Dominance and submission - the necessary mindsets

[MisterSir]

Because it's hilarious.

 

[minx1]

Huzzah! Great post, wenchie!

And ... why is this thread still alive?

Yeah I agree Sir W and it was a great post Wenchie and in a way the reason i am going to say the folllowing, which i appreciate will make me as popular as steak sarnie at a vegetarian dinner lol but so be it. Not sure where to post it but here will be as good as anywhere.

I shall have the courage of my convinctions.

It just seems to me that there are inconistencies here. In this thread someone is being condemmed for having the opinion that there is 'true' bdsm.
I will hasten to add at this point that I do not agree that is the case at all. There is no true bdsm, one hat does not fit all. I also think that the OP has brought on some of the comments by the pompous tone of his posts and I am not defending that.

But there are too many inconstistencies for me.
In another thread (the scat, bestiality one) the argument seems to be that actually there is a true bdsm with many posters arguing that things (and I am not talking about illegal practices such as pedophillia) such as fetishes don't fit.

I then took a wander over to the fetish thread my curiosity now pricked. A well viewed thread with a lot of contributions and some contributions from people I enjoy reading and who i respect; both pyl/PYLs.
I would have imagined that it wouldn't have been a popular thread based on arguments in the scat, beastiality one. But that is not the case.

To me BDSM is an umbrella for a whole host of things and people. Its not for me to dicatate who fits. No one person fits snugly into a box. I for example consider myself to be submissive. A submissive who at times would love to be a slave and at othertimes wouldn't. A submissive who doesn't really have any fetishes, but the point is I could do!

So yeah call it my own obvservations, call me playing devils advocate but I am confused......in one case condemming a purist view and in another condoning and encouraging it.

So my question is.......is there actually a true bdsm or is there simply one when it suits?

 

[midwestyankee]

Minx, I haven't wandered into the bestiality thread of which you speak so I may be missing the mark here. On that basis, then, please understand that this is in no way a defense of any posts to that thread.

My guess is that some people are arguing that fetishes do not bdsm make. In fact, that's entirely true. A fetish is an obsessive attraction to something physical - shoes, feet, leather - that is essential for the fetishist to become aroused. While plenty of people who practice bdsm may have fetishes, it's not in any way essential to the practices of bondage, discipline, sadism, masochism, or dominance and submission that one have a fetish.

It's possible that one might argue that fetishism is not bdsm, and thus leave the impression that there is a "true bdsm." But it's an error in inference. To say that bdsm does not include fetishism is simply a matter of speaking the truth. There are some acceptable boundaries to what people know as bdsm, within which limits what one does is bdsm and outside of which limits, it's no longer bdsm. But within those boundaries are many dungeons, many bedrooms, and many whipping tables. Fetishism exists outside those boundaries.

 

[JMohegan]

I wonder if other Doms, like me, tire of being approached by people calling themselves 'subs', who have never had a submissive thought in their head in their lives and who seem to believe that submission is ALL about simple physical matters... bondage, spankings etc. and inevitably bound up with intercourse every hour, on the hour.

The psychology and life changing elements of true Domination/submission, it seems, have never crossed the minds of these people.

It seems to me that the necessary mindsets for both Dom and sub are actually quite rare and are a prize well worth waiting for, discarding the shallowness you meet in droves along the way.

Minx, I'm quoting Omar's opening post here for your benefit.

First - note that he talks about "true" D/s, not true BDSM. I actually disagree with MWY; I don't see the boundaries he does, as you may know if you've read the other thread. But just to be clear about Omar - he's talking specifically about D/s.

I don't have a problem with his use of the word "true." You're right - people give their own definitions of D/s, D, s, and so on, all the time.

However, instead of just describing his own vision of optimal D/s, the point of Omar's post is to actively insult those with a different proclivity or relationship focus. This is what makes his thread so mockable, in my view.

 

[minx1]

My guess is that some people are arguing that fetishes do not bdsm make. In fact, that's entirely true. A fetish is an obsessive attraction to something physical - shoes, feet, leather - that is essential for the fetishist to become aroused. While plenty of people who practice bdsm may have fetishes, it's not in any way essential to the practices of bondage, discipline, sadism, masochism, or dominance and submission that one have a fetish.

It's possible that one might argue that fetishism is not bdsm, and thus leave the impression that there is a "true bdsm." But it's an error in inference. To say that bdsm does not include fetishism is simply a matter of speaking the truth. There are some acceptable boundaries to what people know as bdsm, within which limits what one does is bdsm and outside of which limits, it's no longer bdsm. But within those boundaries are many dungeons, many bedrooms, and many whipping tables. Fetishism exists outside those boundaries.

Yet for some people involved in bdsm, their fetishes can be intrinsically linked. Again a case of not one hat fits everyone.

I take your point mwy and thankyou for responding. I honestly don't want to get into a whats bdsm and whats not bdsm argument. I am only using festishes as an example.
I am pretty inclusive I like to think. If someone with a fetish practices bdsm and as part of that lifestyle, fetsh plays a key part who am I do decide thats not really bdsm. It obviously would be to them as the people living it.

Minx, I'm quoting Omar's opening post here for your benefit.

First - note that he talks about "true" D/s, not true BDSM. I actually disagree with MWY; I don't see the boundaries he does, as you may know if you've read the other thread. But just to be clear about Omar - he's talking specifically about D/s.

I don't have a problem with his use of the word "true." You're right - people give their own definitions of D/s, D, s, and so on, all the time.

However, instead of just describing his own vision of optimal D/s, the point of Omar's post is to actively insult those with a different proclivity or relationship focus. This is what makes his thread so mockable, in my view.

Thanks JM, I do know your viewson boundaries and I share them in the most part I think.

I do understand. I have read back and have obviously picked up 'true bdsm'' from one of the posters responses.

But look, isn't it really splitting hairs, whether he said true D/s or true bdsm?

His is just an example of a purist view and is what many people here take exception to (myself included). That and his manner.

I am simply saying that many people seem to want it both ways and that seems a little unreasonable and inconsistent to me.



sorry for the rushed answers - am working!

 

[BiBunny]

I think the point of the other thread is that fetishes alone do not BDSM make. Not that someone with a fetish who lives a "BDSM lifestyle," whatever that is, isn't allowed in the club.

 

[midwestyankee]

I think the point of the other thread is that fetishes alone do not BDSM make. Not that someone with a fetish who lives a "BDSM lifestyle," whatever that is, isn't allowed in the club.

Exactly. And I do like JM's point about how we're living on a continuum. When I say "boundaries" I'm really thinking mostly in terms of the limits of self-identification. After all, a guy might enjoy spanking his woman on a regular basis but if it's just a playful part of an otherwise mostly vanilla sex life and the pair do not engage in active power exchange, then it's hard to call it D/s just because he likes to take a whack at her ass now and again.

I went over to the other thread to give it a look-see. Interesting discussion, for sure.

 

[minx1]

I actually didn't get that from the other thread at all.......more that things don't belong.

Perhaps i didn't pick up on the subtleties.

 

[JMohegan]

Thanks JM, I do know your viewson boundaries and I share them in the most part I think.

I do understand. I have read back and have obviously picked up 'true bdsm'' from one of the posters responses.

But look, isn't it really splitting hairs, whether he said true D/s or true bdsm?

His is just an example of a purist view and is what many people here take exception to (myself included). That and his manner.

I am simply saying that many people seem to want it both ways and that seems a little unreasonable and inconsistent to me.

No, I don't think it's splitting hairs because D/s is a subset of BDSM. The former addressing an interaction in which one person actively controls another, and the latter a much broader construct.

The fact that you can't see this means that you're really, pathetically shallow and have never given meaningful human interaction a moment of rational thought.

Just kidding with that last part, clearly! Just trying to underscore my point. Omar's post is not an example of a purist view; it's an example of a dickhead view. "I'm right, and all the rest of you people suck."

 

[LadyC]

Over analyzing any sexual life style takes much of the pleasure out of it.

 

[minx1]

No, I don't think it's splitting hairs because D/s is a subset of BDSM. The former addressing an interaction in which one person actively controls another, and the latter a much broader construct.

The fact that you can't see this means that you're really, pathetically shallow and have never given meaningful human interaction a moment of rational thought.

Just kidding with that last part, clearly! Just trying to underscore my point. Omar's post is not an example of a purist view; it's an example of a dickhead view. "I'm right, and all the rest of you people suck."

lmao. please don't reply again.......just yet! I need to do some work or I will get my arse slapped and not in a good way

But just as I question that particular dickhead view. I also think other exclusive views are questionable. They both say to me that if you don't do it this way you aint doing it right. That this (whatever the particular 'this' maybe) doesn't belong.

I didn't pick up the subtle nuances from the scat thread. I picked up people saying this belongs, this other doesn't. Says who and on what authority?

Because I can tell you something if we had a tick box of what constitutes 'real bdsm' I bet half of the people here, me included wouldn't make the grade.

oh and as for the bolded bit. That is my point exactly and the inconsistency with which that concept appears to be condoned or condemned.

*laugh* I knew I should have kept my gob shut. oh well. cést la vie

I will come back later and argue my point more. I am sure I will need to

 

[JMohegan]

Not so much on this thread, but throughout Lit BDSM I find that many of the people referring to themselves as dominants are, in reality, nothing bullies. They push people around and demand everyone cow to their demands and profess the same beliefs as they. In my relationship with Billy-boy, though he is my minion 24 hrs a day, I do not demand total subservience, but there is an air of dominance in all things of a personal nature, and should he stray too far afield, he will be punished such as he was yesterday for posting under my name.

This is a dickhead view, as well.

You claim the ability to identify true dominants, and slap a pejorative label on those who flunk your test.

 

[JMohegan]

lmao. please don't reply again.......just yet! I need to do some work or I will get my arse slapped and not in a good way

But just as I question that particular dickhead view. I also think other exclusive views are questionable. They both say to me that if you don't do it this way you aint doing it right. That this (whatever the particular 'this' maybe) doesn't belong.

I didn't pick up the subtle nuances from the scat thread. I picked up people saying this belongs, this other doesn't. Says who and on what authority?

Because I can tell you something if we had a tick box of what constitutes 'real bdsm' I bet half of the people here, me included wouldn't make the grade.

oh and as for the bolded bit. My point exactly. And some people want it both ways.

*laugh* I knew I should have kept my gob shut. oh well. cést la vie

I will come back later and argue my point more. I am sure I will need to

Sorry, Minx - I've gotta reply now, because I'm about to head off to bed.

For the record, I agree that sometimes the tone clearly implies "you ain't doing it right" - even if that's not explicitly said.

 

[MisterSir]

So my question is.......is there actually a true bdsm or is there simply one when it suits?

No. Next question.

...

Oh, all right, I'll explain. No, there isn't a true style of BDSM in any way more than there's a true style of baseball. I don't watch the sport, but my guess is David Price pitches differently to Tim Lincecum and both pitch differently to Cliff Lee, but since we're talking about a pair of Cy Young winners and an alleged phenom of the position, I don't think it's sensible to say that they're wrong and that A.J. Burnett is a "true" pitcher (not least because he's a bastard. I'm a fan of the Jays and Rays, sue me).

 

[minx1]

No. Next question.

...

Oh, all right, I'll explain. No, there isn't a true style of BDSM in any way more than there's a true style of baseball.

Exactly what I thought.

Thanks.

 

[MisterSir]

Exactly what I thought.

Thanks.

You are most welcome. Even if it was fairly obvious, I got the chance to flex my metaphor muscle.

 

[JMohegan]

No. Next question.

...

Oh, all right, I'll explain. No, there isn't a true style of BDSM in any way more than there's a true style of baseball. I don't watch the sport, but my guess is David Price pitches differently to Tim Lincecum and both pitch differently to Cliff Lee, but since we're talking about a pair of Cy Young winners and an alleged phenom of the position, I don't think it's sensible to say that they're wrong and that A.J. Burnett is a "true" pitcher (not least because he's a bastard. I'm a fan of the Jays and Rays, sue me).

I've got a buddy who believes you're not playing real baseball unless every single player has to step up to the plate. I've heard him debate this, ad nauseam, with people who appreciate the DH rule.

Yet aside from the repetition of old arguments and belabored points (which definitely can become tiresome), there's nothing about this debate that pisses people off. It's an honest difference of opinion on a subject of mutual interest.

But if my buddy started telling people they were shallow or weak or idiots for disagreeing with him, they'd start laughing and tell him to put down his beer.

 

[Homburg]

I've never been a fan of the DH thing either =P

 

[zoe8]

Sexuality is very a very personal thing for people. Telling someone that their sexuality isn't true or real will obviously stir up negative emotion. Especially with BDSM, for some people it takes a long time to be comfortable with this idea of themselves.

If you wanted a mature conversation on the topic then maybe you should have tried a little harder to make a mature and polite opening post.