, identical... that would be terribly boring and frankly I would not care for a world where all of you were just like me... I rather like being the only me there is. quote: Do you believe in natural sexual superiority? If so explain why. No. quote: Does dominant mean superior? No. Beind dominant means having the drive and the ability to exert your will over that of others. Should Dominant's be superior (note the proper noun)? I think its something Dominants should strive for, but am pragmatic enough to realize many do not and will not. quote: What is superiority? And what makes a person superior? Depends on the context. For example, if we ask what makes a superior athelete we could accurately say ability, talent, skill. If we said a particular type of athelete, we could define that even more narrowly. But these abilities would not make that athelete a superior musician or entrepreneur or father or mother or historian or doctor. Then there are other forms of superiority. I own a company, I'm everyone's boss... I'm their "superior"... why, because I sign their paychecks... I have superior authority to anyone else who works for me. But am I a superior boss? Good question, that depends on how I compare to other bosses, am I good leader, am I very fair, do I manage things well? We could ponder other forms of superiority as well. So what makes someone superior... frequently ability, at least in western culture, other cultures consider other values. What makes someone a superior person in the broadest possible sense... by generally being superior to others in most ways. More ability, more skill, more talent, more intelligence, etc. So someone who was very intelligent, skilled, talented, educated, atheletic, etc. could be argued to be a superior human being. quote: Is the Queen bee in bee society superior, more important, better than, smarter than any other bees in the society? Insect societies are a poor comparison for the question. The queen bee is more necessary, the colony cannot survive without her, she can survive without the colony... in that one regard we could consider her superior. quote: Are male lions superior to female lions? In what context. quote: Are alpha wolves superior to other wolves? Yes, we could make a case that they are, because they achieve that dominant role through ability. Not every wolf has what it takes to be an alpha, so those that do are in that regard superior. We could say they are even generally superior since it takes a combination of qualities for an alpha wolf to achieve this. quote: (I believe that there is no such things as "superiority" in the animal kingdom. I believe that each species live the best life it can for the greater good of the whole ecosystem, not only the species. Just because a strong animal is able to overbear or kill another doesn't mean it has superior or it has won). I disagree... animals have no conscious desire to "live for the greater good of the whole ecosystem". Given that, for example, a troop of elephants will happily wreck a portion of the ecosystem for their own benefit.. and this is just one example... demonstrates that our own ability to exploit the environment to our own benefit and the detriment of others is not a unique ability... all species are capable of it. I'm always amused by how people sometimes romanticize Nature as being this embodiement of harmony and various other "positive" qualities. Nature is not harmonious, its brutal, violent, unfair, competitive, sometimes beautiful, sometimes ugly, sometimes wonderous, sometimes terrible, always changing, striving, evolving. So far as killing another animal, I'd say that's a very good definition of winning... afterall, the dead can lay claim to nothing... sometimes not even their own graves. Differ with that if you choose... but consider this. If I kill you and take all that you now have... you will have no voice to say I did not win, it will be I who determines who won and what history will say about it. After all, to the victor go the spoils. quote: What's the different between a dominant person and a non-submissive person? In what context? quote: Does there have to be degradation, humiliation and physical "abuse" in order for a person to dominate a slave (I'm thinking in terms of lets say American slavery and tactics that slave owners use to mentally enslave African slaves. Like rape, name calling, restrictions and whippings. What's the healthy difference between that and consensual slavery other than "abuse")? No... dominating another person merely requires exerting your will over theirs. That can be done through charm, manipulation, leadership, fear, inspiration, humiliation, or even love. Of course some people want to be humiliated, degraded, and physically abused... to each their own. quote: What makes a dominant person dominant over another? Does there have to be a subject to give power for a person to be dominant? Dominance and submission are social constructs... they exist as descriptions of how two or more people relate to each other socially. So yes, for someone to be dominant over another, there must necessarily be that other. However, this is not to say someone is, as a personality trait, dominant or submissive. Such a trait describes a quality intrinsic to that individual... that trait remains there, though perhaps unexpressed, whether they are in a social group or not. quote: Do you agree that some BDSM is based off of societial sexual guilt? In some cases, but certainly not all. quote: If so, why should BDSM players encourage the guilt through play? And you believe everyone does? quote: Shouldn't we be combating guilt and taboo? Why, some people enjoy their taboos. quote: For example, why should a female slave who loves to fuck and suck be called a slut just because society brands a woman who likes to fuck and suck a slut? Possibly because she enjoys it. quote: Or why should men with small penises be made to feel worthless because of their small penises by a dominant woman through play? Is it healthy just because it is "consensual" and the slave likes it? Why not? quote: Do you ever think BDSM practices will be of the norm and not just a dark art or alternative lifestyle? I think it is unlikely it will be the norm in our lifetimes. I think it would be curious to see a western civilization that embraces the notion of absolute equality (as most do), try to reconcile that with the ideas of deliberate inequalties found in some forms of BDSM. Watching some struggle with it within these forums is both illuminating and fascinating. quote: Do you think the rest of humanity would ever catch on to power play, power exchange, role reversal, consensual pain infliction and humilaition, practical slave owning, polyamorous relationships and so on? Oh I'd say humanity has been indulging in power play, role reversal, inflicting pain and humiliation for the length of its existence. As for the rest, well, we can always hope for a third Roman Empire... [8D] quote: Do you feel that the BDSM community should have the responsibility of sharing what we know about power, control and sex with the rest of the world or should we keep the fun to ourselves? No... knowledge should be earned by those capable of acquiring it on their own. Besides which, I am most certainly not responsible for the rest of the world.

GoddessGlory -> RE: Equality, Peace, Matriarchy and BDSM (3/1/2008 8:44:05 AM)
Hey everybody who has or will reply, thank you. I really appreciate it.

ownedgirlie -> RE: Equality, Peace, Matriarchy and BDSM (3/1/2008 9:01:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark Consent is used when people are worried what other people think - it's an excuse and a lie and it is detrimental to BDSM. Hey my opinion - ya asked[;)] the.dark. Really GLAD for your opinion and glad I asked. And I appreciate that you took the time to write it; thank you. Would you say then, that when "consent" is said, it is implied that it means "consent among the individuals within the relationship?" What do you make of the word when used by those who aren't worried by what other people think?

RCdc -> RE: Equality, Peace, Matriarchy and BDSM (3/1/2008 9:20:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie Really GLAD for your opinion and glad I asked. And I appreciate that you took the time to write it; thank you. Your welcome! quote: Would you say then, that when "consent" is said, it is implied that it means "consent among the individuals within the relationship?" I don't honestly know. It might be that is what people mean when they say that, but then I believe they are responsible for making that clear. Using such a broad a general word, is confusing and misleading - use a word that is more appropriate. quote: What do you make of the word when used by those who aren't worried by what other people think? I haven't ever see the word used by people in the context of individual relationships when they aren't worried by others. I see them say mutual consent or define who is consenting, but when people use the word 'consent' in a broad usage its used by people who 'live the lifestyle' - 'belong to the BDSM Community' - accuse people of 'topping from below' - often profess that submission is a 'selfless' action - and think all doormats are unhappy and would never want to be associated with that word - see a difference between BDSMers and 'vanillas' and LOVE using that word - think that a BDSM relationship is much deeper/intense/better communication than any other and use the word 'abuse' like its a bad thing. the.dark.

GoddessGlory -> RE: Equality, Peace, Matriarchy and BDSM (3/1/2008 9:25:58 AM)
quote: LuckyAlbatross Hi Lucky Albatross, I don't believe that every household needs to be a D/s houshold. Not at all. Just like everyone can't be made monogamous or straight. That's not what I am saying. And you are wrong to say I believe D/s is better than vanilla, because I don't. I believe in sexual liberation, that every person should be able to have any sexual or romantic relationship they desire, even asexuality and celibacy. I feel the fact that D/s and BDSM are considered "alternative" is a apart of societial sexual repression. (I'm not saying that Ds folk are the reason either) All I'm saying is why does bondage, spanking, piss drinking, foot worship and so on viewed as kinky, weird or taboo? Why do people have to hide their kink? Or have go to special clubs to do it? Or why some don't/can't share it with their partners? Or cheat on their partners? I know everyone doesn;t do this, but many folk do. Because we are told we aren't supposed to. MY opinion is that there doesn't have to be an us and them. The scene and vanilla, but treat every sexual act as a natural sexual expression. As for me saying D/s allows submissive people to be submissive without imposed roles, I was speaking in the terms thatin society many view submissives as weak and worthless. And I'm talking non D/s submissive and dominant folk (eg religious folk or government). I feel that submissives in any situation should be able to say, "hay I need your influence, your insight and control" without the fear that a superior or dominant person taking advantage or abusing them. The same for the dominants. What if it was normal for dominant people to be able to take control without believing in order for them to be in control they have to humiliate, be abusive, hateful and manipulative? I just think D/s can be a lesson to society on how to positivity use self power and influence for good instead of exploitation and abuse. That's all I'm saying. It's not about trying to enforce societial norms, its about expressing all possibilities in the open and allowing people to make decisions for themselves. Many people don't practice or do certain things simply because they are oppressed and repressed, or just don't know. I don't want everyone to be me, think like me and do what I do. I believe in a world of individual free thinkers, and if you don't want to think for yourself, you should be able to openly and willingly give yourself to someone you trust, who loves and respects you. Not posion you, abuse you, ultimately try to kill you, basically how the American government does to the American people. I feel that many Americans are submissive slaves, some know it, some do not. I feel if more folks were open to the idea of healthy submission and dominance then people can be able to experience spiritual freedom. I don't know. Just how I feel. The gibberish in my mind. And I'm very aware there are people who don't fit snuggly in the ideas of dominant or submissive.

ownedgirlie -> RE: Equality, Peace, Matriarchy and BDSM (3/1/2008 9:35:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark I don't honestly know. It might be that is what people mean when they say that, but then I believe they are responsible for making that clear. Using such a broad a general word, is confusing and misleading - use a word that is more appropriate. I think it's a case of the phrase being used so much it's abbreviated to just one word - "consent". It's like calling someone "a submissive" rather than "someone who submits to another" or "a submissive person". I think we end up talking in short-hand (we as a generality). quote: I haven't ever see the word used by people in the context of individual relationships when they aren't worried by others. I see them say mutual consent or define who is consenting, but when people use the word 'consent' in a broad usage its used by people who 'live the lifestyle' - 'belong to the BDSM Community' - accuse people of 'topping from below' - often profess that submission is a 'selfless' action - and think all doormats are unhappy and would never want to be associated with that word - see a difference between BDSMers and 'vanillas' and LOVE using that word - think that a BDSM relationship is much deeper/intense/better communication than any other and use the word 'abuse' like its a bad thing. the.dark. OK, I think I understand where you're coming from here. It seems to be just another catch-phrase. I don't consider myself to be living in "the lifestyle" or a "BDSM community", and I dislike the word "vanilla" and I've actually posted a few times about "doormats" (I keep asking him to tattoo a daisy on my ass with the word "Welcome"). But I do use the word consent, and when I do, I have always done so while meaning solely within the relationship. And by asking to be his slave, I was consenting, in advance, to whatever that meant, even if it meant abusing me by other people's standards. That's why I've been confused and perplexed whenever you have commented on "consent" being a lie. I'm seeing it in a different context, I suppose. Thanks again for explaining your point. :)

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.222656E-02