New to bondage stories

[artful]

monster666

I see you value opinion highly,...and I don't don't really think mine matters much,...but it is still mine,...I own it, and though it can be changed,...I doubt it will on this subject matter.

The very nature of our discussion is subjective, ...your opinion and mine differ,...but I will not argue the point. Nor do I concede you are correct with YOUR opinion.

Have a nice morning.

 

[monster666]

Re: monster666

I do value opinion highly, when it's honest opinion and not stubborn adherence to a clearly wrong notion. Once facts are presented, an opinion is as useful as a skunk at a picnic.

Do the research yourself and see what you come up with. I have yet to find a single definition of BDSM that encompasses a sub staying with a DOM out of fear, credible or otherwise. The idea of such a thing is abhorrent.

You've been caught with your pants down wagging your willy at a passing patrolman. You're busted. Give it up.

I see you value opinion highly,...and I don't don't really think mine matters much,...but it is still mine,...I own it, and though it can be changed,...I doubt it will on this subject matter.

The very nature of our discussion is subjective, ...your opinion and mine differ,...but I will not argue the point. Nor do I concede you are correct with YOUR opinion.

Have a nice morning.

 

[WriterDom]

I never heard of an ass that had a desire to be whipped all on it's own. Desire, contrary to what Cupidians might say, comes from the brain.

Don't ever discard the ass's desire to be whipped. It's a very powerful phenomena.

 

[monster666]

LOL - and I suspect a rare phenomena found in numbers directly proportionate with those who manage to get their heads stuck up their asses!

Good night, folks. It's late here.

Don't ever discard the ass's desire to be whipped. It's a very powerful phenomena.

 

[artful]

Re: Re: monster666

I do value opinion highly, when it's honest opinion and not stubborn adherence to a clearly wrong notion. Once facts are presented, an opinion is as useful as a skunk at a picnic.

Do the research yourself and see what you come up with. I have yet to find a single definition of BDSM that encompasses a sub staying with a DOM out of fear, credible or otherwise. The idea of such a thing is abhorrent.

You've been caught with your pants down wagging your willy at a passing patrolman. You're busted. Give it up.

I hate to argue,...but WHO is it that have me outnumbered,...or outgunned? Is it the web sites you researched? The majority of people who practice BDSM as YOU define it? Should we include ALL the people on the planet? How about the vanilla's? The living ONLY,...or do we include the dead? Where did the term BDSM originate? What was it's ORIGINAL definition? Are you saying it started with SAFE, SANE, CONSENTUAL? Who the hell are you to LORD it about that YOUR opinion is the ONLY valid opinion? You haven't busted me,...
You haven't caught me, or anyone else that I know of, with their pants down wagging a willy at a passing patrolman. Is THAT your purpose,...is that why you make such a caustic post? Are you trying to accomplish something worthwhile with those needless inflammatory remarks?

 

[monster666]

Re: Re: Re: monster666

Artful, you've been the inflammatory one, not me. By taking a position that BDSM is not consentual, you took a poke at the very premise on which this group is based and most people here believe. This should be no surprise to you; you've been around long enough to read the sticky and find out what folks here are all about. This is a base of support for many people, and crap philosophy helps no one.

Your attitude and flagrant disregard for that foundation is inflammatory in itself, so don't come in here spouting shit like you have and expect everyone to just sit by and smell it. It stinks.

And Artful, I did not define BDSM. It's been defined over and over and over again by the majority of those in the BDSM community. I am just reporting the facts about what I've found.

If the majority of the english speaking world calls a banana a banana, for those who speak english, it's a banana. You calling it a grapefruit doesn't make it a grapefruit, it makes you an idiot. There just isn't much room for interpretation or opinion there.

Likewise, if the majority of those in BDSM say BDSM is consentual, and that power tranfers are involved, then it is so. You and a handful of others can call other things including abuse BDSM, but it doesnt make it so.

I've tried to be reasonable and inject some humor into this debate, but apparently, you won't have it. And I have no doubt that this even pointier rebuke of your retarded stance will infuriate you further, but I don't care. I am digging in my heels on this one. You are just plain wrong; a person who submits because of fear is not participating in BDSM, they are the victim of abuse, pure and simple. I don't think my remarks are needless at all. The record needs to be set straight.

FYI, here are a few links that all describe BDSM as consentual activity, and there are many, many more just in case you'd like to get a clue:

http://www.angelfire.com/on3/bdsmkingston/bdsm.html

http://home.gci.net/~loveit/academy/defined.htm

http://www.teramis.com/kink/bdsm/bdsm1.html

I hate to argue,...but WHO is it that have me outnumbered,...or outgunned? Is it the web sites you researched? The majority of people who practice BDSM as YOU define it? Should we include ALL the people on the planet? How about the vanilla's? The living ONLY,...or do we include the dead? Where did the term BDSM originate? What was it's ORIGINAL definition? Are you saying it started with SAFE, SANE, CONSENTUAL? Who the hell are you to LORD it about that YOUR opinion is the ONLY valid opinion? You haven't busted me,...
You haven't caught me, or anyone else that I know of, with their pants down wagging a willy at a passing patrolman. Is THAT your purpose,...is that why you make such a caustic post? Are you trying to accomplish something worthwhile with those needless inflammatory remarks? [/QUOTE

 

[cellis]

I have to say that in my opinion not all BDSM is consensual. And we have first hand proof from members of our very own community who have been in abusive BDSM relationships, myself included.

Our very own Dusty has written so very eloquently about her own experiences with BDSM and abuse. Somewhere along the line a fine corner is turned and it is no longer about being Safe Sane or Consensual.

I know this is not exactly what WD and artful were talking about. But is it perhaps another aspect of what one has to consider. Life is not always tied into neat little packages and neither is BDSM.

And no one has mentioned GOR or the whole Enslavement movement... all considered to be part of BDSM... just the extreme edge and not considered to be at all consensual.

Most of us who post here are very lucky that we have the people in our lives that we can trust and play safely with, but life is not that wrapped neatly for everyone.

That's just my opinion as a member of the community and I own it.

 

[Sandia]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Going from "I disagree with you," to "you're an asshole because I disagree with you" is always a bad move. IMHO.



It makes more sense to me to say, "Ya know, there's bad BDSM relationships," than to say "If it's bad, it's not BDSM."



And... what is GOR?

 

[Quint]

Sandia, Gor is a 24/7 lifestyle based on a series of fantasy novels. Some people think it's terrific, some people think it's appalling. There is a definite lack of feminists in the Gorean movement, lemme put it that way. There are old threads here on it, which I'm too lazy to look up because it really doesn't appeal much to me.

Monster, are you sure that it's the "banana/grapefruit" analogy you want to use? Some people call mountain lions "pumas" or "catamarans" (and forgive me for misspelling that. Don't think I've EVER tried to spell that.) or "cougars". I'm saying this lightly because I have yet to determine how my mind is set. Right now, I think you are right, though not necessarily for this reason.

Cellis, once those relationships mentioned crossed the line out of respect and into fear (and nothing but fear! I'll be the first to admit a healthy dose of fear does the subbie good), I believe they left the realm of BDSM. Just because it payed the cover charge doesn't mean it gets to drink all night. Okay, early morning obscurity. Clarify: It's not a permanent designation. You can play too hard. Once you cross those lines, it isn't BDSM.

We try to let the public know that BDSMers are not dangerous. We aren't criminals. We aren't rapists or victims, not while we're playing.

If we allow BDSM to include genuine rape and genuine victims, or "mild" cases such as physical abuse, then we are no longer safe in the eyes of the law. If we accept such people under our protective name of BDSM, then none of us are safe.

Does that make sense?

 

[cellis]

Cellis, once those relationships mentioned crossed the line out of respect and into fear (and nothing but fear! I'll be the first to admit a healthy dose of fear does the subbie good), I believe they left the realm of BDSM. Just because it payed the cover charge doesn't mean it gets to drink all night. Okay, early morning obscurity. Clarify: It's not a permanent designation. You can play too hard. Once you cross those lines, it isn't BDSM.

We try to let the public know that BDSMers are not dangerous. We aren't criminals. We aren't rapists or victims, not while we're playing.

If we allow BDSM to include genuine rape and genuine victims, or "mild" cases such as physical abuse, then we are no longer safe in the eyes of the law. If we accept such people under our protective name of BDSM, then none of us are safe.

Does that make sense?

Quint you make absolute sense and that was just the point that I was trying to make.

There is a broad spectrum of BDSM. One doesn't have to agree with the practices of some people, but that does not make it any less BDSM.

 

[monster666]

Cellis, when you stopped consenting, it was no longer BDSM. Is was an assault. Can abuse and BDSM exist together in a relationship? Yes. Is the abuse part of BDSM? No.

Did you go grocery shopping while in that relationship? Grocery shopping is not BDSM. Did you drive a car? Go to a salon? Did you go to work? These things are not part of BDSM. Nor is abuse.

A relationship is a relationship, and just because it has many facets doesn't mean all those facets are components of one another.

The BDSM community is organized and that organization has expressly defined BDSM as having no place for non-consentual activity, period. If we aren't willing to draw that line, we are asking for a world full of the wrong kind of hurt.

Cellis, it's important to everyone that we are clear on this. Let call abuse what it is - abuse, pure and simple. BDSM is something different entirely.

I have to say that in my opinion not all BDSM is consensual. And we have first hand proof from members of our very own community who have been in abusive BDSM relationships, myself included.

Our very own Dusty has written so very eloquently about her own experiences with BDSM and abuse. Somewhere along the line a fine corner is turned and it is no longer about being Safe Sane or Consensual.

I know this is not exactly what WD and artful were talking about. But is it perhaps another aspect of what one has to consider. Life is not always tied into neat little packages and neither is BDSM.

And no one has mentioned GOR or the whole Enslavement movement... all considered to be part of BDSM... just the extreme edge and not considered to be at all consensual.

Most of us who post here are very lucky that we have the people in our lives that we can trust and play safely with, but life is not that wrapped neatly for everyone.

That's just my opinion as a member of the community and I own it.

 

[monster666]

Q-Unit, I chose the banana analogy because I know of only one english word for it. Just be glad I didn't say spud!

Your post makes a ton of sense.

Monster, are you sure that it's the "banana/grapefruit" analogy you want to use? Some people call mountain lions "pumas" or "catamarans" (and forgive me for misspelling that. Don't think I've EVER tried to spell that.) or "cougars". I'm saying this lightly because I have yet to determine how my mind is set. Right now, I think you are right, though not necessarily for this reason.

 

[monster666]

cellis, the whole point I think she was trying to make is that it is NOT BDSM once the threshold of non-consentual is crossed. The spectrum of BDSM as defined by the community is indeed wide, but is also very specific about consent. Anything outside of consentual just is not BDSM, at all, ever. It's something else.

The myth that non-consentual BDSM exists is dangerous and ends up hurting a lot of people, as you well know.

Quint you make absolute sense and that was just the point that I was trying to make.

There is a broad spectrum of BDSM. One doesn't have to agree with the practices of some people, but that does not make it any less BDSM.

 

[monster666]

When a bad relationship is described, why not call it what it is? I seldom hear a vanilla relationship descibed as a "bad vanilla relationship" or a "Bad non-BDSM relationship". So why on earth would we hurt ourselves by describing a BDSM relationship that way?

Abusive relationships are abusive relationships, vanilla, BDSM or whatever. Vanilla or BDSM has nothing to do with the abuse.

Facts are facts. The overwhelming majority of BDSM sites define BDSM with the inclusion of the word consentual. Therefore, anyone practicing something non-consentual is not practicing BDSM, and doing the rest of the community harm in trying to associate what they do as BDSM.

And please, Sandia, don't put words in my mouth.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Going from "I disagree with you," to "you're an asshole because I disagree with you" is always a bad move. IMHO.



It makes more sense to me to say, "Ya know, there's bad BDSM relationships," than to say "If it's bad, it's not BDSM."



And... what is GOR?

 

[monster666]

The M in BDSM, according to Webster's

mas·och·ism Pronunciation Key (ms-kzm)
n.
The deriving of sexual gratification, or the tendency to derive sexual gratification, from being physically or emotionally abused.

Last I checked people deriving sexual gratification are in pretty consentual situaltions.

The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from being humiliated or mistreated, either by another or by oneself.

See above.

A willingness or tendency to subject oneself to unpleasant or trying experiences.

Well well, here we cut to the chase. "The willingness or tendancy to subject oneself" sounds like explicit consent to me.


So you see folks, without consent, we don't have masochism. And without masochism, we dont have BDSM. We only have BDS, which isn't very close. And close in this case doesn't get the cigar.

Edited to add:

Note that this is a pretty vanilla point of view of masochism. And it still references willingness, or consent.

 

[artful]

My Opinion

I will state up front:
THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION!

The people involved in a BDSM relationship can be either m/f, m/m, f/f, or many other variations of which an individual may approve or not. For the purposes of explanation, I will use the m/f combination. Also, for ease of typing, I will state, the male=Dom, and the female=sub, though in
actuality, the roles could be reversed.

A Dom/sub relationship is established. The Dom is able to supply daily orgasms to the sub of a quality she has NEVER before experienced. She craves it, she loves it, she needs it.


Without his PARTICULAR expertise, she is UNABLE to orgasm in a satisfactory manner. They establish an agreement whereby she moves in with him, and submits to a 24/7 lifestyle.(some of you can relate to this-others may not)


The Dom may take her to a dungeon, for other Dom's to use, for training, etc. The sub has the right to refuse to go. Let's say she DOES refuse, and the Dom says,..."Ok,...but that was INCLUDED in our agreement."


"If you don't abide by our agreement, then I have no use for this relationship, pack up your stuff and leave." The sub packs up and leaves.


A week later,...she comes knocking on the Dom's door. He allows her entry, and the sub tries to convince the Dom to have sex with her. He states plainly, that if she will agree to being used by others at the dungeon once a week, he will take her back.


The sub agrees once again, and starts to shed her clothes, but the Dom says, "NO,...before I give you the orgasm you seek, you must fulfill your part of the agreement at the dungeon."


Once again, the sub tries to convince the Dom to gratify her FIRST. He states clearly to her she must FIRST, submit to others at the dungeon.


Because of her desire for the orgasm that he can give her, she succumbs to his request. They immediately set out for the dungeon. Upon arrival,...she is in tears. The Dom says, "It's your choice,...do you wish to do this of your own free will or not?"


Sobbing uncontrollably, she nods her head in agreement. The rest of the story, you folks can write it out as you wish, it really doesn't matter. The first part was written ONLY for you to see there doesn't have to be a significant amount of TRUST in order for it to be BDSM.


The story could easily end with the sub getting what she wanted from the Dom, in exchange for him
getting what he wanted from her.(obedience)


It could be that the sub, overcoming her FEAR, came to enjoy her weekly outing to the dungeon. It
could also be that she NEVER overcomes her loathing, at being treated in this manner once a
week.


These TYPES of situations happen daily, all over the world. The FEARS, and/or DESIRES being the driving force behind the relationship. TRUST is not a significant factor in THIS type of relationship. Do I consider it a BDSM relationship? You betcha!!! Was it consentual?
You betcha!!!


Again,...just my honest opinion.

 

[monster666]

Re: My Opinion

Now we are getting somewhere. If a sub desires something and submits willingly, that is consent. And a power transfer does indeed take place, and a certain level of trust that a certain level of safety will exist even if there is a great deal of fear and apprehension involved. There may not be a great big power transfer ceremony, but it takes place nevertheless with the very act of submission.

I agree with you that the situation you describe could fall well within the limits of BDSM, and even be safe and sane, depending on the Dom/me.

But Artful, this scenario is a far cry different than a somone who submits to something out of pure fear. There is no consent there, it is just abuse.

Can we agree on this difference?

These TYPES of situations happen daily, all over the world. The FEARS, and/or DESIRES being the driving force behind the relationship. TRUST is not a significant factor in THIS type of relationship. Do I consider it a BDSM relationship? You betcha!!! Was it consentual?
You betcha!!!


Again,...just my honest opinion.

 

[artful]

monster666

Artful, you've been the inflammatory one, not me. By taking a position that BDSM is not consentual, you took a poke at the very premise on which this group is based and most people here believe. [/QUOTE [/B]

BTW:

a)-I have NEVER taken the position that BDSM is NOT consentual.

b)-I haven't attempted to put words in anyone elses mouth.

c)-In the beginning, I only pointed out that WriterDom's original statement was:

"I have to disagree. That's like saying sex only happens between married couples.
A lot of bdsm involves whips and chains and very little else."

d)-KillerMuffin replied:
"So you could dom someone without trust and power exchange. Why do I so not believe that."

e)-My post to KM was only to point out the FACT,he DIDN'T say, he could dom someone without trust and power exchange.

f)-Your following post directed to me was:
Artful,

why not go back and look at what WD quoted and said he disagreed with? I read
his disagreement the exact same way KM did. After your post, I went back and
re-read his. I still read it the exact same way KM did.

g)-I only wished to express that his statement MAY have been taken out of context. Possibly misunderstood.


(although this post is FACTUAL,...I will state clearly,...it is JUST my opinion,...but I own it)

 

[Quint]

Monster....

You rock! Behind you all the way so far.

So which part of "Safe, Sane, and Consensual" are we arguing? I backed up the "safe" part in my last post by saying that the only way BDSMers as a community can be safe is by calling abuse abuse. (Not a typo. Like calling a fool a fool.) Now it seems the issue is on "consent." I don't see this being difficult: you either give trust to your partner to do all these things, or your partner does them without your agreement. This agreement can be given after a great deal of convincing, a la Artful's example above, but the fact remains that if there is no agreement, no consent, then it's rape. That should not be an issue anymore.

Nevermind if it's somebody you just saw in a club, not your lifelong partner. Even choosing to go to a club is not consenting to be used/use everybody there. There has to be some person/person (or personXhowever many people you want) interaction. There has to be more explicit consent. Even eyes meeting, then drawing the person up by their hands and leading them into an empty room is consent.

I don't know where to draw the line between coaxing and forcing. A good friend of mine was coaxed into getting fucked. In my mind it was rape. This isn't something I can get into here because it's so largely individual. I'd have never tolerated anything like what you described, Artful. My mileage varies. But the bottom line is that there has to be consent. How that is obtained may be room for another thread (in fact, I do believe I'll start one!) but it has to be given or it's not there and it's rape. Finis.

Do I get to cover "sane" next? Huh? Huh? Do I?

 

[artful]

Re: Re: My Opinion

Now we are getting somewhere. If a sub desires something and submits willingly, that is consent. And a power transfer does indeed take place, and a certain level of trust that a certain level of safety will exist even if there is a great deal of fear and apprehension involved. There may not be a great big power transfer ceremony, but it takes place nevertheless with the very act of submission.

I agree with you that the situation you describe could fall well within the limits of BDSM, and even be safe and sane, depending on the Dom/me.

But Artful, this scenario is a far cry different than a somone who submits to something out of pure fear. There is no consent there, it is just abuse.

Can we agree on this difference?

I will agree that YOUR opinion is as VALID as mine.

Have a nice day.

 

[Sandia]

Sandia, Gor is a 24/7 lifestyle based on a series of fantasy novels. Some people think it's terrific, some people think it's appalling. There is a definite lack of feminists in the Gorean movement, lemme put it that way. There are old threads here on it, which I'm too lazy to look up because it really doesn't appeal much to me.

Monster, are you sure that it's the "banana/grapefruit" analogy you want to use? Some people call mountain lions "pumas" or "catamarans" (and forgive me for misspelling that. Don't think I've EVER tried to spell that.) or "cougars". I'm saying this lightly because I have yet to determine how my mind is set. Right now, I think you are right, though not necessarily for this reason.

Cellis, once those relationships mentioned crossed the line out of respect and into fear (and nothing but fear! I'll be the first to admit a healthy dose of fear does the subbie good), I believe they left the realm of BDSM. Just because it payed the cover charge doesn't mean it gets to drink all night. Okay, early morning obscurity. Clarify: It's not a permanent designation. You can play too hard. Once you cross those lines, it isn't BDSM.

We try to let the public know that BDSMers are not dangerous. We aren't criminals. We aren't rapists or victims, not while we're playing.

If we allow BDSM to include genuine rape and genuine victims, or "mild" cases such as physical abuse, then we are no longer safe in the eyes of the law. If we accept such people under our protective name of BDSM, then none of us are safe.

Does that make sense?

I think what you say makes perfect sense, Quint.

I'm sure everybody would agree rapists are not practising BDSM.

The difference between BDSM and assault is consent. I think everyone agrees about that, too, right?

In fact, I'm not sure what the argument here is.

Maybe it has to do with cases where consent begins to get a little murky? Or what to do if you see someone you care about getting hurt, or playing unsafely, or non-consensually?

In that case I'm not sure it matters what you call it, as long as you reach out to the person that you care about...

 

[artful]

Quint

Do I get to cover "sane" next? Huh? Huh? Do I?

Of course you may Quint. (LOL) BTW: I think you contributed greatly in expressing your opinions. As did others.

I also will state that monster666 made some very good points.

It is very easy for ANY of us to make an errant post, whereby our THOUGHTS don't necessarily express themselves clearly, as we attempt to type them out.

 

[WriterDom]

.
6. New submissives do not become instant hard core kinksters over night.

You'll hear a lot of submissives say that the feelings of submission and associated fantasies began in childhood. I don't know exactly what you mean by "hard core kinkster." I've been a part of at least 5 first time experiences. One was truly terrified and trembling. The majority had the unspoken attitude of "Bring it on, I've been waiting on this a long time."

One person's kink is another's limit. Occasionally I am shocked by kinkiness of comments by new submissives. Whether they can walk the walk is another matter. But I do think some can.

 

[CarolineOh]

I think everyone on this thread has made some very good points. So, hoping I can as well, I'll toss my two cents worth in.

First of all, I think eveyone who takes exception to what KM posted needs to step back a little bit and look at her post again from another angle. She wasn't talking about how a bdsm relationship should be structured, or how bdsm works in real life situations, but what works in bdsm stories, which, I am sure we can all agree, is not always synonymous. WD's example is a good case in point. True many novices jump in with both feet right off the bat, but for a novice to be described as doing so in a story may very well starin credibility if not handled just right.

As for the issue of abuse within bdsm, I see both sides of the argument and believe both have a handle on the truth from their different sides.
We define bdsm as consentual, and therefore, abusive, nonconsentual relationships are, by definition, outside of the parameters of bdsm. But at the same time, that line of reasoning could very well lead us to be dismissive of potential problems within the gray areas at the edges of consent.

Trust is a nebulous term. I have been to a few bdsm events and seen people get up and submit to some fairly extreme practices with people they have just met. In such a case, their trust is in the group, that the person they play with will not go too far within there being intervention, but the amount of trust they are placing in their play partner is limited at best. I can imagine other situations in which trust is primarily vested in the social construct and not in the individual, but that are clearly part of bdsm.

 

[monster666]

Re: monster666

BTW:

a)-I have NEVER taken the position that BDSM is NOT consentual.

Artful, I understood the following to mean that the sub did not consent to stay, since the sub was staying out of fear. If that wasn't your meaning, it surely wasn't clear to me and I apologize.

If the sub stays ONLY because of fear, then she isn't consenting, she is being coerced against her will. But if she is freely willing to deal with a great deal of fear and apprehension about one scene to get what she really wants out of another, then she is consenting. And she still has the right to bail at any time.

The trust and power transfer occurs automatically (whether expressed or implied) when she consents; it's just part of the dynamics of submission.

There are many situations where a sub stays with her Dom out of FEAR. Do I consider them BDSM'ers?
You betcha!