RE: The Validity of Clichés

RE: The Validity of Clichés (Full Version)

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

Message

catize -> RE: The Validity of Clichés (3/15/2009 8:13:35 AM)
quote: No, I think common sense or lack thereof does. Yes, there is that!

catize -> RE: The Validity of Clichés (3/15/2009 8:15:28 AM)
quote: idea that there are (usually) 10 men to every woman on a dating site just doesn't add up. Yet we, the collective we, doesn't doubt or test or wonder about this. Now that is one I hadn’t questioned! I always just accepted that little bit of data.

catize -> RE: The Validity of Clichés (3/15/2009 8:17:07 AM)
To remove the work analogy, if we were non-kinky would we expect our new boyfriend/girlfriend to be just like the last one?

catize -> RE: The Validity of Clichés (3/15/2009 8:18:16 AM)
And as you can see by my words that you quoted, I myself am guilty of using absolute statements!

IrishMist -> RE: The Validity of Clichés (3/15/2009 8:32:54 AM)
quote: Do you think experience, or lack of, has a positive or negative impact on the D/s dynamic? I believe that it has the same impact that it would have on a relationship that was NOT D/s. Relationships are relationships; everyone enters into a new one with different ideas of what will happen, where it will go, and how it will get there. Sometimes, experience can add to the relationship, sometimes it can detract. It all depends on those involved and how they want things to progress. It has nothing at all to do with D/s or M/s; and everything to do with individual expectations, wants, and needs. Just my thoughts.

Jeptha -> RE: The Validity of Clichés (3/15/2009 11:18:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveluci Yes. To me, the whole "lifestyle" or "WIITWD" thing is one huge boring cliche in and of itself. The idea that there is a "vanilla" world that is so unlike a BDSM world is just ludicrous to me let alone that the folks living in the "BDSM" world are more enlightened, advanced, open minded, accepting, etc. It's absolutely nothing less than stupid and utterly wrong to perpetuate such nonsense. So yeah, it's all one big goofy cliche in my little book.......................luci Really? I see a pretty huge difference. If I look over to my partner and say "get on the floor you dirty little cunt" or somesuch (something that is within the parameters of what she and I have agreed upon), that is just hugely different from a "vanilla" relationship. I use the word "vanilla" to signify that difference. I don't use it to put down anyone. I'm not saying or implying that vanilla is bland or inferior. But there just seems to me to be such an obvious difference there that I'm having trouble understanding why people seem to be denying it. On another level, I don't have orgasms from vanilla sex. I have no dysfunction that I'm aware of ; the cock gets hard and stays hard, but straight up fucking or a basket of blowjobs just doesn't trip my trigger. Again; just very different. Again, again; not saying one is better. I'd love to have a bit more normal sex life, actually. Have even considered hypnosis in that regard. Now, I know for some it isn't about sex, (~ they can bring their own perspective to the discussion), but at some point most everybody wants to have a sex life of some sort. If we take that as our point of departure, than it is, in addition to whatever else, about sex.

IrishMist -> RE: The Validity of Clichés (3/15/2009 12:02:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeptha quote: ORIGINAL: slaveluci Yes. To me, the whole "lifestyle" or "WIITWD" thing is one huge boring cliche in and of itself. The idea that there is a "vanilla" world that is so unlike a BDSM world is just ludicrous to me let alone that the folks living in the "BDSM" world are more enlightened, advanced, open minded, accepting, etc. It's absolutely nothing less than stupid and utterly wrong to perpetuate such nonsense. So yeah, it's all one big goofy cliche in my little book.......................luci Really? I see a pretty huge difference. If I look over to my partner and say "get on the floor you dirty little cunt" or somesuch (something that is within the parameters of what she and I have agreed upon), that is just hugely different from a "vanilla" relationship. I use the word "vanilla" to signify that difference. I don't use it to put down anyone. I'm not saying or implying that vanilla is bland or inferior. But there just seems to me to be such an obvious difference there that I'm having trouble understanding why people seem to be denying it. On another level, I don't have orgasms from vanilla sex. I have no dysfunction that I'm aware of ; the cock gets hard and stays hard, but straight up fucking or a basket of blowjobs just doesn't trip my trigger. Again; just very different. Again, again; not saying one is better. I'd love to have a bit more normal sex life, actually. Have even considered hypnosis in that regard. Now, I know for some it isn't about sex, (~ they can bring their own perspective to the discussion), but at some point most everybody wants to have a sex life of some sort. If we take that as our point of departure, than it is, in addition to whatever else, about sex. Not to pick but, like many others, I too look at the whole 'lifestyle, WIITWD, ' BS as nothing more than exactly that...bull shit. Not everyone, but many DO seem to think that engaging in BDSM or a D/s or M/s relationship somehow makes them 'more'. They seem to think, naively, that just because it's D/s or M/s or BDSM, that somehow...EVERYTHING is going to be different, and better than just a 'normal' relationship. It's an outlook that all too often many find to be nothing more than a fantasy, and when reality intrudes, they find themselves floundering, wondering what could have possibly gone wrong.

Jeptha -> RE: The Validity of Clichés (3/16/2009 10:39:56 AM)
I agree that you still have the same relationship dynamics, meaning all the ways that all couples relate and interact. How one person relates to another. D/s doesn't bypass any of that stuff. Saying "wiitwd" doesn't mean that I get to skip all that awkward emotional processing, and so forth, or that we are now transported to the magical realm of honorable knights and princesses. But that acronym does refer to a (I guess any) category of activities that are generally still considered to be outside of the mainstream. I think it mainly exists so people don't have to constantly be referring to types of play on the one hand and relationship types on the other, but they can refer to both or either with one handy term, without specifying. As such , I think it's useful. I'm not saying it's all ponies and unicorns, at all. But there are ways in which it is similar, and ways in which it is strikingly different. Those probably should be differentiated. Otherwise, it's probably as sloppy to say "everything's the same" as it is to dreamily lisp how magically transformational it all is.

CreativeDominant -> RE: The Validity of Clichés (3/16/2009 12:58:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: catize There are many clichés floating around the BDSM world. . One I see from time to time is that a person who has submitted to a previous dominant will struggle with the transition to a new relationship because the ‘new’ dominant has different expectations. I don’t see any down side to experience. With experience comes the knowledge of what one is capable of giving or giving up. I don't usually see a downside to experience either UNLESS that previous experience is used as a way to Overtly or Covertly make the dominant/submissive feel as if they are wrong because of that uniqueness you speak of later rather than following what the past dominant/submissive did. I've seen this most often when dealing with submissives who have been "mentored" in positioning, serving, play, and sexuality...all the aspects of submission.

catize -> RE: The Validity of Clichés (3/16/2009 6:37:08 PM)
quote: Otherwise, it's probably as sloppy to say "everything's the same" as it is to dreamily lisp how magically transformational it all is. If we were ‘the same’, then there would be no reason for the labels of dominance/submission or master/mistress/slave. Granted, not everyone who practices some form of dynamic or activity (under the big umbrella called BDSM) want to be labeled as such. I don’t think anyone who is actually doing this stuff would be surprised that they continue to live a life, though. I think a good thing to compare it to would be people who are vegetarian or vegan. They practice different eating habits; their meals are not like mine! I would guess their trips to the grocery store are quite different from carnivorous humans, and their cook books and recipes are very different also. When they talk about protein they are not referring to burgers or steak. But their work, leisure time, T.V. time, sleep—their lives!-are ‘the same’.

catize -> RE: The Validity of Clichés (3/16/2009 6:38:16 PM)
quote: I've seen this most often when dealing with submissives who have been "mentored" in positioning, serving, play, and sexuality... This brings me full circle back to what I said in my teacher/student thread. There is a difference between learning tasks and learning submission!

kidwithknife -> RE: The Validity of Clichés (3/18/2009 10:54:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IronBear FR to both catize and slaveluci ~ If you see as I do the wider kink together with the BDSM lifestyle (As differing to that where people are only involved occasionally for a spot of fun or to get their rocks off), as one of the many sub cultures abounding in society, it would be difficult to see the whole as a cliché any more than to see any other sub culture including various religious and political sub cultures as clichés. However this is really a personal view and is going to vary according to the individual. I think the difference between BDSM and the religious/political subcultures is that the latter quite obviously have very different values from mainstream society. If we're talking about the fringes, anyway. I'd consider the Hare Krishnas a subculture in a way I wouldn't the Church of England. But I'm not sure that there are enough differences between mainstream society and BDSM for BDSM to qualify as a genuine subculture in the sociological sense of the word. As a whole, anyway. I'd agree with you that a lot of it comes down to individuals. There are certainly BDSMers who are subcultural, even countercultural. I just don't believe that's the case for the whole scene.

IronBear -> RE: The Validity of Clichés (3/19/2009 12:11:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kidwithknife quote: ORIGINAL: IronBear FR to both catize and slaveluci ~ If you see as I do the wider kink together with the BDSM lifestyle (As differing to that where people are only involved occasionally for a spot of fun or to get their rocks off), as one of the many sub cultures abounding in society, it would be difficult to see the whole as a cliché any more than to see any other sub culture including various religious and political sub cultures as clichés. However this is really a personal view and is going to vary according to the individual. I think the difference between BDSM and the religious/political subcultures is that the latter quite obviously have very different values from mainstream society. If we're talking about the fringes, anyway. I'd consider the Hare Krishnas a subculture in a way I wouldn't the Church of England. But I'm not sure that there are enough differences between mainstream society and BDSM for BDSM to qualify as a genuine subculture in the sociological sense of the word. As a whole, anyway. I'd agree with you that a lot of it comes down to individuals. There are certainly BDSMers who are subcultural, even countercultural. I just don't believe that's the case for the whole scene. Within the general BDSM unbrella, is included the Victorian, Gorean and similar lifestyles which is a sub culture and it is for that reason I batched BDSM with the others I mentioned. For my part, I live and breath the Victorian Lifestyle so that it is an integral part of me, being brought up in that culture, just as my Pagan Lifestyle is an equal psrt of me as you would expect with an ordained Pagan Priest.In this I am not alone as manmy of my friends, Peers and associates live a Gorean Lifestyle, and from all the indicators which differentiate such things, we do fit within the accepted format of a sub-culture, or so one of my Lodge Brethren who heads the Sociology Dept in one of the Universities here tells me.

DomImus -> RE: The Validity of Clichés (3/19/2009 6:35:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: catize I don’t see any down side to experience. With experience comes the knowledge of what one is capable of giving or giving up. Not only do I know what I like, but I also know what I can do without if the dominant does not like it. I know what I am willing/able to submit to whether or not I like that I don’t think it takes an Einstein to realize that every dominant is unique. That's a bit of disappointing precedent in my opinion. On one hand you state that every dominant is unique while on the other hand you imply that you might write off activity X as something you cannot submit to after have tried it with only one dominant. If every dominant is unique then is it not unreasonable to assume that every dominant might do activity X just a little bit different. You might hate doing it with dominant A but really get into it with dominant B but you'll never find out if you draw the line after dominant A. I agree that experience is generally a good thing but you have to know how to temper it.

catize -> RE: The Validity of Clichés (3/23/2009 5:17:27 PM)
quote: That's a bit of disappointing precedent in my opinion. On one hand you state that every dominant is unique while on the other hand you imply that you might write off activity X as something you cannot submit to after have tried it with only one dominant. If every dominant is unique then is it not unreasonable to assume that every dominant might do activity X just a little bit different. You might hate doing it with dominant A but really get into it with dominant B but you'll never find out if you draw the line after dominant A. I agree that experience is generally a good thing but you have to know how to temper it. You present a good argument which made me reconsider my words. I would agree that there are some things I would re-try with Dominant B. But! (as a friend of mine says, ‘the truth comes after ‘but’ [:D]) there were some things that led to very unpleasant and emotionally painful results with Dominant A. I believe the pain arose from the fact that I had compromised my own values. In those instances, I would discuss my feelings with Dominant B and explain they simply were not things that I would be willing to do again. Yes, every person <<no matter the label>> in my life is unique—however (another word for ‘but’!!) I am the common denominator in all my relationships.

DesFIP -> RE: The Validity of Clichés (3/23/2009 6:46:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: catize To remove the work analogy, if we were non-kinky would we expect our new boyfriend/girlfriend to be just like the last one? Well thankfully I learned from my mistakes. But I know an awful lot of people who keep picking the same types of guys, and complain about how this one also drinks, or doesn't call or whatever. We come into relationships with unspoken expectations. If when you were growing up, your father always took out the garbage then you are likely to have the unspoken, perhaps even unrealized expectation that your partner will take it out, since to you it is a male job. If you don't discuss it, and if in his house it was his mother who took it out, then you would begin to resent him for sticking you with this job. So yes, I think it is quite likely that people do complain when they don't get what they are expecting, even when they aren't aware of their expectations.

catize -> RE: The Validity of Clichés (3/23/2009 7:30:21 PM)
quote: I think it is quite likely that people do complain when they don't get what they are expecting, even when they aren't aware of their expectations. Yes, it does happen frequently. Sometimes the repetition is fairly benign such as always choosing a blonde, or always dating an older/younger person. We’ve all met (or been) someone who repeatedly chooses an *abusive; alcoholic; shopoholic; never-can-keep-a-job, etc etc* partner. And those of us who learned from our mistakes did so by examining what went wrong and why it was wrong. That’s all I’m suggesting here, that it is beneficial to question our knee jerk responses and scrutinize all the dogma that we repeat in order to reject it if we are not able to present a rationale for it.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875