24/7 question?

[Lancecastor]

Re: Re: The Neopolitan Continuum

Once again, Lance, your post requires much more than an off-the-cuff answer. It seems to me that what you are asking/posing cuts to the heart of much deeper issue, which is, where is the line that separates bdsm from 'nilla. Is/Will the bdsm community be inclusive or exclusive? And, although it is a matter of opinion (and perhaps, region), many can and will draw battle lines on this issue (if no where else than in their minds).

If is it not obvious from my posts yet, my position is in favor of inclusion. With that said, let me offer my opinions.

~A new thread for you, Lance: "Inclusion or exclusion, Why?"~

(edit by LC)


To summarize my opinion, BDSM can be a lifestyle which includes or excludes b/d and s/m or a playstyle with elements of all or any - that, I think, is the real question.


~is anyone tired of reading my opinion yet? *Whew* me too~

Hi Ms Worthy;

Your always cogent responses give me a pang of guilt for your having invested so much thought in the question(s)....you certainly raise the bar around here. (and I just looked at your web site. kudos!)

I'm not completely sure I share your views on whether a post WW2 marriage was/wasn't a TPE based on the available choices....because I think that at the time the marriage and social contracts were considered the norm.

A reductio ad absurdum to make the point: If levitation became the norm for humans in ten years... I suggest that while revisionism might subsequently deride or devalue life AL..***** BL is still considered normal, good and fine.

Otherwise I find myself as usual enjoying your post and marvelling at your skills as a communicator...and being in happy concurrance with you.

Cheers;
LC

PS It's your thread idea...you start it! I've been yapping off enough!

 

[MsWorthy]

Re: Re: Re: The Neopolitan Continuum

Hi Ms Worthy;

Your always cogent responses give me a pang of guilt for your having invested so much thought in the question(s)....you certainly raise the bar around here. (and I just looked at your web site. kudos!)
...

PS It's your thread idea...you start it! I've been yapping off enough!

Thank you, Lance and Artful for your comments. They are appreciated.

Lance, if I post the thread topic, will you strain-your-brain for a thorough response (I would enjoy reading it)? *smiles*

 

[Lancecastor]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Neopolitan Continuum

Lance, if I post the thread topic, will you strain-your-brain for a thorough response (I would enjoy reading it)? *smiles*

I'd be pleased to do so.

L

 

[PlayDoe]

Very insightful

Lance and MsWorthy have provided a lot of food for thought. It brings to mind my brother's relationship with his wife. It seems, that he considers his most recent wife, to be to be his superior. He feels a strong desire to take care of her in everyway possible. In fact, he does all the cleaning, cooking and general waiting on of her needs. Does he practice any type of sexual behavior that is typically associated with BDSM? Not that I know of. I don't even think he is aware of how he is behaving. Do I consider him to be in a BDSM relationship? No. Is he in some type of power control relationship? I guess this is yes, although he would not admit it.

I, on the other hand, freely give my control to someone else. When they make a decision for me, it is an erotic affair for me, in my mind. I also frequently take part in sexual activity that evolves around denial and control.
For these reasons, I consider that I am involved in BDSM behavior.

 

[cymbidia]

It seems to me that what you are asking/posing cuts to the heart of much deeper issue, which is, where is the line that separates bdsm from 'nilla. Is/Will the bdsm community be inclusive or exclusive?

This has been a rallying cry by Lance for several posts now, hasn't it?
Why do we have to have a strict line?

In any case, it's basically an unanswerable question, to my way of thinking.
Years ago, that line was obvious.
Today it is not.

Times change and cultural institutions change with them.

Two hundred years ago i would have been arrested and tossed in jail for grocery shopping in the outfit i was in today: arms and legs showing. Those Pilgrims were pretty damn down on women showing their skin around.

In the 1940's, women were still wearing exceeding uncomfortable-looking full-body-armor like bathing suits to the beach. There wasn't a two-piece in sight. While one may not have been arrested for wearing one, there would have been some whispers about immoral women directed at she who dared such a thing then. It would have been obvious to all that she wasn't a "good woman".

Today we don't know who is BDSM and who is not - at least based on their bedroom play. And why should we? What business it of ours? Why do we care?

If they think of themselves as BDSM, then it is so, i suppose - these days.

~shrug~
I don't get what the controversy is.

For a PE to be a power exchange there must be agreement. Each person must consent to the "balance" of power or it isn't a PE, it is abuse/victimization. Inherent in consent is freedom to choose and access to any knowledge needed to give such consent (informed consent).

I agree. One can have a BDSM relationship without a power exchange element - but if there is a power exchange element to the relationship, it has to be one of discussed and agreed-upon boundaries - or it's just not, by definition, a power exchange relationship.

To exchange something, you gotta talk about it, trade ideas, and arrive at a place that is pleasing to both parties. One cannot just usurp the other person's power and use it, consensually or not. Such is an outrage, at best, and involves nothing of the respect and inherent caring of a true PE relationship.

I have read of individuals separating themselves from the s/m aspect of bdsm and still consider themselves bdsmers. I have also seen those into s/m refer to the strictly d/s crowd as "just" bossy or control freaks and not REALLY bdsmers.

I have some material on my desk right now from The Janus Society in San Francisco. (I'm joining because they offer a zillion workshops, all of which are greatly reduced in price for members.)

The following is taken verbatim from one of the pamphlets they sent me, one called Growing Pains: Orientation Issue:
We are an educational and support organization for adults who support and personally interested in sexuality based on a safe, consensual, and non-exploitive transfer of power between partners. We call this form of sexuality S/M, which comes form the word sadomasochism. S/M includes bondage and discipline (B&D) and dominance and submission (D&S).

Since Janus is the second oldest formalized BDSM group in North America, one would expect that they've been kicking around a definition of "what is this whole power exchange thing anyway? what the hell do we call it? what does it include? exclude?" for a very long time.

I don't know how the heck we're supposed to define it in a way that pleases everyone (and doesn’t give them something to kick and scream about) here on this itty bitty board if Janus still hasn't managed it, do you?

The issue, it seems to me, is about one-up-manship. The same old game the 'nillas play. A kinky version of my daddy can beat up your daddy. I don't see the pleasure/value in feeling "big" when to achieve that feeling you have to make someone else feel "small." How "big" are you really when bullying is your only way of feeling powerful?

To be honest, i don't see many people who are doing a whole lot of this kinda stuff in their every day lives getting too upset about finding the limits and lines of who to include and who to exclude. Most of us who've been around it for any length of time are still overjoyed that we can now even talk about it out loud, you know?

BDSM is an umbrella term under which falls an entire continuum of relationship/sexual expression dynamics.

Yes. As we've defined for ourselves here over and over: the term "BDSM" includes an astonishing array of individual sexual and emotional behaviors. Who can limit them and decide who's out and who's in? (Ummm, just in case the gods are listening...i've volunteered for that job over and over but no one has granted me the power for all of mankind...yet. )

TPE, based on my research, seems to be the new kid on the block as far as bdsm is concerned.

In before times, before all the acronyms (SSC, D/s, TPE, etc), it was all TPE. You were in or you were out - there was no halfway. There were no safe words. There was no SUCH THING AS BDSM: THE ONLINE FANTASY GAME. You did it, all the way, or you did not.

I'm not saying the bad ole days were better, but things were certainly different. In a way, things were clearer then. Acronyms, while they enlighten and give us a plethora of choices, kinda tend to clutter the landscape a bit, too.

I imagine things are far more confusing for those just coming to this now then it was when i came to it lo those many years ago. Then it was a straight line. You could get off the path but you couldn't just stop, holding right there, progressing no further. It was simple: yes or no. In or out. Play or don't play. It wasn't better but it was simpler, for sure - and different. Very different. They're different enough, those times and now, so that comparisons are essentially meaningless.

Is a power exchange necessary in a bdsm "relationship?" I think so, if we are including d/s outside the bedroom. Can one say she/he is "into" bdsm without a power exchange? In my opinion, yes.

I agree. I know a bunch of kinky folks, some of whom post here, with us, everyday, who don't consider themselves lifestylers or BDSM'ers but are damn kinky nonetheless, even to my jaded eyes. There are others who really aren't even active but who view themselves as BDSM'ers nonetheless because, well, that's one of their primary psychosexual identifiers.

In the end, it's all always about power exchanges, everywhere in life. Whether we formalize them within the spere of our personal intimate love/sexual relationships or not is just about the only key to determing whether they're consensual power exchange relationships or the more unconscious nilla variety. Neither is better. Neither is worse. I make no value judgements among them. Both are common.

But one is discussed, agreed-to, and may go a long way toward meeting the needs of each partner. The other most often simply evolves in an organic fashion and may not meet many of the needs of either (or may)(let's roll the dice...).

As I stated, I believe that TPE and bdsm are not NECESSARILY related. It all depends on where you stand on the inclusion/exclusion issue and IF you want to be associated with one or more of the elements of bdsm. [Again, some see the d/s in bdsm, others only see b/d and s/m]

Ah! Here is where we diverge in our thinking!

IF two people have a TPE relationship
THEN i think it must be, by definition, something that resides under the BDSM umbrella.

TPE is a negotiated mode of existence. To negotiate around issues of personal/sexual/emotional power like that, within the framework of an intimate relationship, high degree of value must be placed on the nuances of a relationship, enormous trust in one's partner, and the need for such a thing in the center of one's life. That need, that craving, that requirement is pure BDSM, ladies and gentlemen.

Ergo, TPE is a mode of existence that is sheltered and cradled under the large (and getting larger as new kinks are uncovered) BDSM umbrella.

My opinion.

As far as whether you are "into" bdsm if you dont participate in the community or know the terms, I think the answer is easily, yes.

Again, i agree.

I've met a bunch of people in my life that "did" BDSM as the natural outgrowth of intimacy between them and their partner. We have people like that on this board.

The gods love such sexually adventurous people, too!
~is anyone tired of reading my opinion yet?[/quote]Nope.
You rock, MsWorthy.

Do I consider him to be in a BDSM relationship? No. Is he in some type of power control relationship? I guess this is yes, although he would not admit it.

I, on the other hand, freely give my control to someone else. When they make a decision for me, it is an erotic affair for me, in my mind.

I think you've hit on the heart of the matter, PlayDoe, as part of the continuing effort to strictly delineate what is and is not a TPE BDSM relationship: consensuality.

If one has a fully informed choice in the giving away of one's power, then it can become a part of their conscious sexuality in a way that simply having their sexual/emotional/day-to-day life power usurped cannot. Additionally, if the giving away of that power is in itself an inherently sexual or emotionally gratifying act, then the conscious choice of giving to one person in particular to wield for the benefit of both partners assumes a larger place of importance in the lives of both.

Free choice makes all the difference.

 

[PlayDoe]

Humbled

After reading these last posts by cybidia, Lance and MsWorthy, I realize how much of a "virgin" I actually am. I think I've been enlightened but it's kind of like the theme in "The Matrix", where I am not sure if knowing the truth is a good thing or not. I've been looking at my "BDSM" world as more of an escape from the real world, but I guess that is a problem. If I am escaping, if this world isn't real, then how can I really be communicating and living a real life with my partner? This is the real world! But then doesn't that take a lot of the fun out of it?

 

[MsWorthy]

~is anyone tired of reading my opinion yet?

Nope.
You rock, MsWorthy.

Thank you, Cym

 

[Skally]

I was thinking about this earlier as it happens. I was trying to figure out where does the line exist between nilla and D/s relationships.

IMO even a nilla relationship relies on power exchanges in some way, it's when one member of the relationship has more power than the other then do the lines become blurred. I know it's not as simple as that because we're all people and sometimes we can only draw upon our own experiences.

Everyone's line between the nilla and not so nilla has gotta be different in some way...

 

[WillowPuss]

I wish I had posted to this when I first saw it - but was away for a couple of days.

What I had to say is largely irrelevant now in the light of the wonderful posts by MsWorthy and Cym.

 

[Shadowsdream]

In My home 24/7 means 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

I do not walk around with a whip in My hand nor does My toy spend all of his time on his knees.

BUT...there is always an undertone of who is in charge no matter where we are or what we are doing.

The day begins in ritual and rituals continue until he is sleeping in My arms.

TPE brings us both piece of mind.

 

[WillowPuss]

I have been trying and trying to find the correct words to describe my 24/7 relationship.


Like Shadowsdream says, there is an undercurrent of power - although it may not be obvious to others around us, we know exactly who is in charge every minute of the time we are together.

When Robuck is at work - he still has that power over me. The kids may not know/realise (they are typical teenagers, so the world must revolve around them, right?) just how much of the power comes directly from their father.

We discuss everything that comes up - and if He is not there, I get to do the telling. If something crops up whilst He is away, I deal with it but add the rejoinder, but you should ask Dad. I then either phone Him to discuss it (if very urgent) or tell him about it during the evening.


Also like Shadowsdream, we have our rituals. They are there just to re-inforce the TPE.

TPE has certainly bought me peace of mind. I hope Robuck feels the same. (Maybe I will suggest that He registers and posts himself.)

 

[PlayDoe]

Rituals

Can you talk more about these "rituals"?