RE: Defining the BDSM Lifestyle

RE: Defining the BDSM Lifestyle (Full Version)

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

Message

LRODANDMASTER -> RE: Defining the BDSM Lifestyle (12/1/2006 2:22:14 PM)
SO ANOTHER WORDS THAT WAS THE CLITTON AMDINITSRATION NOWAY IT CAN SAY N E THING RELAVANT ABOUT BDSM TODAY. quote: ORIGINAL: Archer 1. The article dateline 1996

juliaoceania -> RE: Defining the BDSM Lifestyle (12/1/2006 3:00:12 PM)
quote: The section you mention specificly I didn't read the way you did "Does anyone here have a degree in or any experience in anthropology? If you do, you'll recognize that there's a name for the sort of subculture that I've just described: mystery cult. " The statement I translate as "In the field of Anthropology, they have a term 'mystery cult' I think it applies to the current state of much of the SM community and here's why..." Could he have sourced the defintion? certainly. Had this been rather than a presentation for a group/ munch/ event, a scholarly article written for publication I might have felt the same need for a sourcing. I certainly would have rather seen a easier to read definition breaking down the definition/ charcteristics of a mystery cult, so that I could more easily judge for myself if it fit. I read it that way not for the reference to anthropology, which did bother me as an anthropologist frankly, but I was very taken aback by the submissive Polly. I am thinking that her comments were approved of by her master, seeing that she said they "both" were speaking. I have an issue with their psychic ability to judge the mental health, wellness, fitness to be in actual relationships because one engages in a little cyber domination on the side, role play if you will. This is deemed as less valid than a 24-7 power exchange. There is no "evidence" to support such conclusions.. and they do put themselves up as self appointed "experts". I would not do this and not expect someone like myself would tear my "expert" opinion apart to shreds. I could argue that most D/s/M/s relationships fail, therefore they must be the ones with the "lost" issues. I know that many people that have been in the scene real life wise have stated this to be the case. Does this mean my perception is reality? Um, no it does not. Polly and Jon are just two more people with two more opinions that have no more validity than Joe Schmoe to me. I will take a researched and cited opinion over what I read on that link any day of the week. I said in an earlier post that their observations are worth reading, but that hardly makes them able to judge the realness or lack thereof of what others share, and to be completely honest.. it negates the credibility that they would have had in my eyes that they stated their case the way they did... what is so wrong with some those who practice 24-7 that they feel the need to compare themselves with everyone else? Why is it an imperative to state others are "lost"? It smacks of insecurity with the way a person lives to state an opinion that way. If someone who was vanilla stated that your relationship was not based on reality, that those who have 24-7 power exchanges were "lost", well you would probably dismiss that opinion. I have a power exchange, when we move in together it will be of the 24-7 variety... but that does not mean it is more valid than vanilla, strawberry, a LDR, or an internet one... it is what it is. I see my personal relationships as something I invest my time in, and the realness of the lack thereof is really no one else's concern... why should I concern myself with what others do?

Rover -> RE: Defining the BDSM Lifestyle (12/1/2006 3:13:41 PM)
During the latter portion of his life, Jon Jacobs had become completely discredited recluse. He solicited single females to come live with him while he located suitable Dominants for them. You see, JJ claimed to be the arbiter of who was and wasn't a "true" Dominant. Not surprisingly, these women were never introduced to the promised suitable Dominants. I believe JJ claimed that in all his life, he had met only nine (as best I recall, that's the number) "real" Dominants, so I guess it's no surprise that such a rare commodity was not readily available to these women. Good man that he was, JJ did allow these women to serve him while they waited. Really, a kindly gesture from a man who was always concerned with the well-being of others, at his own expense. God rest his soul. John

RedSavageSlave -> RE: Defining the BDSM Lifestyle (12/1/2006 3:32:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble I'd be interested to know what you thought were interesting viewpoints. I'd much rather discuss those ideas because I think my eyes started to glaze over as I was reading so much OTW that I missed the parts which were interesting. ::chuckles:: The parts that I found interesting were where she was discussing how some of the online (specifically the Gorean) stuff is viewed by people who have no other experience with D/s BDSM and how they may see it as something they imagine/roleplay/type as opposed to it being something you actually "DO". I also found this statement very interesting: "To me, the most disturbing thing about cyberscenes such as the one I witnessed on the IRC is that they reinforce the idea that the way one becomes a good submissive is by putting on an act, by _pretending_ to be a good submissive rather than by doing the hard inner work it actually requires." Now understand that I do not agree that the hard inner work CANNOT be done through online interactions, but I do think sometimes that people forget that this IS part of what growth as a submission entails. You dont become more submissive because your literary skills get better. There was alot on that site to absorb and read through and granted alot of it IS personal bias...but I did feel that there were some very valid points in there that could be discussed.

Archer -> RE: Defining the BDSM Lifestyle (12/1/2006 3:43:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover During the latter portion of his life, Jon Jacobs had become completely discredited recluse. He solicited single females to come live with him while he located suitable Dominants for them. You see, JJ claimed to be the arbiter of who was and wasn't a "true" Dominant. Not surprisingly, these women were never introduced to the promised suitable Dominants. I believe JJ claimed that in all his life, he had met only nine (as best I recall, that's the number) "real" Dominants, so I guess it's no surprise that such a rare commodity was not readily available to these women. Good man that he was, JJ did allow these women to serve him while they waited. Really, a kindly gesture from a man who was always concerned with the well-being of others, at his own expense. God rest his soul. John Yes I know this later history about him as well, I was attempting to be as Momma taught and not speak too ill of the dead. And LordandMaster, the dateline certainly should be noticed since it was about the time that the second wave of internet BDSM started to have the huge effect it has had. Not too difficut to imagine that someone who came in through another way might protest the effects of online infulx on the community. At the same time on the opposite side of the issue this speach is pretty timeless it seams since the issues discussed are still with us. We still have the arguments from both sides of the issue unresolved. Folks who are RT only wondering how their experiences can be at all compared with those who are online only and have never met face to face, etc. Folks from online claiming their experience online is equal to that of those who exprience it RT. And the various levels of the arguments in between.

BitaTruble -> RE: Defining the BDSM Lifestyle (12/1/2006 4:03:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedSavageSlave The parts that I found interesting were where she was discussing how some of the online (specifically the Gorean) stuff is viewed by people who have no other experience with D/s BDSM and how they may see it as something they imagine/roleplay/type as opposed to it being something you actually "DO". I agree, this is a valid point and one which still frequents the net today. Some things are timeless. :) If the first place you discover BDSM is a role-play chat room, I believe it colors your view (especially if you don't have any desire to educate yourself past it) ... that said, such will only last until the first cracker at the end of the bull hits your backside. That brings reality crashing down right quick. ::chuckles:: quote: "To me, the most disturbing thing about cyberscenes such as the one I witnessed on the IRC is that they reinforce the idea that the way one becomes a good submissive is by putting on an act, by _pretending_ to be a good submissive rather than by doing the hard inner work it actually requires." Now understand that I do not agree that the hard inner work CANNOT be done through online interactions, but I do think sometimes that people forget that this IS part of what growth as a submission entails. You dont become more submissive because your literary skills get better. That is actually one of the points she made with which I agreed to a point. I think self-reflection and striving to do/be better is valid and good for growth no matter what lifestyle one leads. Whether you think it, live it, want it, cyber it or what have you, it's applying it that matters. Without the application it's really all just smoke and mirriors anyway even if it's 'live together, 24/7 let's call it D/s' .. it can be just as fake and have less meaning than anything on line. In other words, you can 'pretend' at home just as easily as you can pretend on line. Those of us who live 24/7 D/s can be just as guilty if we don't protray 'how' we live honestly (one of the reasons I added a few 'mundane' realities into my own profile). I don't know how many times I've heard the phrase 'fake it till you make it' in regard to those coming in with questions on what to do when they just aren't 'feeling' submissive. In those cases 'acting' submissive is advocated as being actually submissive because you're doing something you don't want to do and aren't feeling but you're doing it anyway. You're right, there are some interesting points to discuss and for me, this is one of them. [:)] Celeste

leatherorlace -> RE: Defining the BDSM Lifestyle (12/1/2006 4:11:47 PM)
j.j. was an asshole when he lived and fortunately is no longer poisoning the enviroment or My chosen lifestyle with his toxic rhethoric. polly was a co-conspirator in jj's games. They both did harm aplenty and continued after being repeatedly exposed by some of those girls that they mind-dorked. I met the clown in Atlanata some years back, didn't like him before, I was told who the illmannered dickbreath in the wheelchair was that kept inching closer to My asscheeks during a scene. I tired of warning him and he did distance himself whenever, I began to use My singletails. I was taught to not speak ill of the dead, too, but, I still find small enclaves of deluded beginners that munch his trash as if its the gospel. To much emotional and psychic harm can be laid directly at his door so, I make mention of his assbreathed ideas at every juncture if I hear his name mentioned. No apologies from this quarter, he was a sick duck and abused his selfappointed position to assauge his lack of a libido. Gentry

Rover -> RE: Defining the BDSM Lifestyle (12/1/2006 4:20:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Yes I know this later history about him as well, I was attempting to be as Momma taught and not speak too ill of the dead. Given his current state relative to the grass (under, rather than over), I was uncharacteristically diplomatic. Though knowing his personal history (and my penchant for speaking my mind) I know you're quite capable of reading between the lines. :) While I was in the process of being diplomatic, my thoughts were more akin to those of Gentry (leatherorlace). Never let it be said that I do not demonstrate considerable restraint. :) John

RedSavageSlave -> RE: Defining the BDSM Lifestyle (12/1/2006 4:44:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble That is actually one of the points she made with which I agreed to a point. I think self-reflection and striving to do/be better is valid and good for growth no matter what lifestyle one leads. Whether you think it, live it, want it, cyber it or what have you, it's applying it that matters. Without the application it's really all just smoke and mirriors anyway even if it's 'live together, 24/7 let's call it D/s' .. it can be just as fake and have less meaning than anything on line. In other words, you can 'pretend' at home just as easily as you can pretend on line. Those of us who live 24/7 D/s can be just as guilty if we don't protray 'how' we live honestly (one of the reasons I added a few 'mundane' realities into my own profile). I don't know how many times I've heard the phrase 'fake it till you make it' in regard to those coming in with questions on what to do when they just aren't 'feeling' submissive. In those cases 'acting' submissive is advocated as being actually submissive because you're doing something you don't want to do and aren't feeling but you're doing it anyway. You're right, there are some interesting points to discuss and for me, this is one of them. [:)] Celeste And here in lies one of the difficulties with saying "real time is better than online". You are correct in that some real time D/s relationships are no more "real" than the worst of the online advocates. This is why the bias in the lecture is skewered. The fake it till you make it theory is not bad in its theoretical base AS LONG AS you do MAKE IT...but there are many that do not make it...they simply convince themselves that they have made it until the next time comes around that they have the difficulties. We need to recognize that there is growth and change that has to happen to acheive the goals we may wish to acheive..its not something you will ever "convince" yourself of in the long run. I wish these were the points that were more brought out and there was less "convicting" of the author.

Elegant -> RE: Defining the BDSM Lifestyle (12/1/2006 5:09:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leatherorlace j.j. was an asshole when he lived and fortunately is no longer poisoning the enviroment or My chosen lifestyle with his toxic rhethoric. polly was a co-conspirator in jj's games. They both did harm aplenty and continued after being repeatedly exposed by some of those girls that they mind-dorked. I met the clown in Atlanata some years back, didn't like him before, I was told who the illmannered dickbreath in the wheelchair was that kept inching closer to My asscheeks during a scene. I tired of warning him and he did distance himself whenever, I began to use My singletails. I was taught to not speak ill of the dead, too, but, I still find small enclaves of deluded beginners that munch his trash as if its the gospel. To much emotional and psychic harm can be laid directly at his door so, I make mention of his assbreathed ideas at every juncture if I hear his name mentioned. No apologies from this quarter, he was a sick duck and abused his selfappointed position to assauge his lack of a libido. Gentry OK..now that it is out in the open.... ditto (Thank you Sir for having the moxy to say what I did not)

jdtallfem -> RE: Defining the BDSM Lifestyle (12/1/2006 10:22:42 PM)
Yes, because after all, what do we have left of JJ but online? Except for a few like you, who knew of him Real time? And can speak of what he was really like? And after all, isn't that what JJ spoke about? The glories of Real Time?

Lady Alaria -> RE: Defining the BDSM Lifestyle (12/1/2006 11:27:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedSavageSlave And here in lies one of the difficulties with saying "real time is better than online". You are correct in that some real time D/s relationships are no more "real" than the worst of the online advocates. This is why the bias in the lecture is skewered. The fake it till you make it theory is not bad in its theoretical base AS LONG AS you do MAKE IT...but there are many that do not make it...they simply convince themselves that they have made it until the next time comes around that they have the difficulties. We need to recognize that there is growth and change that has to happen to acheive the goals we may wish to acheive..its not something you will ever "convince" yourself of in the long run. I wish these were the points that were more brought out and there was less "convicting" of the author. And what, pray tell, denotes 'real' in your opinion? What are the qualifications one needs to have achieved before one can be said to have 'made it'? As far as goals to achieve, perhaps some have different goals? Or no goals at all? One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that with many people spending more and more time on the internet, working, playing, making friends, and yes even having relationships entirely in cyberspace, the notion that RL interaction is somehow more real and worthy no longer makes sense to some people. As far as your improvement in prose not making you a better Dom/me or sub, well, that may be true. Unless your Dom/me has ordered you to improve your prose so as to better serve them. Or unless your ability to turn a phrase is what puts your sub into that perfect headspace. I don't do online D/s. I don't really do online friends. But as far as what's 'real'? C'mon, BDSM and D/s are all about fantasy. Trying to live a fantasy, and make it work in the real world. And imho, that's beautiful. Whether it's 24/7, online kink, or just something you like to do at the local dungeon. Whatever works for you. And if it doesn't, well...do something different.

RedSavageSlave -> RE: Defining the BDSM Lifestyle (12/2/2006 4:13:05 AM)
When I use the term "real" in this discussion, I am talking about "individual growth as a submissive" ..NOT about whether or not is face to face or online. As far as goals to achieve, the assumption is not that I have a list of goals that I feel need to be applied to all and sundry or my judgement is that you are not "TRUE". But realize what I AM discussing is D/s relationships..not vanilla bottoms looking for kink. So, yes, in MY mind, there should be growth..not stagnation. Your point about improvement in prose is correct in the situations you have defined. Thank you for pointing that out. Whether you do or do not do online D/s is a choice that only you can make and my points if you will notice are not pitting online against real time. I am happy that you have made peace with BDSM and D/s being a fantasy if that is what works for you. However, for some of us..there is nothing fantasy about it. D/s (for many of us) IS about hard work and learning to grow within yourself as a submissive personality and sharing that in a dynamic relationship with your Dominant partner. (or vice versa if you are the Dominant personality). This was never about discussing that elusive definition of REAL or TRUE. Goodness knows we have enough threads on those subjects already running the gamut. I had hoped that as the OP indicated, people would read the article and discuss the points noted within. (good / bad / indifferent) There were certainly enough points in there to discuss LOL. May your day be wonderful and filled with the fantasy you call BDSM D/s. [:)] Of course..that is only if that is what floats your particular boat. [;)]

lateralist1 -> RE: Defining the BDSM Lifestyle (12/2/2006 4:35:47 AM)
I didn't read it. I have read your critics of it and my money is on you. From what you are saying it is not worthy of my attention like a lot of things that are written. I understand anything from the bottom up so to speak. Listen to the people involved. Go to the source material if possible and in this case the source material is us. Cause we are living it in the way we want to or in the way we can. The more people I listen to and I count these posts as a form of talking the more I will understand. I know some people only do this on-line that's up to them. It's maybe enough for them or it maybe all they can get. It's not for me but I certainly don't judge those who do. What is the point of judging anyone? It's the differences in people that make us special. If everyone felt, thought and acted in the same way it would be a very boring world. Comonality is what we all seek up to a point I think BUT it's the differences that set me alight.

Celeste43 -> RE: Defining the BDSM Lifestyle (12/2/2006 5:05:00 AM)
I read up to the condescending bit about only people with handicapped children should be given a pass to be online. I'm online, I have a handicapped child, and I live a quiet 24/7 life with my dom. So where does that leave me? But since we have five teens between us, I guess I can't be true. Since I don't cook naked or crawl around the house with a crop between my teeth. Honestly, when he's hungry he isn't interested in what I wear to cook in. And when his hunger is for other things, he isn't interested in the kitchen. We rarely do kinky kitchen role play.

catfood -> RE: Defining the BDSM Lifestyle (12/2/2006 6:43:28 AM)
ok, the article is somewhat pedantic for those with real-time bdsm experience, and polly did come across as somewhat bitter about "electronic" bdsm. having said that, Archer has a very good point. The transcript dates from 1996, hence it is more than a little dated. the crux of the matter comes down to this: if you are engaging solely in online bdsm, you are prey to the dominant ideology being manifested there. it is fantasy, and thus by definition you can not expect to find any acknowledgement of the mundane (cf:"mommmy, tommy won't let me watch melrose place!"). however, at some point those of us who can not vicariously experience what we need seek out real world interaction, and learn what real-life bdsm is about, including the mishaps, frauds, lunatics, and wonderful people. what she doesn't acknowledge, as it was not her experience, is the group of people who find out about bdsm irl, and run into the same bunch that she did online. they are out there, everyone has met a few of these people. so the allegory against online bdsm falls down when you remember that there are quite a few real world "jerk-offs" who perpetuate the same rigid, unrealistic view of bdsm.

Nosathro -> RE: Defining the BDSM Lifestyle (12/2/2006 9:36:53 AM)
Tal and greetings Since Gor was mentioned I think someone from Gor should add to this debate. First off, let say I am expressing my view. Now, I came to the BDSM a long time ago. Before any online anything, that how long I been around, even before the first Gor book was published. For me how I define my BDSM/Gor Lifestyle is how I define it. I think there are as many defintions as there are people. What I do is my choice and no one elses, I am in a Lifestyle that I find comfortable. Now there are some who may not agree with me, Gor, onlinism, etc, that is them, I may not agree but I will respect their view and want that same respect from others, don't have agree just respect. As to onlinisms, okay, some may only be comfortable with being on line, I have found that some onlinism can be used in real life and add to this Lifestyle. There tends to be as I have observed, that some dislike anything that is online. I say look at it, think about it, if you can use it to your real life that is fine. I wish you well Nosathro

Lordandmaster -> RE: Defining the BDSM Lifestyle (12/2/2006 9:37:40 AM)
"Onlinism"???

Rover -> RE: Defining the BDSM Lifestyle (12/2/2006 10:07:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro Now, I came to the BDSM a long time ago. Before any online anything, that how long I been around, even before the first Gor book was published. So that I might better understand the context of your post, I'm hoping you might answer a few questions for me. 1. The first Gor novel was published in 1967, which if my math is correct, would make you 14 at the time. At what tender age did you "come to BDSM", and what exactly did that entail? 2. What did you call it back then, since the term "BDSM" had not yet been coined? Thanking you in advance for the courtesy of your reply. John

LordODiscipline -> RE: Defining the BDSM Lifestyle (12/4/2006 6:08:26 AM)
*Polly Peachums and Jon Jacobs* *Need anyone say more?* ~J quote: ORIGINAL: RedSavageSlave Ok..so I found this site today and was reading this particular article. It has alot of very interesting viewpoints and I thought I would share the link and offer it up for discussion. http://www.cuffs.com/stories/discTexts/jonjacobs.htm Who wants to go first?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875