Curious

[catalina_francisco]

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

I just found these link for when you want to have your cookies.

http://www.nabiscoworld.com/games/or_shock_ordg.htm

Francisco.

 

[FungiUg]

If we get angry and upset over the cookie conversation, do we get to have a tantrum and toss our cookies?

 

[Pure]

bb said,

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.

if that's what the discussion boils down to, what N could be assumed to know, well, we shouldn't even assume she can tie a proper knot.

i believe she made several claims about what "BDSM" was, and about common practices of 'her' community. She--as I read her-- alleged its lack of connection with a number of practices from lechery to osg's extreme submission.

if i misread your earlier post about who's open and who's closed minded. sorry. i could delete the quote, if you want, but the general point of the posting was understood quite well by the others, who don't seem to claim they've been misread.

 

[catalina_francisco]

If we get angry and upset over the cookie conversation, do we get to have a tantrum and toss our cookies?

Only if you stamp your feet and shout, " I am a Kiwi, we like sheep and are proud of it."

Francisco.

 

[FungiUg]

Only if you stamp your feet and shout, " I am a Kiwi, we like sheeps and are proud of it."

Francisco.

Are you saying I toss my cookies over sheep?

 

[catalina_francisco]

Are you saying I toss my cookies over sheep?

I've heard of cookies and milk, I never connected sheep and milking though.


Ooooops, we better stop this or we might be thought to be having a discussion about beastiality!!

Francisco

 

[FungiUg]

Ooooops, we better stop this or we might be thought to be having a discussion about beastiality!!

I think we've come full circle, and now we're back to the original discussion that sheep are only loosely connected to cookies. And should we exclude sheep from our cookie discussions? Are we comfortable about having our cookie label include sheep? And what flavour is it anyway? Does it come with wafers?

 

[RJMasters]

I just found these link for when you want to have your cookies.

http://www.nabiscoworld.com/games/or_shock_ordg.htm

Francisco.

Mighty nice of you. Thanks.

 

[bridgeburner]

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.

I got my cookies and even a glass of milk but I wanted my damn nap today and didn't get it.

BTW, Train of Tantrum is somewhat different than actually having a tantrum or pitching a fit for that matter but I realize that the subtle differences my own mind makes in the terms may not be clear to everyone else. I was merely sighing over the lamentable fact that no matter how many times and how many people expressed the point that Netz wasn't attempting to stifle anyone or exclude anyone from the board that was still what was being argued. It's a Red Herring. Herring doesn't make very good cookies at all....unless one happens to be Swedish.

So to use the Cookie analogy it's like people on a Chocolate Chip Cookie board. Some of them are cookie lovers and some of them really only like Chocolate Chip Cookies. Why the assumption that a Chocolate Chip Cookie afficianado should also love or even know anything about Snickerdoodles or Date Pinwheels? And when one gets into the realm of Herring Cookies what is the real common ground between those and Chocolate Chips? A dog biscuit has as much in common.

All of it can be discussed calmly and civilly between all kinds of cookie lovers and even those who eat chocolate chips only for the chocolate, but if the name of the game is Chocolate Chip Cookie then it's certainly bewildering to have outsiders assume that one eats dog biscuits.



-B

 

[bridgeburner]

if that's what the discussion boils down to, what N could be assumed to know, well, we shouldn't even assume she can tie a proper knot.

I think you've missed the point a bit. If one has a label - be it BDSM or Plumber or Pastry Chef -- there are certain assumptions about areas where one might have experience or expertise. Netz wanted to know why the BDSM label includes things like murder and goat-fucking which have as much to do with BDSM as being a Saucier has to do with being a Pastry Chef.

i believe she made several claims about what "BDSM" was, and about common practices of 'her' community. She--as I read her-- alleged its lack of connection with a number of practices from lechery to osg's extreme submission.

I'll go back and read again but I belive you've misread her.

if i misread your earlier post about who's open and who's closed minded. sorry. i could delete the quote, if you want.

No need to delete, I was merely pointing out that I had been on a completely different topic than the one you were addressing in the rest of your post with the other excerpts.

but the general point of the posting was understood quite well by the others, who don't seem to claim they've been misread

Now I'm confused. Which posting was understood to mean what by whom?


-B

 

[Pure]

Francisco said,
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.

Right on, Francisco. I suspect bb has things confused if she thinks it's a matter of a misconceived desire to conflate chocolate chip cookies and dog biscuits; or that it's a problem that we'll all show up at Netz's wanting cookies for ourselves, and biscuits for our Fido.

I can believe Speculaa disgusting. I want no part of them. What you don't mention are the truly depraved persons: those who take a sandwich cookies and pull them apart before eating the halves. These people utterly miss the point known to all who properly make or consume cookies: That the INTEGRITY of the cookie is paramount, and reckless disregard for it shows a squalid taste for utter destructiveness and places one outside of ANY self respecting cookie community, be it chocolate chip consumers, macaroonophiles, or sandwichpie lickers.

---
Note to Netz and a couple others. DSM-V is not yet written, so it would be less embarrassing if it wasn't referred to.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Note to Netz and a couple others. DSM-V is not yet written, so it would be less embarrassing if it wasn't referred to.

Wanna bet the fruit cake factory ain't in full swing as we speak?

chuckle ... lighten up. You know to what we refer. DSM-IV ... pretension in Roman numerals ... booyah.

Let's get back to the orgy by the pool.

 

[Netzach]

Francisco said,
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.

Right on, Francisco. I suspect bb has things confused if she thinks it's a matter of a misconceived desire to conflate chocolate chip cookies and dog biscuits; or that it's a problem that we'll all show up at Netz's wanting cookies for ourselves, and biscuits for our Fido.

I can believe Speculaa disgusting. I want no part of them. What you don't mention are the truly depraved persons: those who take a sandwich cookies and pull them apart before eating the halves. These people utterly miss the point known to all who properly make or consume cookies: That the INTEGRITY of the cookie is paramount, and reckless disregard for it shows a squalid taste for utter destructiveness and places one outside of ANY self respecting cookie community, be it chocolate chip consumers, macaroonophiles, or sandwichpie lickers.

---
Note to Netz and a couple others. DSM-V is not yet written, so it would be less embarrassing if it wasn't referred to.

I'm sorry you are embarrased for me.

How is bb confused again?

 

[Netzach]

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?

A lot. In all instances the reciever winds up happy they recieved instead of crushed and fucked up over it.

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


I don't know if hers does or does not, because I don't live her life. I actually *don't* think her relationship typifies an exchange in which the bottom half is being abused, based on her posts.
in fact osg's practise has nothing to do with my query, unless she's recently actually been disembowled with a sharp broomstick and I'm not aware. People's queries and reactions to them inspired my quereies, and the fact that like Shadowsdream (who interestingly is NOT being subjected to the Nth degree here...hm) I have not found these extremes to be recurring themes in my real life off these boards and I find that interesting. If osg is "outside" it's largely a factor of self selection - she herself has often alluded to her Daddy not really being interested in the mainstream scene.

Does M/s have a place in BDSM? Yes, if it thinks it does.

I know a lot of M/s couples in my life who ARE into BDSM and view themselves through that matrix, that's the commonality.

I know of some who don't feel that connection and therefore are not part of the community, just like any other sexuality subgroup, like "lesbians" or "spanking fetishists"


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?

I think your example certainly fits within the rubric of normal and mainstream BDSM, and I find it amusing that you think it beyond my personal pale. I piss in my partner's mouths because it turns me on.

You seem to allude to it because it proves a point.

 

[s'lara]

Strangest progression of a thread in a while.

Rock Netz.

Pure, i'll wait to see where You're going before commenting.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Netzach I hope you do not think I am trying to Satanise you, although you would enjoy being seen as a bitch from hell, Shadowsdream and you are both Bitches from hell and note the capital letter in that.


We can dance all around it but what we are discussing here is the fundamental right of forum posters to post in BDSM Talk about subjects that are or are not directly related to BDSM. I really like FungiUg’s analogy. Talking about cookies has lead to talking about sheep, masturbation and beastiality. Cookies on first sight have nothing to do with that subject and still it led us there.

If someone starts a thread or posts a question I am not interested in, I do not reply to it. If someone asks me questions I know nothing of, I tell them I know nothing of the subject. There is no obligation to read or be interested in all threads.

If a subject has nothing to do with BDSM and you think it does not belong in BDSM Talk or Cafe report it to the moderator and if she agrees she will either move it to the appropriate forum or delete it.

Francisco.

 

[Guest]

Okee - *grin* Someone hand me the damn horns..*sigh*

I got the impression - which I will admit may be mistaken, that this all came about as a result (no doubt just topping some cumulative feelings) of two threads that were started.
Wherein we got a discussion of what was supposed to be on the damn board.

And if I am mistaken in this apprehension - Well all I can say is it isn't the first time and likely bloody well won't be the last..

Hmm And I am fully willing to agree tha no, BDSM is not supposed to be the umbrella catch all for anyone who feels they have an "abnormal" sexuality.
It is an acronym that pretty well defines itself and what is included in it.
As for "snuff" or "Necrophilia" well..
No Necrophilia doesn't fit ..Sorry folks.. You can't Dominate a corpse ..It's dead..You can't torture a corpse..Same reason..Etc etc et fewking cetera...
Is it an abnormal sexuality..Yup according to most .. Does it belong here...Nope.
Real snuff is as illegal as it is possible to get - ergo it has no place on the board.. Right up there with pedophilia..Just out of simple self preservation if nothing else.

And if you don't belive that this stuff matters, I've got a chapter two that they will NOT accept to the LIT story index..Because it was intended to be the lead in to a murder mystery (I wanted to try writing one), and somone dies.
Fantasy relating to Death as a result of certain types of activity ..Now thats a grey area (not really)..But then so is most of what got (and still is) discussed on the "Mind of a Sadist" thread.
I will say that I think it would fall under the Sadism/Masochism part of the whole thing.

Yah know - it's not wrong to say that something doesn't fit.
It's not wrong to say you don't agree with an activity.
One of the reasons that I like this board and the people on it, is that there is (generally) not this compulsive need to affirm every damn thing.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I think we all should feel proud that we have made BDSM Talk and Cafe into a place where people with different sexualities, feelings and needs can come and discuss them. Maybe so now and then we get topics which are not directly related to BDSM. When a topic comes up which really has nothing to do with BDSM they are moved to the appropriate forum. Recently this was done to a thread.

It is not as if we are snowed under with subjects that have absolutely nothing to do with BDSM. We are not a bunch of people that talk about snuff or Necrophilia or paedophilia. Those are subject that are not allowed on Literotica and not on BDSM Talk or Café.

Disagreeing with someone, discussing opinions and ideas is what we do here. What we should not do is close the board to those persons who want to find a place where they can come and talk openly about their sexuality. We are a BDSM forum so yes we should concentrate on BDSM subjects but we can also be good friendly hosts and keep this a place where everyone is welcome independent of sexuality be it an alternative sexuality or not.

You can tell me I am having a fit; you can say I am throwing tantrums or that I should bake my cookies longer or that my cookies have been in the oven too long. The problem we are facing is that BDSM is a very big area and there are lots of things that can be said and done that on first inspection have nothing to do with BDSM. Every person has an own definition of BDSM and IMHO that is how it should be. BDSM is in essence a very personal experience based on your own feelings and needs. I do not feel I am qualified after being in the lifestyle for more then 10 years to decide for others what BDSM is and I do not think there is a person on this world that can or should try to decide what BDSM is.

Francisco.

 

[RJMasters]

We can dance all around it but what we are discussing here is the fundamental right of forum posters to post in BDSM Talk about subjects that are or are not directly related to BDSM.


Exert taken from the rules of the BDSM talk forum:

In this forum, our focus is on BDSM sexuality as it’s played out in skin-to-skin relationships. We welcome those whose experience may be limited to online contact, or even to their own fantasy life. Anyone with a serious interest in BDSM should feel free to post their questions and insights on the forum.

We’re not a BDSM chat room - we are not *in role* here - nor a general forum and don’t wish to be a place where chat room type BDSM protocol is either required or encouraged. For example - using upper/lower case for pronouns (W/we, I/i, My/yours) or for user names (Dom Sir and sub girl) - is not encouraged here. This is also not an appropriate venue for role-play scening. If your interest is on line sexual role playing, feel free to post a personal add on the Literotica Personals Forum or start a Sexual Role Playing thread. Both forums are down the hall and to the left!

We do not enjoy nor condone personally directed flame wars or other off- topic material (excessive flirting or personal conversation that interrupts serious topics), and will not allow it to dominate our threads and permeate our discussions.


Since it is apparent by the rules posted that the focus of the forum is for BDSM, I think what is being discussed here involves whether certain subjects are really about BDSM, or to say it another way, is BDSM an all inclusive umbrella for everything. If so, then why post all these rules? Why is it abundantly clear that use of W/we and I/i My/yours are not welcome. Why is role-play scening not welcomed and other forums are suggested for those activities? Why bother with posting SSC or RISK guidelines?

Every new person who comes here is encouraged to read these rules and to abide by them. Because it is clear that not "ALL" people, as you suggest, are garunteed the right to post here. We don't allow people to spam here...we don't allow people to post personal ads here...we put forth the RISK and SSC guidelines as a point of reference as to what is and what isn't acceptable.


If someone starts a thread or posts a question I am not interested in, I do not reply to it. If someone asks me questions I know nothing of, I tell them I know nothing of the subject. There is no obligation to read or be interested in all threads.


Gee where have I heard that before...oh wait I know...I mentioned that if I thought something was fucked up I wouldn't post to it or even open that thread anymore. Isn't that what I said...yeah that is what I said.


If a subject has nothing to do with BDSM and you think it does not belong in BDSM Talk or Cafe report it to the moderator and if she agrees she will either move it to the appropriate forum or delete it.

Unless moderation isn't based upon agreed upon rules, but done arbitrarily, in which case, those of us who came to lit and read the rules and agreed to them, can now expect BDSM to encompass everything as that is the current mindset of the moderator. But you knew that didn't you Francisco, which means it ultimately comes back to you and Catalina.


Francisco.

I realize that conversations are going to swing from cookies to beastiality(which was a poor example as it was based in humor and not a serious discussion of beastiality sex), and I can ignore threads or ask they be removed, but when something is posted that clearly fall outside the SSC or threads which violate the other rules set up for the forum, what good does it do to report it Francisco when all they have to do is read over this thread and see how one-sided your viewpoint is. And further more see what kind of treatment and off-handed comments they can look forward to for speaking up.

The things I said in all of my posts all were said from the standpoint I support the rules as they currently exist and posted to this forum.

What I learned from this thread, is if you disagree with the moderator, regardless of whether you are almost quoting from the rules of the forum, you can expect to be treated to several pages of flippant and off-handed comments in an attempt to discredit your opinion. And all that talk you are spitting out the side of your mouth about fundemental rights of people being able to post freely here is really just a bunch of hooey.

For any community or society to exist, there must be agreed upon rules and laws in which all people are treated fairly and equally, and when those who are put into power to enforce such rules, fail to do so or become biase, then the community on which they are based will begin to crumble and fall.

--------------------------

Welcome to the BDSM Forum: Please Read

Hello and welcome to Lit’s BDSM Forum. Our rules here are simple and few, attributes that we hope make them as easy to adhere to as they are to understand.


1. No spam / No promoting of other websites.
2. No personals ads
3. No posting of another's personal information
4. No posting of your own private email address
5. No personal threats
6. No posting of copyrighted images

Please, view this link for more information concerning copyrighted images and lit's stance pertaining to same.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

In addition, you should know that compliance with these rules is regulated by the Moderator(s), and is thus subject to Moderator(s) judgement. If you see a post that you believe is in violation, please, send me a private message with the thread title, a link, if possible and your concern.

Please read the following thread for detailed information pertaining to SSC conventions:
Safe, Sane & Consensual: Words to Live By
http://www.literotica.com/forum/sho...?threadid=70084

For those of you exploring the BDSM lifestyle in online places, particularly in chat rooms, please read the following safety essay.
Online Safety: Tigers in the Internet Zoo
https://forum.literotica.com/...threadid=164665
.

Additionally, there’s a wealth of information about the genesis of this forum, about some of the long-time forum members as individuals, and the skin-to-skin practice of BDSM in general threaded throughout what we affectionately call the M thread (Mega, Monster, or Mother thread), located here:
http://www.literotica.com/forum/sho...&threadid=39661


In this forum, our focus is on BDSM sexuality as it’s played out in skin-to-skin relationships. We welcome those whose experience may be limited to online contact, or even to their own fantasy life. Anyone with a serious interest in BDSM should feel free to post their questions and insights on the forum.


We’re not a BDSM chat room - we are not *in role* here - nor a general forum and don’t wish to be a place where chat room type BDSM protocol is either required or encouraged. For example - using upper/lower case for pronouns (W/we, I/i, My/yours) or for user names (Dom Sir and sub girl) - is not encouraged here. This is also not an appropriate venue for role-play scening. If your interest is on line sexual role playing, feel free to post a personal add on the Literotica Personals Forum or start a Sexual Role Playing thread. Both forums are down the hall and to the left!

We do not enjoy nor condone personally directed flame wars or other off- topic material (excessive flirting or personal conversation that interrupts serious topics), and will not allow it to dominate our threads and permeate our discussions.

Again, welcome to the Forum. We thank you in advance for respecting others, and trust that you will comport yourselves as adults.

 

[catalina_francisco]

RJ I am not trying to offend you nor have I tried offending you, what I have done is to disagree with you in my own particular style of posting. However if you want to talk about the rules of BDSM Talk I would like you to point out where you see the differences between what I have posted and what is in the sticky.

The forum rules are based on Literotica rules. Literotica is a great believer of freedom of speech and protects that right fiercely and fully. Yes BDSM Talk and Café are more restricted but it still follows the same rules as the rest of Literotica not because Catalina or I have decided that but because Literotica has. We do both stand behind the sticky and believe in its validity even if it has been written by MissTaken our former moderator.

The sticky says very clearly our focus is on BDSM sexuality. This does not mean we are only talking about BDSM sexuality, what it says is that we concentrate our effort on talking about BDSM. If does not prohibit anyone from talking about anything. Yes if a topic clearly has nothing to do with BDSM it gets moved to an appropriate forum. Or if it breaks the Literotica rules completely it gets moved to the Mod Que where Laurel decides if it gets deleted or not. In reality a Moderator can not delete anything only move a thread around.

The whole intention of the forum rules is to create an environment where serious discussion can take place. Yes that means Literotica restricts certain types of postings, Literotica nor the moderator of BDSM Talk or Café makes any restriction to whom can post here.

I have no problem with you RJ I have often said on many occasions that I enjoy your postings and have a great respect for you. I have thought in the past and still think that you are an honourable man. This however does not mean I have to agree with everything you say nor do you have to agree with anything I say. This is the essence of BDSM Talk and Café, open, respectful discussion.

Like I said the forum rules are there so people feel that BDSM Talk and Café are places where they can enjoy the freedom to post here without being judged, that does not mean you have to agree with anyone, it does not mean you have to disagree, it means you have the right to have your opinion and express it. IMHO respectful polite discussion is healthy and good for all involved.

A moderator is nothing more then someone who interprets the rules of the forum and applies them when asked to or when a valid reason presents itself. A moderator has just as much right to disagree as any other poster. I do not understand nor do I find it normal that just because you take up an administrative function to help follow the rules on the forum, rules which have been set not by the moderator but by Laurel, suddenly a moderator has to shut and not speak any longer.

Francisco.

 

[catalina_francisco]

A note from the moderator

RJ, I have never personally attacked you, nor judged you, and have always followed your posts with interest, even supporting you in some of them. As you are relatively new to this board RJ, and have I take it not read back through all the threads from before your time, (understandably, even I haven't managed that huge task) I will take the time to go over some history here. Before I was asked to be a moderator, and even afterward, I had some questions as to what should and should not be posted in this forum.....those things such as blatent hijacks, talk between posters (hi, how are you etc,), subjects which were not related directly or indirectly to BDSM (politics, how to vote, what everyone did on their vacation, etc...you get the drift I'm sure), people becoming heated and personal over the views of others etc. Now I didn't do my voicing in a PM to a friend, I was open in stating what I thouhgt and interpreted and asking what everyone thought and wanted. Interesting thing was I too based it on what was in the rules and even on the title of BDSM Cafe....open discussion with a BDSM twist. Miss Taken had also raised the growing popularity of role playing threads which had been stated in the rules as not on.

So guess what happened? The majority of people who were here, and many who still are, wanted to keep those things in the forum which did not fall under BDSM, even talking about favourite candy, cookies, whatever, without any reference necessary to BDSM...the only ruling made was anything which was not serious discussion about BDSM goes to the Cafe. Added to that was the word from the site owners that less moderation is better and they do not want to create an environment where people are held up and judged as to whether their words are appropriate and allowed to remain based on the content being BDSM or even trolling....in other words they said even if you are a troll and annoy the **** out of posters, it is not reason to delete their posts, free speech is paramount. So as a moderator, and out of respect to the board as a whole and the owners who provide us this space, I learned with Miss taken's help to adopt this code regardless of what the rules say as it is what is wanted by the majority. I also learned to look at it with a less rigid tunnel vision and appreciate these things are what makes this a community, and a group of people with a common interest and concern for each other not usually found elsewhere on the internet forum market.

As to the continued insinuation I have made fun of you, or gone after you, or used my position as moderator to do anything but that which I am asked to do and do without pay, no glory and glamour, plenty of BS thrown my way when someone wants to, and without any favouritism or bias toward anyone, including my own husband and friends, I am getting tired of it. I figured you were an adult so if I didn't agree 100% with you (and I told you why and my feelings in a respectful way, no abuse or swearing or personal attacks, and as a poster not a mod) you could handle it without resorting to personal attacks and inferences that weren't true about me personally and my position as moderator or my motivation for posting my thoughts based on what you have decided must be my personal preferences and bias.

As a board member I post and despite the view of some that a moderator should not post anymore as a regular member with views and experiences, I believe that stance to be a superior one and so continue to post as a poster, not a moderator. I was asked to moderate, I didn't ask to do it, and also did not expect it would mean I had to become someone else without any views, experience, or thoughts. Moderation does not have anything to do with what I think or experience in a BDSM context, and yes, I do in reality live my BDSM D/s 24/7 and have done for over 2 years and think that gives me as much right to an opinion as someone who may fantasise about it, may be new, may have done it for 30 years, or who may never be interested in doing it. Moderation on this site is only to do with removing inappropriate SPAM threads, moving personals to the appropriate board, advising posters if necessary to remove their personal details (email etc.) from their posts or doing it for them, and informing and seeking advice from Laurel or Manu of anything else which may be questionable in relation to the continued safe running of the site...so far I don't recall having to do that...that is what the site owners have asked for and what posters have also said is acceptable to them. Feel free to contact either of them if you have a problem with the board or my moderation, or want them to consider following your rules as you have outlined. I am sure they, like me, do have their hands full with life and the site and would appreciate your advice and help.

Catalina
Edited to add what is even more interesting to me is the content of PM's I have received from posters which reflect a different view or point to that they express publicly for all to see. Maybe some do not feel as safe to express their thoughts as we all hope.

 

[Netzach]

Yah know - it's not wrong to say that something doesn't fit.
It's not wrong to say you don't agree with an activity.
One of the reasons that I like this board and the people on it, is that there is (generally) not this compulsive need to affirm every damn thing.

Thank you, thank you. And in under 50 words.

 

[Netzach]

We can dance all around it but what we are discussing here is the fundamental right of forum posters to post in BDSM Talk about subjects that are or are not directly related to BDSM.

I didn't realize I was a fundamental free speech threat by asking "why do people do this?" I don't see myself as a viable threat to anyone's posting anywhere. Maybe they may not feel 100 percent back-patted but that never seemed to be the MO for having a board. If you don't want an earnest reaction to something, don't say it. I think we're all adult enough to navigate that, here we are.

I certainly, if you log my posts, don't feel too shut up or stomped on by the fact that a couple of people are disagreeing with me vehemently, even simplifying what I said to the point of absurdity at various points. Maybe others will survive my onslaught.

(I happen to like twisting apart my oreos, incidentally)

If a subject has nothing to do with BDSM and you think it does not belong in BDSM Talk or Cafe report it to the moderator and if she agrees she will either move it to the appropriate forum or delete it.

So it's just one big anything-goes play party and if I don't like it shut up and tug on the DM's sleeve?

I didn't realize that's the intent of the forum either.

Every person has an own definition of BDSM and IMHO that is how it should be.

And I thought I was just stating mine.

 

[Netzach]

I do not feel I am qualified after being in the lifestyle for more then 10 years to decide for others what BDSM is and I do not think there is a person on this world that can or should try to decide what BDSM is.

Francisco.

I'm stuck on this. I mean I'm certainly not going to want to head up the commission on The Definition, but to say "no one can decide what it is" means it has to encompass the whole of human sexual and psychosexual practise.

I guess that's the answer then. BDSM is everything, even vanilla.

Carry on, don't mind me.

 

[Pure]

Hi N,

If I may respond briefly, before the thread goes totally crazy.


OSG: however since many lifestyle Dominants and submissives (something imo entirely apart form BDSM) frequent this board, i feel comfortable posting things that fall within that realm as well. not necessarily typical "D/s" things, but ideas and thoughts and feelings from my own submissive (albeit sometimes dark) mind.
when i read a thread here created by a Dominant talking about some of their own pervy thoughts, though they may have nothing whatever to do with BDSM, i still see it as having a place here because it can all be a part of D/s.


N: Maybe I agree with osg the most on the issue -- some D/s M/s relationships fit stunningly well within a BDSM framework and some just don't and don't want to or should have to.

---

N more recently: I don't know if hers does or does not [fit in the BDSM community], because I don't live her life. I actually *don't* think her relationship typifies an exchange in which the bottom half is being abused, based on her posts.

in fact osg's practise has nothing to do with my query, unless she's recently actually been disembowled with a sharp broomstick and I'm not aware. People's queries and reactions to them inspired my quereies, and the fact that like Shadowsdream (who interestingly is NOT being subjected to the Nth degree here...hm) I have not found these extremes to be recurring themes in my real life off these boards and I find that interesting. If osg is "outside" it's largely a factor of self selection - she herself has often alluded to her Daddy not really being interested in the mainstream scene.

Does M/s have a place in BDSM? Yes, if it thinks it does.

I know a lot of M/s couples in my life who ARE into BDSM and view themselves through that matrix, that's the commonality.

I know of some who don't feel that connection and therefore are not part of the community, just like any other sexuality subgroup, like "lesbians" or "spanking fetishists"


---

My impression is that you're all over the map on this issue, since your earlier posting clearly considered that osg might well be outside. More recently you seem to say, maybe, maybe not, it's up to her/Him.

Why do some M/s relationships fall outside the BDSMasyouknowit?

If there's a clear 'in' area for BDSM, why do you simply say [my words], It depends what the person thinks about being 'in'. ?

Surely that approach runs counter to the whole intent of your original points, that the community should define itself. (Not simply ask every extreme perv, 'Do you feel you're 'in' the community? If so, you're in.')

---

To bb,
I don't really want to debate the general point whether labels have specific meanings. I agree they often do. A butcher is not a candlestickmaker.

Nor whether N can be expected to know everything about bdsm sex. She can't be.

---

To N and bb,

If the issue is simply does Bundy belong within the alleged 'bdsm' community, probably the answer is no, if you mean real life actions. So we agree. Bundy-esque fantasies are another matter, I think we agree.

So outside of these banalities, things have gotten pretty confused to me.

In general the 'what's in the bdsm community' persons like N seem to resemble the judge who once said, "I can't define porn, but I know it when I see it." Seri thinks watersports are out, N thinks they're in. No one has a standard (criterion), except the recent 'feel good' [& no serious harm] one proposed by N, which has hardly any utility at all (since, for example, N now says most fetishes, of the 'feel good after' [and no harm done] sort, are 'in.')

My thoughts, no doubt very confused, and lacking understanding of the deep points made by various others, and of the very subtle Ms. N. Who I am sure favors 'free speech,' by the way, and is one fine, informed, and articulate discussant.