Curious

[catalina_francisco]

It all comes down to this urge we have to draw a line in the sand and say "you lot over there aren't as good as we are, because you are different." And I hate that!

Am definately with you there. Interesting ideas about vanilla, and just as difficult to define most likely. Not sure I equate vanilla with boring, though it doesn't work for me....I tend to equate it more with straight sex as in not much variation and nothing too out of the ordinary, which for some is boring, others...highly exciting. I hadn't given much thought to whether gays could fall under the vanilla umbrella, but on reflection if there has to be a label I think a couple of friends I have known would certainly be proud to be considered vanilla and LOL, I know they frown and tut tut at anything even hinting at adventurous, deviot, or athletic in the bedroom.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

Unless I misread osg, that's kind of what she's saying: Let BDSM refer to the middle ground, then OUTSIDE of it, will be the 24/7, the whole-hoggers, and the extreme cases.

Weird.

I actually had a similar thought late last night while trying to sleep. I wondered if a lot of the difficulty with what is defined as BDSM or D/s and the suggested need to define and perhaps exclude particular kinks is partly the difference between whether you live a 24/7 lifestyle or participate in a chosen taste on a part time basis.

I don't think it applies across the board, but I do notice many who say they do not live 24/7 as those who want to define what is acceptable and real and what is not while those who live it as a lifestyle 24/7 choice or whatever the chosen label is, seem to in general often advocate a broader acceptance of kinks which are included in the practice of their lifestyle and often not thought out in defined groupings of types of activities.

I don't know. Perhaps it is simply when living 24/7 there is a propensity to include more kinks with what others only do as a session type arrangement to the point it all becomes one, not a situation where one thinks it out first and says 'now I am going to beat you, then we will move out of the scene and onto xyz afterwards....it all becomes one and is one as a lived reality on a daily basis. Maybe it is like that tomato soup cake I bake....many initially think tomato soup can not be an ingredient for a cake but on tasting find though it is not a common or widely known one, it is still a legitimate (and yummy) addition to the final mixture.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

---------------
I do not think I have to accept everything in order to be considered open minded. In fact part of things which I refuse to accept equally defines me as much as the things I do.
---------------
Call me closed minded, and feel free to disagree.

Just because I understand something, does not mean I have to give consent to it.

I am tired that no one can ever make a stand on solid ground anymore or what they feel is right or wrong. Fuck that! I am tired that everything must be accepted on the grounds of political correctness, tolerance and open mindedness.

When ever someone takes a stand, they are immediately labeled as the bad guy and lumped into those who persucuted every repressed people that ever lived. They are made into a villain for thinking there are things which are wrong or right. What is ironic is how closed minded that actually is. There are laws of nature, there are laws in which we live by, and there is a code of honor each of us must face when we lay our heads on the pillow at night.

I go out of my way to not force my moral code of right and wrong on others. So do me a favor and don't try to force me to be open minded and there by accept every depraved thing that mankind can devise.

As I said to Pure...I am guilty as charged....knowing this about me...you can choose to get to know me and understand where I draw my lines, or not. I believe in RISK and Safe, Sane, and Consentual, and of these three I try to keep an open mind when it comes to what is sane and what isn't.

But if your so open minded, then you must accept someone who believes strongly that no consent is neccessary. If your going to point at me and say I am wrong for drawing lines of what I am willing to accept or not, then...then let's face the music together.

Let's be accepting and not judging of:

~people who think no consent is needed.
~people who think there is no need to ensure a person's safety or life is cared about.
~people who rape and molest children
~people who want to kill others

and making it personal...all in the name of being open minded...its ok for me not to judge or accept that your neighbor can come over and shoot your Master and then rape and kill you...and I should be accepting of that right? No fucking way.

Lines must be drawn somewhere by someone...and you can argue all you want over "what gives me the right to draw the line where I do." But unless your prepared to be 100% open minded, don't try to hide behind self-rightious liberalism and label me the bad guy.

If there is no such thing as absolute right or wrong then its ok for me to throw boiling grease on you and watch you writh in agony until you die of third degree burns...right?

so try re-reading what I said again...

I do not think I have to accept everything in order to be considered open minded. In fact part of things which I refuse to accept equally defines me as much as the things I do.

My point is...you draw lines too...we all do...that is reality.

If you knew me better you would know I have a reputation of taking a stance over things I think matter, often at personal and professional expense to myself. I respect you as a person, but think you still are confusing open and closed mindedness with acceptance and tolerance concepts. Yes I draw lines, and as you may have overlooked, as I said, at murder, pedophelia and as most already know anything which is non-consenting between adults.

Being open minded is about accepting you or I may not have all the answers and are entitled to differ in tastes to another, but not judge a person as mentally unbalanced, or fucked up if you prefer, simply because they are not a duplicate of your tastes and values. Accepting that does not mean you cannot say it is not your cup of tea, nor that you do or don't understand them, nor does it mean you have to share their choices or follow their lead, nor do you need to feel superior or inferior to that person, but it does mean you accept we are all different and individual and do not judge those who do not share exact lifestyles to you as fucked up. The danger in not doing so is that over time you may find what you initially pronounce as sick or not acceptable, may become something you actually decide over time to try yourself, and worse still, like. It has happened to many on this board alone, ourselves included. As I have said, it is a normal reaction to react in a kneejerk shocked fashion when first exposed to those in a community where openness is safe and people do discuss thoughts and experiences not usually found in everyday conversation. I do not believe from your time here you are actually usually judgemental.

We all differ on various levels and experiences. For example if you are raised Protestant, believe what the church teaches you, maybe even go as far as living by it's code to the letter....does that then mean people who are Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, are all wrong and evil because they have a different set of beliefs and values? I do not support someone hurting another against their will, and I do not believe I gave the impression I did, but I do support the right of people to live as they choose where it does not harm anyone else. That means, no, I do not support or accept as you suggested someone has a right to come into my house and rape me or kill my Master, or even do it on the street....that is non-consensual and also harming another....but if my Master wishes to beat me until I bleed that is our business and not for anyone else or the government to tell us if we can do such things in the privacy of our home or judge it as sick. You see whether another understands it or not, bottom line is it is not a matter of whether they consent to it or not as it does not involve them, it involves us.

Catalina

 

[RJMasters]

If you knew me better you would know I have a reputation of taking a stance over things I think matter, often at personal and professional expense to myself. I respect you as a person, but think you still are confusing open and closed mindedness with acceptance and tolerance concepts. Yes I draw lines, and as you may have overlooked, as I said, at murder, pedophelia and as most already know anything which is non-consenting between adults.


No I didn't overlook that. Glad you admit to drawing lines. Perhaps you are right and I am confusing acceptance and tolerance with open and closed mindedness, but perhaps what you see me as being non accepting of...is also where you derive that I am being closed minded...so I think there is a bit of confusion on your part as well.

I do know you from your posts, and have valued many things you have stood for through them. I think the same could be said of mine posts as well. However, in this case, you seem to be fine with saddling me with a close minded label because I choose to state I think certain things are fucked up. Don't I have a right to say that? Don't I have a right to be who I am? Are you saying its ok if others share who they are, but I cannot share who I am or my view about a subject without you judging me?(apparently not). I was careful to limit my drawn lines to things I knew you equally agreed upon because in a way this is not about really what preferences we agree or disagree on, its about a double standard. Goodgawd almightie I can assure you that I think sex with animals is fucked up and I will never change my mind about that or ever like that. For those of you out there who are into this, go for it, do what you got to do, but if your gonna be big and bold enough to share it on a public forum, then be big and bold enough when someone like me says...damn that's fucked up. Chances are you wouldn't, because I wouldn't even bother posting to it.

When it comes to whether government should be able to pass policy in the bedroom or not...hell no! I am with you there, with a few exception...if someone is raping a child in their bedroom...the hell yes! And you see, that is where I took my stand or intent and you changed it to a preference thing, as if I was talking about anal sex or something. Yeah I agree there are some fucked up laws, but again, look at my post and see if any of the laws I mentioned had to do with preference(other than animal sex). The examples i used were about non consentual rape, murder, child sex....THESE ARE NOT PREFERENCES!!! So why are you calling me closed minded when you agree that these things are fucked up?

Being open minded is about accepting you or I may not have all the answers and are entitled to differ in tastes to another, but not judge a person as mentally unbalanced, or fucked up if you prefer, simply because they are not a duplicate of your tastes and values.


If you are talking about skull fucking and anal sex between consenting adults..then sure...there is not a problem...kinks 'R" us...but if you are talking about someone being a child molester and comes to brag on the board about it, then don't tell me I have to accpet that person, just not what they do. You are what you do, its a packaged deal. So I will not be open minded about that, nor accepting of that person nor what they do. Snuff is about death and murder....eroticized. If that is a fantasy and you can get off grooving to that then I can understand it, say that's not my thing...but not if it passes into reality.

The point of this thread was about BDSM, and why would things like snuff, child sex or animal sex fit under the all encompassing umbrella called BDSM. I say the first 2 don't at all, and the thrid is questionable, and here's why. Part of the policy of this board and the BDSM community at large do adhere to SAFE, SANE and CONSENTUAL. Both Snuff and Child Sex violate all of these, and animal sex can be debated as far as sane goes.

The point is, why am I forced then to be open minded and accepting of people or their posts who do such things? To me they are not part of BDSM because they fall outside the boundaries of SSC. Why am I all uppiddy about it? Because I am part of the BDSM community and I do not want to be seen as someone who is tolerant of these activities. Am I drawing a line and saying I are better than them on the other side of the line....I sure fucking hope so WHEN we are talking about subjects which fall outside the SSC. Where we are talking about things within SSC you will find me quite open minded, even interested and willing to learn.

Hell the best person who taught me a bit about this is Netz, as we seemed to often bump heads because I had such a narrow view coming from a D/s only perspective and not a BDSM. Largely due to her constantly dis-agreeing with me and presenting her more fetish view of things, help me to broaden my views. So if you think I am closed minded about preferences...your wrong. But if a kink or a fetish falls outside the scope of SSC, I do not see where the BDSM community would want to endorse or be identified with it. I realize there is some area where there might be disagreement of what is sane, what is safe...I think consentual is pretty cut and dry.



I do not believe from your time here you are actually usually judgemental.


Thank you for saying this.



We all differ on various levels and experiences. For example if you are raised Protestant, believe what the church teaches you, maybe even go as far as living by it's code to the letter....does that then mean people who are Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, are all wrong and evil because they have a different set of beliefs and values? I do not support someone hurting another against their will, and I do not believe I gave the impression I did, but I do support the right of people to live as they choose where it does not harm anyone else.

That means, no, I do not support or accept as you suggested someone has a right to come into my house and rape me or kill my Master, or even do it on the street....that is non-consensual and also harming another....but if my Master wishes to beat me until I bleed that is our business and not for anyone else or the government to tell us if we can do such things in the privacy of our home or judge it as sick. You see whether another understands it or not, bottom line is it is not a matter of whether they consent to it or not as it does not involve them, it involves us.



Agreed

[/B]

Catalina [/B]

Just because I endorse the powers that be in their enforcement against murder, lieing etc... does not mean that I endorse the fucked up laws which violate peoples rights. Unfortunately these are married at the hip, so its a cache 22 until laws can be changed. Which I am thankful I have a right to effect change and influence by electing people who represent my interests.

I really don't think we are in as much disagreement on this Cat as you might think, as we both agree on the non consentual type of stuff, but I do not like how you seem to slide my focus from these non SSC type subjects and if they should or should not be accepted under the BDSM umbrella, into me being closed minded and unaccpeting of persons with a different set preferences than me.

I am sure I made a simillar mistake by thinking you were trying to get me to accept these non SSC type of things.

Reguardless, if I seem to have been over the top I apolgize, this whole things has me in a bit of a mood, and could very well have clouded my judgement and listening skills.

Just don't tell me I have to be accepting and open minded, endorse or be identified with murders, child molesters, rapists(the non consentual kind) etc...as long as you don't do that we are good, the moment you or the BDSM community here even suggest I should entertain thoguhts otherwise....I don't belong here as this is not what I am about.

 

[Kajira Callista]

I must need more coffee cause now my widdle head is all confused. So it is not ok to express your opinion that ppls actions, likes, dislikes...whateva are fucked up...but it is ok to say that ppl are fucked up for feeling ppl are fucked up?

did i get that right?

 

[catalina_francisco]

I must need more coffee cause now my widdle head is all confused. So it is not ok to express your opinion that ppls actions, likes, dislikes...whateva are fucked up...but it is ok to say that ppl are fucked up for feeling ppl are fucked up?

did i get that right?

I would suggest a triple expresso . But maybe red bull wodka might be better. And if that does not help, a box of Belgian bonbons.

Francisco.

 

[Netzach]

I actually had a similar thought late last night while trying to sleep. I wondered if a lot of the difficulty with what is defined as BDSM or D/s and the suggested need to define and perhaps exclude particular kinks is partly the difference between whether you live a 24/7 lifestyle or participate in a chosen taste on a part time basis.

I don't think it applies across the board, but I do notice many who say they do not live 24/7 as those who want to define what is acceptable and real and what is not while those who live it as a lifestyle 24/7 choice or whatever the chosen label is, seem to in general often advocate a broader acceptance of kinks which are included in the practice of their lifestyle and often not thought out in defined groupings of types of activities.

I don't know. Perhaps it is simply when living 24/7 there is a propensity to include more kinks with what others only do as a session type arrangement to the point it all becomes one, not a situation where one thinks it out first and says 'now I am going to beat you, then we will move out of the scene and onto xyz afterwards....it all becomes one and is one as a lived reality on a daily basis. Maybe it is like that tomato soup cake I bake....many initially think tomato soup can not be an ingredient for a cake but on tasting find though it is not a common or widely known one, it is still a legitimate (and yummy) addition to the final mixture.

Catalina

Catalina, you yourself have argued for the usefulness of labels, if I remember correctly. Tomato in cake can be great, but unless there's some cake things in there too it's not a cake.

 

[Pure]

Catalina said,

I don't think it applies across the board, but I do notice many who say they do not live 24/7 as those who want to define what is acceptable and real and what is not while those who live it as a lifestyle 24/7 choice or whatever the chosen label is, seem to in general often advocate a broader acceptance of kinks which are included in the practice of their lifestyle and often not thought out in defined groupings of types of activities.

I don't know. Perhaps it is simply when living 24/7 there is a propensity to include more kinks with what others only do as a session type arrangement to the point it all becomes one, not a situation where one thinks it out first and says 'now I am going to beat you, then we will move out of the scene and onto xyz afterwards....
-----

I notice this too, Catalina (I say this so you don't think I *always* disagree!). {see PS}

On RJ: What might be said by Netz and is definitely said by RJ is that they want a list of what's acceptable versus what's fucked up.

RJ: animal sex can be debated as far as sane goes.


So to RJ, instead of going on about "murder is not a *preference,*" deal with the general issue.

Here's a list of what the shrinks say is 'fucked up' (mentally disordered).

DSM IV pp 522-332;

Paraphilias

Exhibitionism**
Fetishism
Frotteurism**
Pedophilia**
Sexual Masochism
Sexual Sadism**

{{Diagnostic criteria for 302.84 Sexual Sadism
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving acts (real, not simulated) in which the psychological or physical suffering (including humiliation) of the victim is sexually exciting to the person.
B. The person has acted on these urges with a nonconsenting person, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.}}

Tranvestic Fetishism
Voyeurism**
----

**DSM IV TR: The person has acted on these urges with a nonconsenting person, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.
----

Paraphilias not otherwise classified include but are not limited to:
Telephone scatologia
Necrophilia
Partialism
Zoophilia
Coprophilia
Klismaphilia
Urophilia

=====

RJ, PLEASE share with us what YOU think the list should contain.
You will be happy to see it contains zoophilia. Are you OK with the other things as being fuckups?

I presume you may want to make deletions from the list, or add to it.

Do tell, which things are _really_ fucked up??

BTW. To answer your point: No, having, making, shouting about, or posting a list of fuckups is not itself a fuckup. (Else the DSM IV folks would fit!) It's a sign of a particular black-and-white, self-assured (authoritative) stance as to sexual health and belief that one knows an expert amount about it.

--------
PS. Catalina, if I may rephrase your point: some of the 24/7 people seem less inclined--LEAVING ASIDE CRIMINAL MATTERS--to want to list what's 'fucked up.'

 

[catalina_francisco]

Catalina, you yourself have argued for the usefulness of labels, if I remember correctly. Tomato in cake can be great, but unless there's some cake things in there too it's not a cake.

That is true....my point exactly. Just as the soup can be soup on it's own, then become part of the cake when incorporated into the recipe...so are elements of what particular people choose to include in their brand of BDSM or D/s.

And yep, I have spoken extensively about the use of labels, but as a guide not a method of exclusion to decide who fits the job description and who does not. It guides you as to vaguely what a person may be into, then communication clarifies for you just how much you have in common or may have to serve the purpose or interest of another. In fact some might remember the thread I had for discussing labels https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=244249 .

I still find the topic of this thread interesting as with most things, I read and then think about it instead of remaining stuck in my view. This thread has raised questions I haven't had before. Though no-one has outright excluded others, it is a discussion about if and where the boundaries of BDSM and D/s should be drawn and who fits within them. I think the quoted opening post of my thread explains a bit better how I view the use of labels.

I must say many discussions on this board and others always end up in the 'I hate labels' assertion, and yet from what I see most who say this mean they hate specific labels, perhaps the stereotypical image they conjure up, not all labels. Why do I say that? From the length of time I have been on the forum (a couple of years now), there is not one person here who does not identify with some label as such, even if only to admit an interest in BDSM and a tendency to be either more in the vanilla, sub. slave, Dom/me, Mistress, Master, switch, PYL camp. That is a label which identifies a particular interest area and/or personal preference, but a label just the same.

'Labels' enable us to all communicate and have a vague idea of what we are discussing and referring to. Whether we wish to see it as negative or positive is in our own heads, not necessarily the head of the person asking a question, identifying in a particular way, or raising a discussion, though sometimes that may also be true...but if they ask a question or enter a discussion there is a glimmer of hope that even if they have set ideas, they are still open to hearing other views/ideas, especially if they are presented in a less confrontational, accusatory way. Once again on this forum I am asking that people remember that and not jump on someone for wanting to discuss areas which we all know are being discussed on every BDSM oriented board we may drop in on, and hopefully still will be in 5-10 years time....and remember even wishing to identify as a person without a label is a label in itself. None of us are immune, but most of us recognise the specific triggers which do it for us.

Isn't it just as judgemental and labelling to assert you are sub and don't feel comfortable with the idea of being a slave? Are Master and don't like Sir? You do or don't wear a collar and see no use for them or see a lot of symbolism in them? Isn't that making a judgement? Isn't that fitting into a set idea of what fits for you, what you believe to be right? Not necessarily wrong, though the way it is said can make it seem so, but the point is no-one here can honestly say they do not make judgements every day, nor that they do not use labels in their own life in some form or other every day. IMHO it is not a crime, just makes communication and growth so much easier.

I can think of nothing more chaotic than living in a world where labels did not exist. Are you an employee? No...employee is a label...oh, but then so is employer or non-worker. Do you follow a religion...No, I don't like to be identified with a label...oh, but then I fit another label as a non-believer. Do you have any trained skill? No, I don't like to limit myself to a label...mmmm, well kind of hard to seek employment. Are you more submissive, Dominant, or switch in your role? Oh, I don't like to be a label, I just want to find the right person for me. Hmmm, far easier if you can give a vague idea of who you are and what you want. Can't we admit labels can be good and bad, but are a part of life which no-one is exempt from using? How you might choose to use a label or preference does not make it magically not a label or judgement. Rant over.

Catalina

 

[Netzach]

Why do you think that *I* would accept a DSMV definition of what's fucked up? (A phrase I've certainly not used till now)

Does my assertion that anything might potentially not be BDSM mean that I'm so unimaginitive I buy the DSMV definitions of fucked up?

take the German example of Miewes -- Dan Savage, who I don't always like much, said it best. "Being killed and eaten is neither safe nor sane. " I had to pinch myself, and wonder why a pretty damn vanilla gay sex columnist had to bring me back to my senses, instead of coming up with some more elaborate criteria of not-ok-ness for the crime.

That is fucked up. Go ahead, hang me out to dry for my lack of imagination.

As much as something might not be BDSM which you might characterize as having an extreme nature, it might also not be BDSM and have a completely non-extreme nature.

My assertions this far --

it's possible that certain sexual proclivities are not really related to what I do and the interests of most of the people I do it with in rt.

it's possible that I don't have particular insight into those proclivities and associating me with them versus someone else who's also not into them for other reasons is not productive for anyone involved.

it's possible that there is a specific subculture in real time, which I consider BDSM and relevant to BDSM and I choose to affiliate with. I'm not kicking anyone out the door, but also, I'm not going to say, "well sure there's plenty of resources here aimed at you" if IT ISN'T TRUE....that's unfair to that person. The shape and scope of my idea is certainly flexible, but it has a shape and a definition.

Ask a T about inclusivity in most GLBT things. It can be very shitty to be swept into a space as a token and because you just don't have another space to be in.

As a person with a broad sexual imagination, fantasies about rape and murder are part of human experience, they are OK if they remain fantasies, they are sometimes hot for me, they are sometimes not. As someone who is in a BDSM subculture, I don't have anything MORE to add to that based on that. It brings me no closer to those subjects than my liking to go down on girls. That's how I feel about it.

No one has to agree with me. I'm not the DSMV anyway, I'm just one stupid pervert girl, what I think is not going to push anyone out onto the firinges.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Catalina said,

I notice this too, Catalina (I say this so you don't think I *always* disagree!). {see PS}

--------
PS. Catalina, if I may rephrase your point: some of the 24/7 people seem less inclined--LEAVING ASIDE CRIMINAL MATTERS--to want to list what's 'fucked up.'

LOL, damn Pure, we can't have this..people will start talking!!

Catalina

 

[bridgeburner]

Netzach,

Excellent thread - and no I didn't get the impression that you were being exclusionary or condescending, but I don't suppose I'm exactly in an excludable group since I don't have a group at all. I say anyone who was offended can go fuck himself. ;->

I'm recognizing that there IS a BDSM which is located in a specific subcultural millieu, and that we might be kidding ourselves when we think it can accomodate everything left of sexual center.

That's because it doesn't really. I think that because BDSM is seen as outside the norm others who are outside the norm also congregate there --- much as BDSM used to be almost exclusively associated with the gay and lesbian community. The majority of people into BDSM are not queer but the two groups were associated not only by outsiders but also by insiders for a long, long time. I think the separation and the sifting out and the specialization is just a process.

my perspective is not going to be any more informed than a reasonably open minded vanilla person. My being involved in BDSM does not mean I have insight into these things above and beyond that.

I agree with you about your BDSM perspective but you're far more than that which gives you the millennial jump on even most reasonably open-minded vanilla folk. I know lots of reasonably and even very open-minded vanilla folk but I don't talk to them about frottage. ;->

A lot of the things that interest me have nothing to do with BDSM but because of their darker nature I'm more likely to find similar minds in a BDSM forum --- hell, once I got over here I rarely ever posted in the other forums. I'm not a BDSM practitioner, I might at some point dabble but I see it as a fairly specific area and I'm interested in a broader range of things. This is not a failing of BDSM --- I don't see it as the responsibility of BDSM to adopt all the orphan perversions in the world, although it's nice to know that the Chateau will entertain the antics of other-minded guests.


-B

 

[Kajira Callista]

I would suggest a triple expresso . But maybe red bull wodka might be better. And if that does not help, a box of Belgian bonbons.

Francisco.

mmmm you have bon bons?

 

[RJMasters]

RJ PLEASE share with us what YOU think the list should contain.(I.e. I presume you may want to make deletions from the list, or add to it).

Which things are _really_ fucked up. ??

Naw, thanks anyways Pure. I already said what I did not wish to be identified with or to endorse.

I didn't let catilina force me into a corner and I am not going to let you do it either.

I never said I wanted to make a list, that's you twisting my words to suit whatever you are intending to do.

I made it clear where I drew the line, in that those things which fall inside SSC and those that do not. As far as preferences go...I'll take them as they come, to date, my posts seem to indicate I am not a judgemental or closed minded guy where this is concerned.

I can show you many threads and posts where a submissive has said "such and such about their Dom/me, and dozens of people chime right in and say "That's Fucked up" Don't be a doormat, he is abusing you....etc... and that is all fine to say, because underlining it is the concept that safe, sane and consentual has been broken. Or a Dom/me crosses someone limits, and every one screams...that's fucked up. But let ol RJ step up and say anything that falls outside the scope of SSC is fucked up, and you think its an opportunity to pin me to the wall.

I as a single person do not have the capability to define such a list nor would I assume its my right place to do so, however as a community, the community has put forth acceptable practices within the definitions of RISK and SSC and I am content to base my exclusionary views upon that. Loose or tight interpretations of these are certainly open for discussion, but when something falls clearly outside them, the BDSM community as a whole does not support it, and neither do I. What part of that is so hard to understand?

I am done with this thread. I can't state my views any clearer than I have. What you choose to do, whether disagree, agree or try to twist what I have said is totaly up to you. People can read what I said and decide for themselves as an over-all community if they are willing to tolerate and endorse things that fall outside the accpeted practices of SSC and RISK. If there ever comes a day I see that happen, I will no longer wish to be part of it and as I leave, I will say that's fucked up...and won't lose a bit of sleep over it.

 

[Netzach]

Excellent thread - and no I didn't get the impression that you were being exclusionary or condescending, but I don't suppose I'm exactly in an excludable group since I don't have a group at all. I say anyone who was offended can go fuck himself. ;->

That sounds kinda fun, can I be offended?


That's because it doesn't really. I think that because BDSM is seen as outside the norm others who are outside the norm also congregate there --- much as BDSM used to be almost exclusively associated with the gay and lesbian community. The majority of people into BDSM are not queer but the two groups were associated not only by outsiders but also by insiders for a long, long time. I think the separation and the sifting out and the specialization is just a process.

That's a good point, and one I'd taken into consideration, it certainly explains the HOW of all this strange bedfellows stuff.

As for the associations between gay/lesbian same sex and mixed clubs and heteros being kinky, I can't derive a clear picture. I think some of all of each historically. It seems that there were two very distinct veins of BDSM going on concurrently that sometimes touched, rather than hetero SM growing directly out of gay Leather. Though you had stuff like this:

(per Patrick, then Pat Califia)
This connection was made through a bisexual woman who was a lover of mine, Cynthia Slater. Gay leathermen took pity on Cynthia and included her in their games because they recognized her appetites as kindred to their own. Her prodigious boozing and drugging, outrageous masochism, gutter-gums style of dirty-talk topping and shameless exhibitionism were all as legendary as her tiny hands.


I agree with you about your BDSM perspective but you're far more than that which gives you the millennial jump on even most reasonably open-minded vanilla folk. I know lots of reasonably and even very open-minded vanilla folk but I don't talk to them about frottage. ;->

Any time. And yes, people do often have to remind me that I'm not perched in the center of things, ask rosco about my totally useless attempts at insisting I can like "lowbrow" porn...really I can. Not. I keep forgetting I'm highly abnormal and my life is not the kind of thing I can chitchat about at the office Christmas party, because the office Christmas party is so off-center for me.


A lot of the things that interest me have nothing to do with BDSM but because of their darker nature I'm more likely to find similar minds in a BDSM forum --- hell, once I got over here I rarely ever posted in the other forums. I'm not a BDSM practitioner, I might at some point dabble but I see it as a fairly specific area and I'm interested in a broader range of things. This is not a failing of BDSM --- I don't see it as the responsibility of BDSM to adopt all the orphan perversions in the world, although it's nice to know that the Chateau will entertain the antics of other-minded guests.


-B [/QUOTE]


Plain old logic in action. The answer to almost all my asking "what the crap" periodically is "duh."

 

[FungiUg]

Catalina, you yourself have argued for the usefulness of labels, if I remember correctly. Tomato in cake can be great, but unless there's some cake things in there too it's not a cake.

If you get a whole bunch of tomatoes and squish 'em in together really tightly and dry the resulting mess... wouldn't you end up with a "cake" of tomatoes?

My head hurts anyway, so I'm going to go cower and gibber over there with KC.

 

[Kajira Callista]

If you get a whole bunch of tomatoes and squish 'em in together really tightly and dry the resulting mess... wouldn't you end up with a "cake" of tomatoes?

My head hurts anyway, so I'm going to go cower and gibber over there with KC.

awwwww *pets fungiug and gets the advil*

 

[bridgeburner]

Netz,

I'm firmly convinced that you can be any damn thing you please, doll. BTW, my friend is heading back here to LA on Thursday, I don't suppose I could persuade you to stow away in her luggage, huh?


-B

 

[catalina_francisco]

Naw, thanks anyways Pure. I already said what I did not wish to be identified with or to endorse.

I didn't let catilina force me into a corner and I am not going to let you do it either.

Ya know, believe it or not, I did not at any time try to force you into a corner, just haVe a civilised discussion that was neither personal or attacking. Like many have remarked in the past, threads are for discussion which means not everyone is going to agree with you or perhaps another 100% and if the thread is a highly successful one it is going to attract discussion from various viewpoints and raise questions in people's minds, not to mention grow to several pages of a diversity of views and thoughts. If it doesn't and becomes a pat your friend on the back and agree type thread only, the thread usually dies a miserable death. I am no different and I have found much to think on in this thread despite my years of experience already in RL BDSM and D/s and living 24/7 for over 2 years. That is what makes this forum better than most....it does not rely on 2-3 line giggle fest posts or flaming to keep it going instead challenging thoughts, sharing experiences. I for one learn a lot from Netzach and appreciate she has raised the topic in the manner she has.

Catalina

 

[bridgeburner]

On the topic of open-mindedness

On the topic of open-mindedness:

Making a judgement call doesn't make one close-minded. Eventually everyone has a point where the door to other viewpoints is firmly shut. Open and closed minds operate on a spectrum with some people falling farther toward one end or the other.

Judgemental language seems to be the real sticking point here: It's okay to say it's not for you but it's not okay to say somebody's desires are bad. I call bullshit on that. Ted Bundy's desires were bad. Pedophiles desires are bad -- no matter how unfortunate that they're beyond help. These things aren't just "not my cuppa" they are bad. It doesn't make me close-minded to make that distinction.

-B

 

[catalina_francisco]

Re: On the topic of open-mindedness

On the topic of open-mindedness:

Making a judgement call doesn't make one close-minded. Eventually everyone has a point where the door to other viewpoints is firmly shut. Open and closed minds operate on a spectrum with some people falling farther toward one end or the other.

Judgemental language seems to be the real sticking point here: It's okay to say it's not for you but it's not okay to say somebody's desires are bad. I call bullshit on that. Ted Bundy's desires were bad. Pedophiles desires are bad -- no matter how unfortunate that they're beyond help. These things aren't just "not my cuppa" they are bad. It doesn't make me close-minded to make that distinction.

-B

And I thought those activities and type of people were something everyone who posted here agreed were not acceptable and made mention of throughout the posts.

Catalina

 

[bridgeburner]

Re: Re: On the topic of open-mindedness

And I thought those activities and type of people were something everyone who posted here agreed were not acceptable and made mention of throughout the posts.

Catalina

They're not, but if I'm not close-minded for making that judgement and you're not close-minded for making that judgement then the simple act of making a judgement does not make one close-minded.

It may be rude to say someone's desires are fucked up but that doesn't mean one is necessarily close-minded or even wrong, for that matter.

Saying that all sex acts other than that for the begetting of children within the marriage bed are bad is close-minded. Saying that anything goes with the exception of kids, cows, corpses and coprophilia is about as open-minded as it gets -- not counting the coprophila, that is. I mean, it's fine for them that likes it, but don't try and kiss me with that mouth, you know?

-B

 

[serijules]

I'm not trying to be a crank, I'm just genuinely tossing this out as food for thought and giving my personal 2 cents, call it an inspired moment of "huh....hmmm"

I can see a bit of controversy brewing a few posts down. Now, I personally am all for anyone having any kind of sexual fantasy under the sun and writing about it and talking about it is fine.

I don't think that every time someone says "I fantasize about XYZ immoral and antisocial activity" there always has to be a chorus saying "oh but the reality is not hot or pretty..." among intelligent and reasonably decent adults, that's a given.

But what's got me wondering is how/why BDSM becomes the ghetto for every anti-social sexual impulse there is out there? Why when someone has a thought about death, disfigurement, animal-fucking and rape, here we are?
Why do we ask these things on our own board? Other than we're the only board who won't make it a shouting match and witch hunt, but I'm not talking about things as they are, merely theoretically how they are...

As an example, does rosco's thread really have anything remotely to do with my life in leather? I love the thread, and I like the author quite a lot, and I don't really think it does. It has a lot to do with my sexual landscape, it asks some really good questions...but in an ideal world, it might be part of the discourse on sexuality, not "BDSM"

True, I think that we are probably the more tolerant of the fringes of sexual behavior than most other sexual subcultures, but is there a point at which some of this becomes a more generalized sexuality discussion? Maybe what needs to happen is that the discourse around "sexuality" in general needs to expand to accomodate its kinks better.

All I know is that when I think about what I think my BDSM is, I do draw some harder lines around it than I used to in the past. I *am* talking about a linear path from postwar leather and 70's-80's prodomme fetish culture somehow over the internet and to me. I'm not saying this in some fucked up exclusionary way, most of you know me better than that. I'm not saying if you don't adhere to this you don't belong on this board or at my munches or anywhere near me, that's not the point either...

I am just beginning to question the "BDSM is anything remotely related to bondage discipline sado masochism dee ess and fetishes" mentality-- and I'm recognizing that there IS a BDSM which is located in a specific subcultural millieu, and that we might be kidding ourselves when we think it can accomodate everything left of sexual center.

It's a very tenuous thought. I doubt that many of the scene people I feel I derive from would likewise claim me as an actual descendant. But my philosophies are created in relation to reading Baldwin, Rinella, Califia, etc. my safety fetishes are ideally served by Wiseman, I go to conventions, I read leather journal, and I say this merely to be very clear about one thing--

I am coming from inside the mainstream of BDSM. You know, the boring, overgroomed, polite part that everyone likes to complain about. The lifeless floggings, the shitty manners, the personal grudges, the political games, the weekend warriors, the kinky swingers, the internet-infested "gee it used to be great" middle of the road. SSC is not something that makes me roll my eyes, even if it is very very very overstated-- I think it's a fairly good idea.

BDSM has all those elements. But not for everyone and it does not have to be that way --

Negotiating MY scenes never felt like I was giving the bottom too much power, it felt like maybe I might get some great ideas for things I've not tried yet if I talked to them.

MY floggings are sometimes very soft and hypnotic and not about pain. We call that "a reward." If I'm doing it in public and people find it boring, that's fucking great, I'm flogging my boy for me, not for Laura Antoniou. You might get lucky and get to see me make someone scream another night.

I personally believe that if someone's not deriving any enjoyment or satisfaction or positive outcome from the scene or the way the scene fits into their relationship, they are being abused. No, that does not mean the slave gets spoiled and pampered, that means they feel fulfilled at the end of the day's hard work.

(Slaves, in my world, are for working, not keeping in a crate, and not usually for fucking, mostly for working...see why they are so very very very rare?)

The endless discussion about real submission versus fake submission is moot for ME. Genuinely felt submission, even with provisions around certain things, is still submission to the best of one's ability, it's still something to be savored and enjoyed. Even a physical decision to bottom as an equal power is an expression of trust, often more so than a lot of submission and service endeavors.

Given a choice between the two, I'll take the latter a lot of the time.

So, you can ask me about horse fucking, snuff, Masters who order slaves to kill themselves, disfigurement, forced gender transitioning, 24/7 rubber dolls, 24/7 ponies, but I assure you this--

my perspective is not going to be any more informed than a reasonably open minded vanilla person. My being involved in BDSM does not mean I have insight into these things above and beyond that.

I worry that in posting this post I'm doing something I detest, which is when a subculture distances itself from its fringes in an effort to be more acceptable. I hope that's not how this comes across. I'm just saying that I don't necessarily possess expertise on the outer limits of sexuality simply because I like to smack people and poke them with needles in an organized fashion, and encourage men to suck each other off and all manner of things that are just as fringe in some people's minds.

I'm quoting this whole dang thing because I haven't yet read the rest of the replies, and not sure that I will.

Netzach...a few posts ago I stated that no single person on this forum has really influenced me, but I really need to eat my words on that one, because you have always been one of my favourite posters here. This post clearly reminds me of why.

It made me think of something I was ranting about not that long ago. Some friends and I were discussion limits, and which were our strongest overall limits. I was curious to hear their answers, and looking forward to the discussion that would come of it.

I was disappointed because almost all of them answered with the same things...scat, beastality, children, watersports and non-consensual play.

These things are not a given part of BDSM in my mind, by my definition. They are entirely separate fetishes. Many have a common interest in BDSM as well, or vice versa, but there is a line in there somewhere. My own list of limits for general play partners (they don't necessarily apply to my Domme) was tame in comparison, and someone asked me...."So you are into scat and all that?". sigh...

I was and still am completely exasperated by the whole thing. Since when did BDSM become so broad that anything outside of vanilla sex is lumped into this giant taboo tub with a big CAUTION: BDSM CONTENT! sticker slapped across it? When *I* first discovered this lifestyle, that line seemed a lot more defined. I think the Internet has a lot to do with it.

Eh, anyhow, I'm getting off topic here. I pretty much just popped in to say I loved your post, as I do most of your posts. Thanks

 

[Pure]

Some interesting material: (note to Catalina)

N earlier:
I am just beginning to question the "BDSM is anything remotely related to bondage discipline sado masochism dee ess and fetishes" mentality-- and I'm recognizing that there IS a BDSM which is located in a specific subcultural millieu, and that we might be kidding ourselves when we think it can accomodate everything left of sexual center.

N

it's possible that certain sexual proclivities are not really related to what I do and the interests of most of the people I do it with in rt.

----
Seri
I was disappointed because almost all of them answered with the same things...scat, beastality, children, watersports and non-consensual play.

These things are not a given part of BDSM in my mind, by my definition. They are entirely separate fetishes.

----
BB
Saying that all sex acts other than that for the begetting of children within the marriage bed are bad is close-minded. Saying that anything goes with the exception of kids, cows, corpses and coprophilia is about as open-minded as it gets -- not counting the coprophila, that is. I mean, it's fine for them that likes it, but don't try and kiss me with that mouth, you know?

----
It's good to see a community defining itself. The real bdsm.
For a start, as seri says, the fetish thing is really separate.

The fetishists are not really 'in'. I suppose the leather folks, by tradition, have to be here, but *that's it.* no more.

As N and osg say, the extreme 'ownership' dom/mes and subs are out too. Theyre too close to self destruction. As N says, the connection should further the the PYL/pyl's health and happiness, and both have to leave feeling good, or it's just not OK.

Definitely time for cleaning house, separating the sheep from the goats.

Let's see how N puts it:
it's possible that there is a specific subculture in real time, which I consider BDSM and relevant to BDSM and I choose to affiliate with. I'm not kicking anyone out the door, but also, I'm not going to say, "well sure there's plenty of resources here aimed at you" if IT ISN'T TRUE....that's unfair to that person.

Catalina, I'd like you to use N's *very* diplomatic paragraph as a formula next time someone posts

"My domme wants me to drink her pee. Is that OK?"

Standard Reply:

Dear Sir/Madam:

Concerning your posting about [[INSERT: a domme with a urine fetish]]. We regret to say it has been deleted.

Be advised this is, here, a specific BDSM subculture in real time. We are not knocking your interest or your dom/me in the least when we say that [[INSERT urine fetishism]] is not part of bdsm. There are dom/mes who are eager scuba divers too. But this is not the place for thread on scuba diving.

We're not kicking you out, but must advise you that we lack the resources to respond to you. It would be unfair to say we do.

What we have here, is healthy BDSM and we'd really like to keep it that way. Feel free to lurk and learn. No one is excluded; we are a tolerant and broad minded community. It's just that some persons' sexual tastes and issues, if aired here (as was the case, some time ago), would do a disservice to the public perceptions of the BDSM community.

Thank you.

The moderators.
----

PS: I may suggest you consult a bulletin board that deals with extreme practices and the really perverted stuff.

 

[FungiUg]

Rolls on the floor, kicking and screaming in gales of laughter