Is this BDSM?

[serijules]

In the context of my response to this scenario, BDSM doesn't require awareness of kink, or even sexuality, let alone sexual activity. All I meant to say was, this interaction is centered around a consensual power exchange--the boy is willingly submitting to the Dominance of the girl. The fact that they don't recognize the exchange for what it is doens't mean that it isn't that.

Another example, from my own life...when I was a sophomore in college, I was in my first serious, longish-term relationship. (Hands on your zippers, boys! Here comes the sexy part.) Eating her pussy was just about the most exciting thing in the world to me, and she enjoyed it a lot too. Sometimes, say while we were lying together on the couch innocently watching TV, she'd start nudging me down between her legs. She'd guide my head where she wanted it wordlessly, never taking her eyes off the TV while I pleased her, sometimes for an hour or more. Eventually, when she was done, she'd pull me back up beside her. Sometimes, we'd make love at this point, but as often, she'd unbutton my jeans (this was the Levi's 501 era), pull out my cock, and stroke me to orgasm--usually wordlessly. My role at this point was just to lay back and let her jack me off. Sometimes, she didn't even do that--she'd leave me there, hard and horny, squirming anxiously next to her while she ignored my plight. Of course, I could have yanked her panties off and fucked her senseless--I was much bigger and stronger than her--but that would have just felt wrong. Our roles and our relationship didn't work that way.

At the time, we had no idea that the letters B, D, S and M went together. What little we knew about kink we'd read in The Joys of Sex, which treated bondage as just one more physical activity a couple might try. We certainly knew nothing about "real" Dominance and submission, or power exchanges, whether consensual or otherwise. But even though we didn't know what it was at the time, looking back on those evenings, there is no doubt in my mind that we engaging in consensual Dominance and submission. She got her thrill out of being in control, while I got my thrill from pleasing her and submitting to her will.

We were almost as innocent of any awareness of formal BDSM as the children in Marquis' scenario, but looking back with what I know now, I can tell that those sessions were my first BDSM scenes.

Does that make it any clearer?

I understand your thinking much more now, yes, thank you for explaining. Although I still disagree on this particular point <g>.

I agree that the acts described (both of them) are consensual power exchanges, and even have elements of dominance and submission to them, however, I personally separate Dominance and submission as a kink and dominance and submission as Webster defines them. If one doesn't recognize what they are doing as BDSM or D/s in a kinky manner, than I don't think it makes much sense to claim those acts are of a BDSM nature. It's like the whole argument that a cop handcuffing someone is bondage. Sure, it's bondage, but is it bondage in a kinky, BDSM manner? Likely not. I personally very easily separate those two worlds, which is why I disagree that the scenes described are BDSM.

Many kinky BDSM acts stem from an equally vanilla definition of the same word. Bondage in a pure, Webster form is simply binding someone so they cannot move. Bondage in a kinky BDSM form is usually sexualized and recognized by the participants as a kinky, consensual act.

If two people spend an evening in the role of Master and slave, complete with spankings, beltings, crawling-around-on-the-floor-begging-permission-to-whatever, but they don't recognize it as BDSM or even know what the hell BDSM is but are just momentarily turned on by this fantasy because they just watched a movie that involved a Master/slave dynamic and decide to act it out in the bedroom, I would personally feel that what they are doing is not BDSM, but two vanillas roleplaying a rather common sexual fantasy (albeit a rather kinky one). There is consensual power exchange, dominance, submission, and many elements of BDSM play, but if they have no real understanding of what they are doing as those of us that embrace it and live it do, is it really the same thing? Im my opinion, it isn't. *shrugs*

To me, the difference between these two worlds is very clear, as is the line that defines what makes a situation BDSM and what makes it vanilla/normal/roleplay/fantasy/innocent/criminal/abusive/insane/etc.

But, like I said, just my opinion; I do understand and respect where you are coming from as well.

 

[volvin]

Inspired by the debate in Bridgeburner's recent thread, I've come up with a few scenarios that I'm curious how people will respond to. There is a lot of debate about what is and isn't BDSM, and although I'd love to see a decent rule developed, I think it'll be developed inductively and not deductively.

Therefore, I want to see what different people will think of the different scenarios I've come up with and why. Perhaps it'll give us a good chance to think about what BDSM really means to us, and a chance to see what it really means to others.

In any case, I came up with these rather quickly, so they may be repetitive or incomplete. Please post your own scenarios for consideration as well!

A man meets a woman in a hotel room to act out a fantasy they have shared on the internet. He knocks on the door in a pizza delivery uniform and she answers in lingerie. She says she is feeling very naughty and invites him in for his special tip. They have sex and he leaves without a word when it is over.

Is this BDSM?

A 4th grade girl goes up to a 3rd grade boy during lunch. She says she will let him hold her hand if he eats a worm. He eats the worm and they spend the rest of the lunch holding hands as she tells him how gross he is and he tells her how pretty she is.

Is this BDSM?

A husband makes his wife eat cat food on a saucer off the floor and tells her she is no better than an animal. He says he can’t believe he married such a worthless bitch and berates her day in and day out for years. Occasionally he buys her flowers because he feels bad, but he often beats her later in the day for being unworthy of his kindness. The wife says she will leave him, but always reconsiders. Her family beg her to get help, file charges and leave him, but she says she is afraid he will find her and kill her if he leaves her. She obeys him as closely as she can, hoping to quell his anger. This has been going on for over 25 years.

Is this BDSM?

A poor Thai couple sell their teenage daughter to international human traffickers for the purposes of sexual slavery. She is bought by a Moroccan business owner who uses her purely for sex. He makes no real attempts at restraining her, confident that she will not try to run away in this strange land where she does not know the language, customs and has no bed or food but what he offers her.

Is this BDSM?

An old inmate offers a new inmate protection in exchange for being his bitch. The new inmate fearfully accepts the deal, and acts as his slave, sexually and otherwise.

Is this BDSM?

A woman gets sexually excited by the idea of being beaten, so she seeks out potentially violent mates and provokes them.

Is this BDSM?

The captain of the highschool football team ignores all direct sexual overtures by attractive women. Instead, he invites a nerdy goody two shoes girl to study with him. On the ride over, she fantasizes about how cool it would be if he really liked her, even flirted with the notion of him just taking her in the middle of their study session. She has never even kissed a boy before. While she is there, he tells her what a huge crush he has on her, and she still can’t believe it. He gets very aggressive with her, and fucks her before she even has time to make sense of whats going on. He gets cold afterwards, thanks her and sends her out. She goes home in tears, feeling very much like she was raped, although she never said no.

Is this BDSM?

A mailman has had a crush on one of the people he delivers to for a long time. She continually rejects his come-ons. One day he kidnaps her and takes her home in his mail truck. He whips her with floggers and single-tails, and fucks her anally, telling her that now she is his bitch and can’t do anything about it.

Is this BDSM?

A rather sexually conservative couple occasionally enjoy some light spanking during doggy style sex. One day the male tells the female she is his little girl and she responds “whatever you say daddy.”

Is this BDSM?

The first and last are the only one’s I would consider BDSM the second maybe thought i found it cute more then anything. For me anything BDSM starts with mutual consent by both parties if one or the other didn’t give there’s it isn’t BDSM.

 

[Jay Davis]

Serijules--you're pushing me to think more and more about these semantics, a process that is both useful and enjoyable, so thanks in advance for this discussion. Thanks also to Marquis for getting the ball rolling with this thread.

I agree that the acts described (both of them) are consensual power exchanges, and even have elements of dominance and submission to them, however, I personally separate Dominance and submission as a kink and dominance and submission as Webster defines them. If one doesn't recognize what they are doing as BDSM or D/s in a kinky manner, than I don't think it makes much sense to claim those acts are of a BDSM nature.

OK, here's where I'm going to refine my definitions. The two "innocent" interactions at issue here--the kids with the worms, and my college girlfriend and I on the couch--involved people who were essentially unaware of formal kink. For that reason, I'll agree that they don't count as BDSM, since I've made it clear in the other thread that "BDSM" is a name specifically chosen by the consensual kink community for itself thirty years ago. By definition, then, to be BDSM, it must involve people who are conscious of the existence and nature of consensual kink.

However, as we both agree, the two interactions are consensual power exchanges, and a large part of the attraction of the activities for the participants is the charge they get from that exchange. In each case, the female is enjoying feeling power over her male partner, while the male is excited by submitting to that power. So, while the participants' ignorance of formal kink disqualifies the scenes as BDSM, they still qualify as erotic Dominance and submission.

You might argue that since the kids with the worms aren't engaging in what would legal be defined as sex, their "scene" isn't erotic; I'd argue that it absolutely is erotic, not in the sense that it excites the prurient interests of onlookers or readers, but in the sense that it involves an instinctive drive to interact and explore in an intimate way with a member of the opposite sex. Prepubescent children play all sorts of games of erotic exploration in complete innocence of their sexual significance--doctor, I'll-show-you-mine-if-you-show-me-yours, kissing-chase games on the playground, etc. This is one of those games, one with a particularly strong flavor of Dominance and submission.

It's like the whole argument that a cop handcuffing someone is bondage. Sure, it's bondage, but is it bondage in a kinky, BDSM manner? Likely not. I personally very easily separate those two worlds, which is why I disagree that the scenes described are BDSM.

Many kinky BDSM acts stem from an equally vanilla definition of the same word. Bondage in a pure, Webster form is simply binding someone so they cannot move. Bondage in a kinky BDSM form is usually sexualized and recognized by the participants as a kinky, consensual act.

Agreed, the cop handcuffing a perp isn't BDSM, though that situation might well be fetishized and eroticized in a fantasy or roleplay scenario by kinksters who get off on handcuff bondage or cop-and-robber play. And I agree that to count as BDSM, an interaction must, by definition, center around kinky play involving a consensual power exchange.

But I don't think that an interaction or relationship has to involve physical sex to count as big-D/little-s Dominance and submission. All that is required to qualify as D/s is a relationship that feeds instinctive, erotic compulsions to dominate or to submit--to be served or to be in service. Let me give you two near-identical scenarios, one D/s, and one not:

Imagine that you're my boss. To outsiders, it looks like you are very harsh and demanding towards me, forcing me to work long hours at demeaning tasks. You don't necessarily enjoy bullying me for it's own sake, but you're a bad boss, and you don't know any other way to lead. Yet I don't quit, because the job pays well, and while I resent your behavior towards me, I decide I can put up with it for the money.

In the second version, you're my boss again, and again, to outsiders, you're just as hard on me. You're constantly on me to work harder, perform better, and behave in a deferential manner. You enjoy the power you have over me, seeing it as a kind of leadership-by-tough-love, especially because I keep coming back to work each day. But in this scenario, I'm not coming back for the money--I don't even care about the money. I actually enjoy the attention you give me--I believe that your pushing me does make me a better person, and even if I occasionally resist your leadership or balk at a command, your dominance of me gives me a sense of security, purpose and fulfillment.

To outsiders, these two situations might look very much the same. But to the participants, they are very different. In the first version, you may be dominating me, and I may be submitting to your will, but neither of us is enjoying the relationship on an instinctive, lizard-brain level. It's a bad situation that we both endure, because the costs of ending it are higher than the costs of maintaining the status quo. It's dominance and submission, but it's not D/s.

In the second version, even though there's no sexual component to the relationship, we are both eroticizing it. We continue to participate--willingly, I might add--because it feeds our psychological needs to dominate and to submit. This version D/s, not just dominance and submission. But since there's no active sex or kink, it's not BDSM.

If two people spend an evening in the role of Master and slave, complete with spankings, beltings, crawling-around-on-the-floor-begging-permission-to-whatever, but they don't recognize it as BDSM or even know what the hell BDSM is but are just momentarily turned on by this fantasy because they just watched a movie that involved a Master/slave dynamic and decide to act it out in the bedroom, I would personally feel that what they are doing is not BDSM, but two vanillas roleplaying a rather common sexual fantasy (albeit a rather kinky one). There is consensual power exchange, dominance, submission, and many elements of BDSM play, but if they have no real understanding of what they are doing as those of us that embrace it and live it do, is it really the same thing? Im my opinion, it isn't.

In this example, we're really getting down to purely semantic differences. The couple is clearly and deliberately playing Master/slave games, consciously and willingly, but they haven't run into the organized BDSM community yet. I'd argue that since they are engaged in kinky play, in the context of an at least implicit consensual power exchange (they are playing their respective roles willingly, even if there was no formal negotiation of limits, safewords, etc.), this counts as BDSM. Yes, they're novices, possibly playing with things they shouldn't until they are better informed, but since everything here is conscious and consensual, I'd have to count this as BDSM. I don't think you need a TES membership card or a Literotica account to do BDSM.

To me, the difference between these two worlds is very clear, as is the line that defines what makes a situation BDSM and what makes it vanilla/normal/roleplay/fantasy/innocent/criminal/abusive/insane/etc.

The difference between BDSM and abuse is very clear, the distinction being willing consent by all participants. The difference between BDSM and consensual vanilla sex is also clear--a BDSM scene centers around a clear exchange of power. (The exchange may be temporary, it may even reverse in the middle of scene involving switches, but it has to be there in some form.) So it's pretty easy to tell if a situation is BDSM or not.

It's a bit harder to tell if something is psychologically positive D/s, or just vanilla dominance and submission. The convicts who engage in a Top/bottom relationship in prison may or may not be involved in a D/s relationship, for example; more likely, they are each just adapting to a difficult and highly unusual living circumstance, without getting any special charge out of their roles. Yet I believe that true D/s relationships exist in many, many non-sexual interactions--far more than most people realize--all over the apparently vanilla world. I could argue that Mother Theresa might have been a sub to the loving Dominance of Jesus, for example--I do believe she felt a deep sense of satisfaction from a life devoted to the service of something much larger than herself. And to me, that is the central psychological fulfillment in true, voluntary submission; the kinky sex is just an incidental demonstration of that submission, in relationships where it is demanded.

But, like I said, just my opinion; I do understand and respect where you are coming from as well.

Just my opinions, too, of course, and as you see, they are subject to constant testing and refinement through the course of conversation and intellectual exploration with open-minded and intelligent peers such as yourself. Thanks for taking this little journey with me!

 

[serijules]

Serijules--you're pushing me to think more and more about these semantics, a process that is both useful and enjoyable, so thanks in advance for this discussion. Thanks also to Marquis for getting the ball rolling with this thread.

I love discussions where the other person simply discusses, rather than defends. Fun! Thank you as well.

However, as we both agree, the two interactions are consensual power exchanges, and a large part of the attraction of the activities for the participants is the charge they get from that exchange. In each case, the female is enjoying feeling power over her male partner, while the male is excited by submitting to that power. So, while the participants' ignorance of formal kink disqualifies the scenes as BDSM, they still qualify as erotic Dominance and submission.

You might argue that since the kids with the worms aren't engaging in what would legal be defined as sex, their "scene" isn't erotic; I'd argue that it absolutely is erotic, not in the sense that it excites the prurient interests of onlookers or readers, but in the sense that it involves an instinctive drive to interact and explore in an intimate way with a member of the opposite sex. Prepubescent children play all sorts of games of erotic exploration in complete innocence of their sexual significance--doctor, I'll-show-you-mine-if-you-show-me-yours, kissing-chase games on the playground, etc. This is one of those games, one with a particularly strong flavor of Dominance and submission.

I definately agree it counts as erotic Dominance and submission, albeit a very innocent form of it. I remember some of my first fantasys and interactions as a kid; I didn't know what spanking was or that I liked pain at that time, but I DID know that the power exchange of D/s was a huge turn on, even if I didn't put those words to it. I used to play on my swing set, pretending I was something akin to an angel and there was a devil that punished me by making me do some uncomfortable things on the swingset (think wooden pony meets the A bar...). That was certainly a very D/s fantasy. Very erotic. It just makes me feel uncomfortable to attach a label of BDSM to that because children just do not grasp that concept and I think of BDSM as a very "adults only" arena.

But I don't think that an interaction or relationship has to involve physical sex to count as big-D/little-s Dominance and submission. All that is required to qualify as D/s is a relationship that feeds instinctive, erotic compulsions to dominate or to submit--to be served or to be in service. Let me give you two near-identical scenarios, one D/s, and one not:

*nods* I agree with you there too, if I implied otherwise, I mispoke. I personally have very little interest in sex; my erotic needs are filled in other ways, primarily D/s ways.

To outsiders, these two situations might look very much the same. But to the participants, they are very different. In the first version, you may be dominating me, and I may be submitting to your will, but neither of us is enjoying the relationship on an instinctive, lizard-brain level. It's a bad situation that we both endure, because the costs of ending it are higher than the costs of maintaining the status quo. It's dominance and submission, but it's not D/s.

In the second version, even though there's no sexual component to the relationship, we are both eroticizing it. We continue to participate--willingly, I might add--because it feeds our psychological needs to dominate and to submit. This version D/s, not just dominance and submission. But since there's no active sex or kink, it's not BDSM.

Yes! That makes sense to me.

In this example, we're really getting down to purely semantic differences. The couple is clearly and deliberately playing Master/slave games, consciously and willingly, but they haven't run into the organized BDSM community yet. I'd argue that since they are engaged in kinky play, in the context of an at least implicit consensual power exchange (they are playing their respective roles willingly, even if there was no formal negotiation of limits, safewords, etc.), this counts as BDSM. Yes, they're novices, possibly playing with things they shouldn't until they are better informed, but since everything here is conscious and consensual, I'd have to count this as BDSM. I don't think you need a TES membership card or a Literotica account to do BDSM.

I don't think of BDSM as an exclusive club that you need to have certain requirements or participations to be involved in it, however, like I said, if two people don't even recognize what BDSM is nor have any understanding of it, or perhaps even know about it and are disgusted by it, I personally would not classify what they do as BDSM.

I came to this conclusion because one of my good friends and her boyfriend are big time roleplayers in the bedroom. They act out tons of different scenes to spice up their sex. They enjoy acting and it turns them on a lot.

She knows I am involved in BDSM, but finds it confusing and disgusting. They do play at Master and slave in the bedroom, but the focus of it is 100% sex and roleplay. He controls and "punishes" her by making her worship his boots, she pretends to be all submissive, and eventually they end up dropping the roles and just fucking. If I told her this was BDSM, she would be extremely insulted and probably never do it again. The M/s roleplay never exists outside the roleplay, it never exists without sex, and they don't recognize it as BDSM in any way.

So I have a hard time defining that as BDSM because while many elements of BDSM exist, it's missing the basic recognition. I don't like the idea of slapping a title on someone that has no understanding, recognition, or desire for it. I prefer to stick to the "vanilla" terms such as erotic roleplay, or basic dominance and submission, or even kinky. They apply, and they work. But not BDSM.

That may be rather sheltered of me, but it fits with my own ideals and definitions, and I do feel that much of what BDSM is, is defined by individual opinion. I'm rather alone in that opinion, but that's ok too. *smile*

The difference between BDSM and abuse is very clear, the distinction being willing consent by all participants. The difference between BDSM and consensual vanilla sex is also clear--a BDSM scene centers around a clear exchange of power. (The exchange may be temporary, it may even reverse in the middle of scene involving switches, but it has to be there in some form.) So it's pretty easy to tell if a situation is BDSM or not.

It's a bit harder to tell if something is psychologically positive D/s, or just vanilla dominance and submission. The convicts who engage in a Top/bottom relationship in prison may or may not be involved in a D/s relationship, for example; more likely, they are each just adapting to a difficult and highly unusual living circumstance, without getting any special charge out of their roles. Yet I believe that true D/s relationships exist in many, many non-sexual interactions--far more than most people realize--all over the apparently vanilla world. I could argue that Mother Theresa might have been a sub to the loving Dominance of Jesus, for example--I do believe she felt a deep sense of satisfaction from a life devoted to the service of something much larger than herself. And to me, that is the central psychological fulfillment in true, voluntary submission; the kinky sex is just an incidental demonstration of that submission, in relationships where it is demanded.

Maybe that's where I'm going wrong here...by assuming that D/s equals BDSM. Perhaps the easier answer to Marquis's questions would be "Is this D/s". Many of those I would say yes to. BDSM to me amoung other things, involves recognition and respect for what it is, I don't think I will change my mind on that because it just makes perfect sense to me. D/s is much easier to apply. There is erotic D/s, innocent D/s, abusive D/s, criminal D/s, kinky D/s, big-D and small-s D/s, webster d/s, blah blah blah. When I read examples as stated, or articles like in the previous discussion, that is what I think of. "This was a criminal D/s non-consensual power exchange". I just don't see BDSM in them though.

BDSM isn't an exclusive country club with specific requirements and rules for all, including a dress code...but it isn't a free for all, slap-the-title-on-if-it-fits-and-call-it-a-day thing either. (IMNSHO! )

Any of Marquis's examples have the potential to be BDSM if reworded a bit, although many of them would be fine examples of BDSM gone wrong.

"A husband makes his wife eat cat food on a saucer off the floor and tells her she is no better than an animal. She was turned on by this and consented to a D/s relationship with him, and he took that and ran with it. He says he can’t believe he married such a worthless bitch and berates her day in and day out for years, excusing his behaviour off as "She likes it". Occasionally he buys her flowers because he feels bad, but he often beats her later in the day for being unworthy of his kindness because he feels it is his pleasure and happiness that matters, not hers since she is the worthless submissive and he must train her to obey. The wife says she will leave him, but always reconsiders because she promised to submit to him always and consented to this relationship, not realizing that submission doesn't mean she has no rights and must behave as a doormat. Her family beg her to get help, file charges and leave him, but she says she is afraid he will find her and kill her if he leaves her because she is his property and says he would rather she be dead than owned by anyone else. She obeys him as closely as she can, hoping to quell his anger and trys to pretend this makes her a good submissive. This has been going on for over 25 years."

That is not only BDSM, but bad BDSM.

The example originally was just plain bad. There were elements of D/s present, but it wasn't BDSM.

So...that's how my mind works. Crazy shit huh? *grins*

Just my opinions, too, of course, and as you see, they are subject to constant testing and refinement through the course of conversation and intellectual exploration with open-minded and intelligent peers such as yourself. Thanks for taking this little journey with me!

My pleasure

 

[Jay Davis]

Seri--insert your favorite mutual-admiration-society compliment here and apply it to yourself. Anything nice you can think up is fine with me.

She knows I am involved in BDSM, but finds it confusing and disgusting. They do play at Master and slave in the bedroom, but the focus of it is 100% sex and roleplay. He controls and "punishes" her by making her worship his boots, she pretends to be all submissive, and eventually they end up dropping the roles and just fucking. If I told her this was BDSM, she would be extremely insulted and probably never do it again. The M/s roleplay never exists outside the roleplay, it never exists without sex, and they don't recognize it as BDSM in any way.

Your friend just fears what she doesn't understand, despite the fact that she's doing it. She and her boyfriend are eroticizing dominance, submission, and sexual service in their roleplaying games--that's a negotiated, eroticized, consensual exchange of power, so it's BDSM. Not all BDSM involves pain or punishment, but it sounds like your friend is totally hung up on the SM part, which some lifestylers aren't into at all. You don't have to be 24/7 to be doing BDSM; you don't even have to keep it up throughout the entire scene. But at least part of their play is centering around willing erotic servitude, so technically, it counts. Fear of a label by the participants doesn't mean the label doesn't apply.

Now, is it useful to point this out to your friend? Probably not, at least not in the short run. I'm certainly not suggesting that you rock their boat by rubbing her nose in the D/s element in their games. But just between you and me, it meets all the requirements of BDSM, so we have to count it.

I have to wonder, however, whether her fear and disgust for what you do is actually masking a deep-seated interest in more serious submission and even masochism on her part, though. It's just possible that she's doing the exact same thing in expressing revulsion towards BDSM that so many homophobes are doing when they persecute gays--displacing discomfort with their own "forbidden" feelings by lashing out against those who practice the forbidden acts or lifestyle. Not that this possibility is a reason to push her into accepting your choices, let alone exploring them herself--that sort of pressure is only going to drive her away from you and quite possibly from an undiscovered aspect of herself.

Maybe that's where I'm going wrong here...by assuming that D/s equals BDSM. Perhaps the easier answer to Marquis's questions would be "Is this D/s". Many of those I would say yes to. BDSM to me amoung other things, involves recognition and respect for what it is, I don't think I will change my mind on that because it just makes perfect sense to me. D/s is much easier to apply. There is erotic D/s, innocent D/s, abusive D/s, criminal D/s, kinky D/s, big-D and small-s D/s, webster d/s, blah blah blah. When I read examples as stated, or articles like in the previous discussion, that is what I think of. "This was a criminal D/s non-consensual power exchange". I just don't see BDSM in them though.

When I say "D/s," with a big D and a little s, separated by a slash, I'm referring specifically and solely to voluntary dominance and submission, in which each partner satisfies a deep-seated and positive psychological craving in a constructive, nurturing, and mutually beneficial way. Thus, that precise spelling--D/s--applies ONLY to consensual, psycholgically fulfilling, non-destructive dominance and submission.

According to the definitions I'm working with--and I didn't make them up, though I probably did synthesize them a bit from various books and articles--BDSM assumes a D/s interaction at it's core. If there isn't a consensual exchange of power, it's not D/s, it's just abuse.

When I use words like dominance, submission, bondage, discipline, sadism, masochism, etc., in lower case, I mean the Webster, vanilla definition. For example, I may be referring to sexual dominance, or non-sexual dominance, but used in that way, there is no implication or assumption of an underlying consent by the dominated party. D/s may be erotic, even kinky, or it may be innocent of sexuality, but by definition, it's never abusive nor should it be criminal.

"A husband makes his wife eat cat food on a saucer off the floor and tells her she is no better than an animal. She was turned on by this and consented to a D/s relationship with him, and he took that and ran with it. He says he can’t believe he married such a worthless bitch and berates her day in and day out for years, excusing his behaviour off as "She likes it". Occasionally he buys her flowers because he feels bad, but he often beats her later in the day for being unworthy of his kindness because he feels it is his pleasure and happiness that matters, not hers since she is the worthless submissive and he must train her to obey. The wife says she will leave him, but always reconsiders because she promised to submit to him always and consented to this relationship, not realizing that submission doesn't mean she has no rights and must behave as a doormat. Her family beg her to get help, file charges and leave him, but she says she is afraid he will find her and kill her if he leaves her because she is his property and says he would rather she be dead than owned by anyone else. She obeys him as closely as she can, hoping to quell his anger and trys to pretend this makes her a good submissive. This has been going on for over 25 years."

In your redux of Marquis' scenario, we're looking at a situation that may have started--25 years ago!--with a D/s pretext, but has long since devolved into simple, criminal abuse. The man is clearly an abuser, while the wife is displaying classic battered-wife behavior. My guess is, neither of them ever understood what positive D/s is; he treats BDSM as a license to abuse his wife, while she mistakes a dangerously low self-esteem, insecurity, and need for attention with a genuine desire to submit.

She has long since ceased to consent willingly to his domination, if she ever truly did. She's following a path of least resistance in order to survive, to diffuse his wrath, to keep from getting killed. In fact, she's exhibiting very similar behavior to the dominated convict in Marquis' prison example, agreeing to be his cellmate's bitch only because he fears for his life if he were to refuse.

What's particularly frightening about this scenario, from the standpoint of the BDSM community, is that there are LOTS of relationships like this around, using handcuffs and a flogger to hide abuse behind a veil of kink. It is these sorts of relationships that justify the actions of the fundamentalists, social conservatives, and far right wing to suppress and criminalize what we do. We have a moral obligation to try to help this woman out of her predicament, but we absolutely MUST make the distinction between our responsible, caring, positive tops and the leather-clad wife-beater in the scenario. If we fail to do so, we make it much, much easier for the conservatives to turn us all into criminals, or to prosecute us for sodomy and abuse laws that are already on the books.

That is not only BDSM, but bad BDSM.

The example originally was just plain bad. There were elements of D/s present, but it wasn't BDSM.

No, for crucial legal and political reasons, its vital that we recognize that this relationship is not even bad BDSM--if it was ever BDSM at all. It's abuse masquerading as BDSM, to protect the abuser.

Even in your expanded version, there is no D/s as I've narrowly and carefully defined it. There is abusive domination, and there is coerced submission, but there is nothing consensual about the woman's role in the relationship now. Even if you count the uninformed consent she gave 25 years ago, that consent has been long-since nullified by the continued pattern of abuse and terrorization. She's not staying in the relationship because she enjoys it or because she finds it fulfilling--she's staying because she believes he will maim or kill her if she tries to leave.

I apologize if I get a bit strident about these kinds of points, but the consequences of allowing the lines between kink and abuse to blur are dire. Contrary to popular belief, the cops in most states do not need a battered spouse to press charges in order to arrest a suspected abuser, nor does a DA need the battered spouse to testify to bring him to trial. Of course, it's much easier to secure a conviction if the victim cooperates, but it's not impossible to get the conviction even when the victim testifies that the abuse was really consensual kink. The possibility that one of our legitimate, responsible tops could wind up in prison as a sex offender is very real, and very scary. For that reason, I strongly encourage all of us to be very precise when saying what is and isn't BDSM, and to draw that line to clearly exclude any abusive or even non-consensual situations.

 

[Marquis]

There is so much shit I would love to say if I had the time.

Suffice it to say you are all wrong.

Marquis has spoken.

 

[serijules]

Seri--insert your favorite mutual-admiration-society compliment here and apply it to yourself. Anything nice you can think up is fine with me.



Your friend just fears what she doesn't understand, despite the fact that she's doing it. She and her boyfriend are eroticizing dominance, submission, and sexual service in their roleplaying games--that's a negotiated, eroticized, consensual exchange of power, so it's BDSM. Not all BDSM involves pain or punishment, but it sounds like your friend is totally hung up on the SM part, which some lifestylers aren't into at all. You don't have to be 24/7 to be doing BDSM; you don't even have to keep it up throughout the entire scene. But at least part of their play is centering around willing erotic servitude, so technically, it counts. Fear of a label by the participants doesn't mean the label doesn't apply.

Now, is it useful to point this out to your friend? Probably not, at least not in the short run. I'm certainly not suggesting that you rock their boat by rubbing her nose in the D/s element in their games. But just between you and me, it meets all the requirements of BDSM, so we have to count it.

I have to wonder, however, whether her fear and disgust for what you do is actually masking a deep-seated interest in more serious submission and even masochism on her part, though. It's just possible that she's doing the exact same thing in expressing revulsion towards BDSM that so many homophobes are doing when they persecute gays--displacing discomfort with their own "forbidden" feelings by lashing out against those who practice the forbidden acts or lifestyle. Not that this possibility is a reason to push her into accepting your choices, let alone exploring them herself--that sort of pressure is only going to drive her away from you and quite possibly from an undiscovered aspect of herself.



When I say "D/s," with a big D and a little s, separated by a slash, I'm referring specifically and solely to voluntary dominance and submission, in which each partner satisfies a deep-seated and positive psychological craving in a constructive, nurturing, and mutually beneficial way. Thus, that precise spelling--D/s--applies ONLY to consensual, psycholgically fulfilling, non-destructive dominance and submission.

According to the definitions I'm working with--and I didn't make them up, though I probably did synthesize them a bit from various books and articles--BDSM assumes a D/s interaction at it's core. If there isn't a consensual exchange of power, it's not D/s, it's just abuse.

When I use words like dominance, submission, bondage, discipline, sadism, masochism, etc., in lower case, I mean the Webster, vanilla definition. For example, I may be referring to sexual dominance, or non-sexual dominance, but used in that way, there is no implication or assumption of an underlying consent by the dominated party. D/s may be erotic, even kinky, or it may be innocent of sexuality, but by definition, it's never abusive nor should it be criminal.



In your redux of Marquis' scenario, we're looking at a situation that may have started--25 years ago!--with a D/s pretext, but has long since devolved into simple, criminal abuse. The man is clearly an abuser, while the wife is displaying classic battered-wife behavior. My guess is, neither of them ever understood what positive D/s is; he treats BDSM as a license to abuse his wife, while she mistakes a dangerously low self-esteem, insecurity, and need for attention with a genuine desire to submit.

She has long since ceased to consent willingly to his domination, if she ever truly did. She's following a path of least resistance in order to survive, to diffuse his wrath, to keep from getting killed. In fact, she's exhibiting very similar behavior to the dominated convict in Marquis' prison example, agreeing to be his cellmate's bitch only because he fears for his life if he were to refuse.

What's particularly frightening about this scenario, from the standpoint of the BDSM community, is that there are LOTS of relationships like this around, using handcuffs and a flogger to hide abuse behind a veil of kink. It is these sorts of relationships that justify the actions of the fundamentalists, social conservatives, and far right wing to suppress and criminalize what we do. We have a moral obligation to try to help this woman out of her predicament, but we absolutely MUST make the distinction between our responsible, caring, positive tops and the leather-clad wife-beater in the scenario. If we fail to do so, we make it much, much easier for the conservatives to turn us all into criminals, or to prosecute us for sodomy and abuse laws that are already on the books.



No, for crucial legal and political reasons, its vital that we recognize that this relationship is not even bad BDSM--if it was ever BDSM at all. It's abuse masquerading as BDSM, to protect the abuser.

Even in your expanded version, there is no D/s as I've narrowly and carefully defined it. There is abusive domination, and there is coerced submission, but there is nothing consensual about the woman's role in the relationship now. Even if you count the uninformed consent she gave 25 years ago, that consent has been long-since nullified by the continued pattern of abuse and terrorization. She's not staying in the relationship because she enjoys it or because she finds it fulfilling--she's staying because she believes he will maim or kill her if she tries to leave.

I apologize if I get a bit strident about these kinds of points, but the consequences of allowing the lines between kink and abuse to blur are dire. Contrary to popular belief, the cops in most states do not need a battered spouse to press charges in order to arrest a suspected abuser, nor does a DA need the battered spouse to testify to bring him to trial. Of course, it's much easier to secure a conviction if the victim cooperates, but it's not impossible to get the conviction even when the victim testifies that the abuse was really consensual kink. The possibility that one of our legitimate, responsible tops could wind up in prison as a sex offender is very real, and very scary. For that reason, I strongly encourage all of us to be very precise when saying what is and isn't BDSM, and to draw that line to clearly exclude any abusive or even non-consensual situations.

I stand corrected *grin*

Seriously, your points make sense to me, and on further thinking, match what I feel at the core, even if it's not so much what I expressed. Sometimes thinking out loud leads me off from how I truly feel, and I do agree very much that it makes more sense to not TOLERATE the label of BDSM to be applied to abusive or criminal situations.

My comments about the D/s thing, I should have been typing dominance and submission, not D/s. I just woke up and can chalk that up to being really lazy. Didn't help in making my point, but you corrected it well. I agree and draw that dinstinctive line between D/s and dominance and/or submission in a "webster" way as well. That was kind of an embarassing mistake.

I have been in abusive BDSM situations, so it's hard for me to distinct that line sometimes because they started out as BDSM relationships and that's what they always were in my mind, even when they degraded to being abusive. When you are involved in situations like that, it's easier to think "this is bad BDSM" than to think I allowed myself to be in an abusive situation.

Sorry for the long quote and not breaking it up better, I'm on a laptop with a broken mousepad....having a hard time getting around, much less highlighting things.

 

[Jay Davis]

Seri--

I didn't mean to correct you, only to clarify my own points. I always find that discussing a difficult topic with an interested and intelligent person helps me to better understand my own positions, and often to fine-tune them. I was also pretty sure that any differences between us were much more semantic than substantive.



Marquis--

Being a top doesn't make you smart or right. If you disagree, then participate in the discussion in a meaningful way, or keep quiet. Swanning in and telling everyone that they're wrong but you can't be bothered to prove it is arrogant, disrespectful, and unhelpful.

On the other hand, if you make a valid case, you might make people change their minds. So, will your opinions stand up to critical review? Until we hear them, I'll have to assume they won't.

 

[Marquis]

Marquis--

Being a top doesn't make you smart or right. If you disagree, then participate in the discussion in a meaningful way, or keep quiet. Swanning in and telling everyone that they're wrong but you can't be bothered to prove it is arrogant, disrespectful, and unhelpful.

On the other hand, if you make a valid case, you might make people change their minds. So, will your opinions stand up to critical review? Until we hear them, I'll have to assume they won't.

You seem smart enough to pick up some not so subtle facetiousness.

Take up your "male-subs-are-tough" agenda with someone who cares what the audience thinks.

 

[RJMasters]

There is so much shit I would love to say if I had the time.

Suffice it to say you are all wrong.

Marquis has spoken.

*tosses Marquis a bloody stake.

You animal you.

 

[Pure]

*tosses Marquis a Prozac

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Whether or not we would call it 'BDSM' is almost irrelevant. All of these scenarios involve a power exchange. One person has the power, another submits to that power. Some of them are consensual, some of them aren't, but they are ALL power exchanges.

And even if not (C)consens(t)ual, the red flags have aspects of either sadism or masochism. The examples may not fall from the "ideal" tree some have espoused, but even the line between domineering and domination blurs when an adult has the choice to press charges and/or leave. i'm smiling thinking of Q-BoU taking the willingly offered third grader's lunch money.

 

[Netzach]

It could be argued that an adult male with a hard-on is a mentally disadvantaged individual. So sue me.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

It could be argued that an adult male with a hard-on is a mentally disadvantaged individual. So sue me.

Sorry darlin', i'm quite mentally alert with a hard-on, although you do make a good case for my wanting to boost the amount of blood in my body ...

 

[Caitlynne]

And even if not (C)consens(t)ual, the red flags have aspects of either sadism or masochism. The examples may not fall from the "ideal" tree some have espoused, but even the line between domineering and domination blurs when an adult has the choice to press charges and/or leave. i'm smiling thinking of Q-BoU taking the willingly offered third grader's lunch money.

Oops, by bad on the spelling error!

It is a GREAT image, isn't it!!! Made me smile too!

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Oops, by bad on the spelling error!

That wasn't a correction of a spelling error, but rather a play on words.

Look these up for the shock of your life.

Concentual

consenual

 

[Quint]

OK, here's a scenario.

I just like to get hurt. I like my partner to do what he wants with me, and he likes the same. Every so often we use toys; we have a designated "playroom" with a chest full of implements (a room which will, incidentally, be repainted by the time he comes home). I enjoy being verbally abused and physically objectified. I like to play dress up in scandalous and very tastefully bizarre outfits for fetish parties. But I don't subscribe to the notion of a dogma that puts my sex life on a scale of "BDSM" or "abuse," with the almighty C swinging it one way or the other. I do what I want to do because it feels good, I'm mostly responsible because I'm a mostly responsible person, and I don't much like feeling like I actually signed up for a religion with a set of credo negotiating my sex before I get to have it. I take my b, d, s, and m lower case, thankyouverymuch.

Is that BDSM?

 

[AngelicAssassin]

OK, here's a scenario.

I just like to get hurt. I like my partner to do what he wants with me, and he likes the same. Every so often we use toys; we have a designated "playroom" with a chest full of implements (a room which will, incidentally, be repainted by the time he comes home). I enjoy being verbally abused and physically objectified. I like to play dress up in scandalous and very tastefully bizarre outfits for fetish parties. But I don't subscribe to the notion of a dogma that puts my sex life on a scale of "BDSM" or "abuse," with the almighty C swinging it one way or the other. I do what I want to do because it feels good, I'm mostly responsible because I'm a mostly responsible person, and I don't much like feeling like I actually signed up for a religion with a set of credo negotiating my sex before I get to have it. I take my b, d, s, and m lower case, thankyouverymuch.

Is that BDSM?

Ya know, i wish i still had that applauding hands smilie. While i appreciate the multiple views and sharing of ideas, it does come down to one thing. Can you get drag your ass out of bed when you're done, look in the mirror and still want to go back and do it again.

Thanks for putting the labels and ephemeral bs right where they belong, flushed down the toilet while heading back to your partner for the next round. Oh wait, i just insulted the Golden showers group and aligned myself with the squick squad.

 

[Xelebes]

Oh wait, i just insulted the Golden showers group and aligned myself with the squick squad.

YEAH! YOU TAKE THAT BACK!!!!

 

[AngelicAssassin]

YEAH! YOU TAKE THAT BACK!!!!

Only if i get to piss on the squick squad.

 

[Xelebes]

Only if i get to piss on the squick squad.

Sounds fine with me.