Curious

[serijules]

Cute, Pure. You made me laugh.

The issue all comes down to assumptions for me. People assuming that extreme fetishes are even an interest enough for me that I have to consider them on my limits list. Is someone, knowing I'm into BDSM, going to assume that I like candlelit bubblebaths with a glass of wine? Probably not...too tame. Why assume that the other end of the scale is any different? BDSM is the middle ground between vanilla sex with the lights out in the missionary position, and someone who likes to fuck goats using shit for lube.

By golly, they are all welcome to dip whatever parts of themselves they want into BDSM and every namable fetish on the planet. But for the sake of sanity, I really wish people overall would stop lumping it all under the convienient label of BDSM. I don't expect it, but I can certainly wish it.

BDSM covers a hell of a lot of ground for such a small word. Watersports, Beastality, Phedophilia etc oddly enough have their own special words. One can intermix them to their hearts content, but for fucks sakes, don't lump it all together in one big mess.

I'm babbling. I'm going to find coffee.

 

[Netzach]

Pure doesn't draw such distinctions, apparently, seirjules, any attempt to say "I'm not interested in this and why is it assumed I am" is apparently making SM into a sewing circle.

Dear Sir/Ma'am, my Domme wants me to drink her pee, is this ok?

Dear peon - why are you asking me? If she's your Domme you should be doing anything she asks. I had my slave drink piss once so, obviously you should do it as often as possible. What do you think this is, a democracy? Certain arrogant health care practitioners blinded by their bias will tell you this is unhealthy, but many new-age-medicine and non-western sources suggest that drinking your own pee once a day is good for the complexion and constitution. Suck up.

While you are at it, eating shit: soooo much more transgressive, no? And what's the point of having an SM sexuality if it's not in opposition to everything that people might say is normal and good. You realize your OBLIGATION is to be the seamy underside of everything so the rest of us can feel like we are stickin' it to the man.

 

[bridgeburner]

Pure,

Nobody has said anything about kicking anyone out of anything merely pointed out that there are a lot of things lumped in with or tenuously attached to the BDSM label for lack of any better place to go. The part of my post that you quoted wasn't even addressing the main topic of the thread so I'm not sure how you tie it to what Netz and Serijules said.


-B

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Dear peon ...

Nice pun.

Would i be correct in assuming the debate centers around when a dominant/master/top/sadist/WHATEVER the fuck decides to enforce his or her will by flirting with potentially unhealthy activities?

 

[Netzach]

Nice pun.

Would i be correct in assuming the debate centers around when a dominant/master/top/sadist/WHATEVER the fuck decides to enforce his or her will by flirting with potentially unhealthy activities?

Actually I don't think that's the core issue.

I think the core issue is that Netz is descibing the social center of her life that she perceives as "BDSM" and wondering why that social center attracts questions about potentially harmful and/or fringe sexuality more than the social center of her life labeled "sexuality" or "art" and maybe going so far as to assert that not every possible sexual behavior dreamt up by humans ought to get filed under "BDSM"

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Actually I don't think that's the core issue.

I think the core issue is that Netz is descibing the social center of her life that she perceives as "BDSM" and wondering why that social center attracts questions about potentially harmful and/or fringe sexuality more than the social center of her life labeled "sexuality" or "art" and maybe going so far as to assert that not every possible sexual behavior dreamt up by humans ought to get filed under "BDSM"

Whoa Netzi, slow down. You're getting meta on me. i'm trying to avoid the clinician's view based on some of the examples i've seen posted of what may or may not fall properly in the BDSM venue.

Yours, concerning watersports, seemed right on that "edge" of the abyss. People normally don't die ingesting urine, but the squick factor, read humiliation/degradation/et al, definitely forms a line in the sand for many. If nothing else, urinating on someone gets right at the medulla oblongata animal level of marking territory ... and if that ain't domination, sadistic if your partner will be right on the panic line, i don't know what is.

 

[Pure]

Hi AA,

At first I thought your formulation was not quite right, but your followup makes the point quite excellently. The exercize of power and/or the enforcement of degradation [through certain apparently distinct perverse acts] are certainly *connected* issues with so-called BDSM (never defined by Netz).

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Hi AA,

At first I thought your formulation was not quite right, but your followup makes the point quite excellently. The exercize of power and/or the enforcement of degradation [through certain apparently distinct perverse acts] are certainly *connected* issues with so-called BDSM (never defined by Netz).

Careful Pure, i'm not getting in a "pissing contest" with either of you. i just recognize this particular act as "right there on the edge of the abyss" though "usually" not harmful. i've read others' posts concerning flogging, caning, whipping, et al ... activities that rank way up there on the risky business side, but we normally don't quell others about them, nor quail at their mention.

i'll be Frank. i vote OSG as my favorite gymnast flirting with disaster. i'd never get involved with some of the things she does, or contemplates, but i love watching an artist at work.

Hell, i lost my train of thought. i guess i'm trying to say, what happened to different strokes for different folks? Then again, if you can incorporate an act into your BDSM relationship that involves domination, or sadism, way the fuck out there on the bleeding edge, i can understand why they wrote the DMSV as they did. Still reading the masochism and sadism entries. An incongruity exists there, but i haven't nailed it yet.

 

[Pure]

Hi Netz,

While I understand community mindedness as a sentiment, and the 'don't put Bundy in *my* neighborhood' feeling, I notice that, like RJ, you avoid specifics--- and hence the appearance is of arbirtrariness or opportunism.

Specificaly,
1) Which fetishes are included in BDSMasyouknowitinyourcommunity?

2) Why does osg's 'extreme' of practice fall outside? (as it appears to?

3) Why is [my example] piss drinking a pointless trangressive gesture toward 'the man', but [your example] making your partner watch you fuck another (exhibitionism/ enforced voyeurism etc.) fine and dandy healthy BDSM?

 

[Guest]

Buncha damn sadists...I tell yah ..Giving us all a headache..

 

[Guest]

Buncha damn sadists...I tell yah ..Giving us all a headache..

But, just for clarification..Didn't this originally have to do with what actually belonged on the BDSM board .

 

[serijules]

But, just for clarification..Didn't this originally have to do with what actually belonged on the BDSM board .

I didn't read it that way at all *shrugs*

 

[bridgeburner]

Neither did I, Jules. I thought it was more a question of why anyone would assume that Netz, as a BDSM practitioner would know anything about the best way to fuck a goat.


-B

 

[catalina_francisco]

I like eating Cookies I actually love eating cookies way too much.
I like chocolate cookies and I like Oatmeal Cookies.
I love to sit in the morning and dip a dry biscuit into my coffee.
There is nothing like drinking a glass of milk and licking the filling of an Oreo cookie.

I like cookies so much that I even like talking about them. But I have a problem. I am not allowed to go and talk at the Oreo cookie forum because I do not only like Oreo cookies but I also like chocolate chip cookies.

And I can not join the chocolate chip cookies forum because I am considered a pervert there for even considering eating an Oreo cookie.

What shall I do? I would like to be able to talk about cookies but it seems that I have no place to go.

Francisco.
Ps I am trying to adjust to a more friendly style BDSM

 

[AngelicAssassin]

... I would like to be able to talk about cookies but it seems that I have no place to go.

Francisco.
Ps I am trying to adjust to a more friendly style BDSM

Get thee behind me Satan ...

Point noted 'Cisco, but Netzi has a valid one as well. RJ got downright Republican in describing it, but one can find "the haze zone" tricky to navigate.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I got the drift now.

I will open up my own cookie forum.

It will be called Cookie Talk and everyone will be allowed to talk about any kind of cookie they want.

With the exception of speculaas cookies of course, I hate those disgusting cookies. I mean if you eat speculaas well then you do not deserve to be called a cookie lover and you should post to a different forum. Maybe you should go and post to the perverted cookie talk forum.

I feel that I need to take a stand on this, SO FROM NOW ON NO MORE TALKING ABOUT SPECULAAS ON COOKIE TALK.

And anyone caught posting about speculaas will be reminded about how bad they are. I am not actually going to delete their post. No I am going to leave them there. I will make sure that everyone knows how I think about persons who eat SPECULAAS (BAH).

PEOPLE WHO EAT SPECULAAS ARE REALLY DISGUSTING, AND IF I WANT I WILL TELL THEM THAT.

But I will be nice and have a special forum for speculaas lovers. The perverted cookie talk forum, now that I think about it maybe I should also include Ginger Cookies in my rules. I also do not really like ginger cookies.

I think what I will do is make a list of cookies I like and the rest of the cookies will have to go to another cookie talk forum. I will still tell them though how perverted they are and what a bad taste they have. You see I think it is my right to insult people and make sure everyone knows what kind of sick bastards they are.

Francisco.

 

[serijules]

I'm trying to figure out where anyone said anything about not talking about any sort of kink or interest here.

I guess I'm not up to par on...cookies.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I'm trying to figure out where anyone said anything about not talking about any sort of kink or interest here.

I guess I'm not up to par on...cookies.

You must have misread my posts I never said I was going to remove them from my cookie talk forum. I am going to make sure the offending posts will stay there and I will also make sure everyone knows how perverted it is talking about speculaas and ginger cookies.

I mean it is important to remain open-minded, it is important to make sure that everyone knows that I do not discriminate against anyone; I am tolerant of other people’s tastes in cookies. Of course they will be allowed to post but I will tell them how perverted and sick they are if they eat those cookies.

That is a much more liberal and friendlier approach don’t you think?

And please remember I am only talking about cookies.

Francisco.
PS I think talking about cookies is so much more fun then talking about nasty things like whips, pain blood, knives, fireplay, needles, piercing.......

 

[serijules]

alrighty then...

 

[bridgeburner]

I'm trying to figure out where anyone said anything about not talking about any sort of kink or interest here.

Jules,

Oh, hush. You don't want to jump anyone's train of tantrum by shoveling reality in to the furnace, now, do you?

-B

 

[FungiUg]

But, just for clarification..Didn't this originally have to do with what actually belonged on the BDSM board .

I didn't read it that way either. I think it was simply a discussion about why so many sexual kinks, practices and perversions get lumped into or labelled as "BDSM" -- when in fact, they are loosely related at best.

I don't think there was every any intention of evoking exclusionary behaivour -- just a good healthy discussion about what we (and others) assume in the BDSM label.

I'm not trying to put words in NetZach's mouth -- that's how I read it.

Can I go back to kicking and screaming in laughter now? This discussion is damned entertaining! Mmmmm, cookie...

 

[serijules]

Jules,

Oh, hush. You don't want to jump anyone's train of tantrum by shoveling reality in to the furnace, now, do you?

-B

actually.... *grin*

 

[catalina_francisco]

Origianlly posted by Netzach
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?

Sorry EKVITKAR, but couldn't let you be seen as confused. And no, I still think Netzach started a good topic and thread, but still see BDSM and D/s as with most things (which I think Netz does too), an evolving theme. For another boring analogy, the Model T Ford was seen as revolutionary and a car, but the Ferrari's, Porshes, and cars of today with electronic ignitions and computers built in bear little resemblance...but they are not said to no longer be carsand still have the power to set pulses racing....and there are stillenthusiasts who worship the Model T AND see the modern incarnation as a car also. Then we have our own English language...each year new words and phrases are added, sometimes based solely or loosely on another language, but still said to be part of the English language.

Why is it people within a community of alternative sexuality and seeing themselves as usually very outside the box are so set on being regimented in what was and always has been, without the ability to consider progression and introduction of various themes but still guided by the principles of D/s or BDSM as the preference may be? It is often said it is the psychological which drives many here, so why is a fetsih when used in a D/s context suddenly just a fetish and the D/s factor ignored. If it doesn't fit why are there so many discussions here about vibrators, anal and oral sex, and how to find a partner....all discussions that are very vanilla IMO, but have been had here as part of each person's D/s experience and rightly so as far as I am concerned? Just my opinion but I think it comes down to what the thought process is behind the said act not how it is normally interpreted in a vanilla or fetish environment.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

Jules,

Oh, hush. You don't want to jump anyone's train of tantrum by shoveling reality in to the furnace, now, do you?

-B

Now, now be nice not nasty. We have left all nastiness behind us now. That is why I talk about cookies.

Cookies are a nice safe subject. Nobody can get insulted or hurt by talking about cookies.

Of course I could have talked about angels but since AA, angels do not seem so friendlyor innocent anymore.

Francisco.
PS Disagreeing with someone is not throwing a tantrum.

 

[RJMasters]

Get thee behind me Satan ...

Point noted 'Cisco, but Netzi has a valid one as well. RJ got downright Republican in describing it, but one can find "the haze zone" tricky to navigate.

Blinks...don't mind me...I am just sitting here eating my cookies.