I know I will regret this..................

[alice_underneath]

Alice,

Terminology can be confusing, just as words to convey feelings or concepts (which are inherently abstract) always fix something to a concrete thing, which is usually why differences occur. My view of what "lifestyle" means is how it is for me personally, I'm not saying it's in any way "better" that any other way people incorporate D/s, it's really just my view.

By D/s lifestyle, I refer to the part that D/s has in my life. I would say that D/s for me is not a pursuit or an occassional thing, it is an inherent part of myself which pervades me and to some degree my life. It is a constant thing, not a distinct and somehow discrete behaviour of mine.

Thank you very much for answering my question, PathFinder.

I hope you will not consider it presumptuous if I paraphrase what you have said in an attempt to confirm my understanding of your comments.

My understanding is that dominance (for you) is not part of a persona that you adopt only when involved in specific situations.

For example, you are not the type of guy whose dominant personality surfaces when he enters the bedroom, but recedes when he walks out.

Instead, your particular flavor of dominance (involving the "need to direct, guide, nurture and develop someone"), is evident in the way you interact with your partner(s) on a 24/7 basis.

It sounds as if you also might be saying that you are drawn to various roles in which the responsibility for training and guidance plays an important part (e.g., Math teacher, business manager in charge of employees, soccer coach, etc.).

Please let me know if my comments here are off the mark.

Alice

 

[FurryFury]

I'm not sure I understand the character of this relationship- was it an affective BDSM relationship that included teaching, training and guidance, or a primarily educational relationship that included sex and spankings? I'm not judging either way, as long as it worked for you, I'm just unclear.

This was an online relationship. For me it was eventually very sexual but obviously the man never physically touched me. We also didn't cyber per se.

He was listed as a Dom at a web site. I dropped him a note to say hi because I had heard men rarely get contacted and he was sort of my "dream Dom." Since I am not available in RL, and made that clear, I didn't expect to hear further from him. It said in his bio that he was looking for long term RL relationship.

He contacted me. I was thrilled. We talked a great deal. I found he actually had a brain, talent and was deeper than most online sorts. It looked like we were going to be doing the typical chat thing most so called Doms do. That rarely leads anywhere but in his case, I didn't mind. He was simply that complex and interesting.

Now a few words about chat. I love talking with people. I really do. However when you are talking with a potential online Dom and chat is all that happens, well, it doesn't go anywhere D/s wise. On the other hand I must get to know, trust and care about a person before it can go anywhere else. I have to feel they know, trust and care about me as well. Now I also need certain assurances about not disappearing. Back to the evolution of this past relationship.

One night we were chatting and he surprised me. He gave me a task quite suddenly. It rifted off of something I had just said. That particular task I wouldn't/couldn't do. So we had to negotiate another. After that we were off in a new direction. One that taught me so much and that I ache to find some form of in the future.

He seemed to know what I truly sought even when I hadn't consciously voiced it in my own mind. Even better he seemed to know what training and tasks would help me get further along the path I was compelled to go. He gave me hope that I could attain certain goals and knowledge I craved.

One of the best things he did was include my husband in my tasks and training. That lead to learning for us both. It strengthened our relationship and understanding about BDSM a little, IMO.

It was a wonderful thing. I miss him a great deal. I miss feeling like he had my map and compass. I wish he had left those items in my hands. I miss having him help me along.

Fury

 

[MadamaMiniTopic]

.
.

Goooooooooooooooooood Morning ​

.
.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/rebecca000/cuffs1.jpg
Ohhh find these on Thread floor, owner please pm me return immediate.Arigatou-gozaimasu.


~ bows ~ ​

 

[Purple Sage]

For a heterosexual submissive woman, the difference between being in a vanilla relationship and a D/s one is the absence (or presence) of a Dominant male. The entire dynamic is profoundly different, in many ways that have absolutely nothing to do with kinky sex.

A woman can be eager to please, willing to serve, yearning for direction, etc. But if her partner does not have the desire or ability to direct, guide, control, et al, every single aspect of their relationship will differ from the D/s type.

As for the idea that "submission as an extremely intimate one-on-one concept" implies "romance taken to an extreme" - well, in a way I suppose you are right. Sexuality is, for me, intensely private. I would not offer my body to a man if I did not respect, trust, and - yes - love him. The same is true (for me) for submission in the D/s sense. I am not talking about submitting because it sounds hot to be tied up and spanked. I am talking about a profoundly meaningful and intense connection with another human being. The freedom to explore my own sexuality under his direction is just one piece of the entire dynamic.

In a BDSM culture that celebrates play parties, elaborate public scenes, and pyls who want to be used in any way their Master sees fit (including being used by others), I realize that what I am saying does sound like it is on the "extreme" end of the spectrum of sexuality. I also realize that this type of attitude would inspire few (if any) votes in a "Most Desirable Sub" contest. But I can't change the way I am simply because the prevailing culture finds something else more desirable.

Perhaps this is not what you meant to imply, but I am not interested in role play. That is to say, I think role play could be fun within the confines of an intimate relationship, but the relationship itself would not be described that way.

Alice

Role play has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm referring to people who base the structures of their relationships on these sets of images and ideas. Within any relationship, people assume 'roles', in that they have, at least, habitual patterns of action and responsibility. In D/s relationships these are often defined in some detail, and one way of doing this is by reference to a coherent set of ideas from the past, from literature (in the broadest sense...) and so on. The bible, for instance, has some explicit directions for the interaction of husband and wife that can be seen as very D/s; books like Gor have a whole host of customs and manners and well-defined relationships.

By 'traditional marriage', I meant the expectation that was until very recently standard in Europe and the U.S. that the wife should obey her husband. Until not too long ago, few women in the west could own property, and were generally regarded as the property of their husbands- the one major limitation being that husbands had no legal right to sell their wives. In other respects, however, women and children have been largely the property of the male head of household. This is a model of D/s relationship that some people contextualize in a 1950's setting- Leave It To Beaver plus a little 'domestic discipline'. I don't think role playing is really what it's about (though since this isn't particularly my area of interest, I can't speak authoratatively).

Of course your point that any D/s relationship requires the presence of someone dominant is true- all of these models are 'activated' by a dominant/submissive pairing (or other multiple).

 

[MadamaMiniTopic]

Beauty & Fetish ~ Mini Topic 2

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/rebecca000/BeautyandFetish.jpg


ohiyo
Opportunity to explore Beauty & Fetish Several Numbered pictures will be posted over the next week. Please feel free to enjoy,detest, critique, avoid ,ignore,love, comment or otherwise.........

From a more serious perspective its going to be interesting where we feel its 'too much' that a line may have been crossed.......

Could even consider rating the photo's with say modified 'Limit' descriptives

1. No HATE it
2. No real interest in this
3. Interesting to look at
4. Oh thats really okay
5. Really like this
6. Yes LOVE it

​

 

[MadamaMiniTopic]

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/rebecca000/BF1.jpg​

 

[Purple Sage]

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/rebecca000/BF1.jpg​

Aarrrgh. For some reason, I can't see these pix.

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/rebecca000/BF1.jpg​

Score for me is 3
Needle play is waaaaaaaaay out of my league . I just have a strong aversion to needles of any kind. I find this both beautiful and abhorent at the same time. From an Artists point of view the patterning the shading on the leg is rather elegant in a way and yet as soon as my brain reminds me its needles I recoil. I wonder what he is thinking as he does this..........

 

[PathFinder17]

My understanding is that dominance (for you) is not part of a persona that you adopt only when involved in specific situations.

For example, you are not the type of guy whose dominant personality surfaces when he enters the bedroom, but recedes when he walks out.

Instead, your particular flavor of dominance (involving the "need to direct, guide, nurture and develop someone"), is evident in the way you interact with your partner(s) on a 24/7 basis.

That is a perfect summation of my view of dominance, Alice. As a single man, I have no partner to speak of, but dominant aspects of my nature, particularly the nutruing and guiding are evident in the relationships I have with friends, colleagues and (to a lesser degree) aquaintances.

It sounds as if you also might be saying that you are drawn to various roles in which the responsibility for training and guidance plays an important part (e.g., Math teacher, business manager in charge of employees, soccer coach, etc.).
Alice

I've not actively sought out these roles, but I have found I do drift into them in my working life on occassion and do indeed derive great pleasure from this type of exchange. Until very recently, I did not really understand why.

 

[PathFinder17]

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/rebecca000/BF1.jpg​

I'd have to say this is a 3 for me.

It's interesting in that it expands my awareness, but that's as far as it goes. It's not more than intellectual curiousity.

 

[alice_underneath]

Role play has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm referring to people who base the structures of their relationships on these sets of images and ideas. Within any relationship, people assume 'roles', in that they have, at least, habitual patterns of action and responsibility. In D/s relationships these are often defined in some detail, and one way of doing this is by reference to a coherent set of ideas from the past, from literature (in the broadest sense...) and so on. The bible, for instance, has some explicit directions for the interaction of husband and wife that can be seen as very D/s; books like Gor have a whole host of customs and manners and well-defined relationships.

By 'traditional marriage', I meant the expectation that was until very recently standard in Europe and the U.S. that the wife should obey her husband. Until not too long ago, few women in the west could own property, and were generally regarded as the property of their husbands- the one major limitation being that husbands had no legal right to sell their wives. In other respects, however, women and children have been largely the property of the male head of household. This is a model of D/s relationship that some people contextualize in a 1950's setting - Leave It To Beaver plus a little 'domestic discipline'. I don't think role playing is really what it's about (though since this isn't particularly my area of interest, I can't speak authoratatively).

Purple Sage,

There is a distinction between a submissive and a slave in the BDSM context. You seem to be confusing the two a bit in your response here. Since this conversation was prompted over your interpretation of my own vision of D/s relationships, I am compelled to point out that I am not interested in total power exchange of the BDSM slave type.

I don't know anything about Gor, so I am unable to address that portion of your post. As for your other examples, my opinion is that - even for a TPE style relationship, you are still talking about Retro Role Play, and rather dangerous play at that.

My comments regarding women in the Bible would likely offend people of faith on this Board, so I'll just reference the 1950s in explaining my point.

Opportunities and expectations regarding the education and employment of women have changed dramatically since the 1950s. Further, discrimination based on gender is illegal in lending money, selling homes, etc. What this all adds up to is a profound shift from an era in which women were financially dependent in many ways, to an era in which women have the opportunity to maintain responsibility for their own financial well-being.

These changes render the 1950s model obsolete and irrelevent in 2006.

In a 2006 D/s relationship, would a pyl let her Dom instruct her on how to behave at her job? Would she let him take control over her personal savings accounts, leaving her at his financial mercy? Would she let him dictate: don't take that extra class, you don't need that skill?

If so, then this pyl is engaging in what I consider to be very dangerous Retro Role Play. Anyone contemplating such a model for their 2006 relationship should pause and consider the following.

While intelligent, fair, generous Doms may exist, Prince Charming does not. Sometimes, notwithstanding the best efforts of all involved, relationships crumble. Alternatively, the guy could just walk out the door or die any time. And every day after that happens, you will still be hungry, you will still need shelter, and will still want something to wear.

My advice: don't embrace the 1950s model of dependency. In my opinion, that's over the top.

Alice

 

[alice_underneath]

ohiyo
Opportunity to explore Beauty & Fetish Several Numbered pictures will be posted over the next week. Please feel free to enjoy,detest, critique, avoid ,ignore,love, comment or otherwise.........

From a more serious perspective its going to be interesting where we feel its 'too much' that a line may have been crossed.......

Could even consider rating the photo's with say modified 'Limit' descriptives

1. No HATE it
2. No real interest in this
3. Interesting to look at
4. Oh thats really okay
5. Really like this
6. Yes LOVE it

​

Hi, Madama.

My response to photo #1 reflects my aversion to needles. I would rate the photo a "1". It makes me queasy and I really have no interest in looking at this type of thing.

No offense to anyone fond of needle play. It's just not for me.

Alice

 

[FurryFury]

The picture rates a three for me.

Fury

 

[alice_underneath]

That is a perfect summation of my view of dominance, Alice. As a single man, I have no partner to speak of, but dominant aspects of my nature, particularly the nutruing and guiding are evident in the relationships I have with friends, colleagues and (to a lesser degree) aquaintances.

I know various people with this type of personality. Though I don't have experience with them in the realm of intimate relationships, I do know that this type of person can be an extremely valuable friend, colleague, or employer.

I've not actively sought out these roles, but I have found I do drift into them in my working life on occassion and do indeed derive great pleasure from this type of exchange. Until very recently, I did not really understand why.

This last line made me smile, Pathfinder. I suspect that I know exactly what you mean.

I did not learn about BDSM or dominance & submission until I was 44 years old. I simply had no idea that these types of relationships or modes of sexual expression even existed. Since I turned 45 last October, that makes my awareness of these concepts "very recent" indeed.

One day, while searching for something completely different, I stumbled upon a website discussing BDSM. Not a porn site, but one that discussed dominance & submission in a respectful way.

Since then, I have learned a lot about different flavors of sexuality. But mostly, I have been learning about myself. In a way, the discovery has been wonderful. So much of what I "knew" about myself, but could not explain, now is starting to make sense. On the other hand, it is more than a bit painful to contemplate how different my adult life might have been if I had known about this from the beginning. Some days, I am profoundly grateful that I stumbled upon that website. Some days, I'm not so sure.

Alice

 

[Purple Sage]

Purple Sage,

There is a distinction between a submissive and a slave in the BDSM context. You seem to be confusing the two a bit in your response here. Since this conversation was prompted over your interpretation of my own vision of D/s relationships, I am compelled to point out that I am not interested in total power exchange of the BDSM slave type.

I don't know anything about Gor, so I am unable to address that portion of your post. As for your other examples, my opinion is that - even for a TPE style relationship, you are still talking about Retro Role Play, and rather dangerous play at that.

My comments regarding women in the Bible would likely offend people of faith on this Board, so I'll just reference the 1950s in explaining my point.

Opportunities and expectations regarding the education and employment of women have changed dramatically since the 1950s. Further, discrimination based on gender is illegal in lending money, selling homes, etc. What this all adds up to is a profound shift from an era in which women were financially dependent in many ways, to an era in which women have the opportunity to maintain responsibility for their own financial well-being.

These changes render the 1950s model obsolete and irrelevent in 2006.

In a 2006 D/s relationship, would a pyl let her Dom instruct her on how to behave at her job? Would she let him take control over her personal savings accounts, leaving her at his financial mercy? Would she let him dictate: don't take that extra class, you don't need that skill?

If so, then this pyl is engaging in what I consider to be very dangerous Retro Role Play. Anyone contemplating such a model for their 2006 relationship should pause and consider the following.

While intelligent, fair, generous Doms may exist, Prince Charming does not. Sometimes, notwithstanding the best efforts of all involved, relationships crumble. Alternatively, the guy could just walk out the door or die any time. And every day after that happens, you will still be hungry, you will still need shelter, and will still want something to wear.

My advice: don't embrace the 1950s model of dependency. In my opinion, that's over the top.

Alice

Alice, you seem to suggest that a man that wears a bow-tie is role-playing the 1930's. I believe, however, that people are able to incorporate not only the style but the substance of ways of life that are non-standard into their actual lives. It's not a question of whether you or I approve of the particulars of these arrangements, I'm pointing out to you that these arrangements are substantial and as real as any social interaction can be said to be.
I'm not confusing slavery and submission- I recognize on the one hand that my notions about these terms vary from those of many others, and on the other hand that they have no fixed meaning, so I'm simply not making any distinction. It is, after all, irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

In regard to your remarks on 50's style households: first, your assumption that things work in a particular way across the board simply because of the date is unfounded. Although there may be broad cultural expectations in play in a given society at a given type, there are always perfectly real relationships that don't fit that mold. Further, I'd suggest that most of what you suggest about contemporary life is more propaganda than reality. In actual fact, thousands of women let their partners deal with all financial realities- and the reverse is true is well. Many people actually trust each other, rightly or wrongly, and for you to characterize this as dangerous comes across as presumptuous. With or without the label 'D/s relationship', the things you describe are aspects of thousands of real relationships.
Second, I was not promoting any of these models of relationship, I was merely trying to get across the idea that they exist, and that many of them blur the line between vanilla relationships and 'BDSM' relationships. There isn't One True Way, there are many ways that work different people. I get the impression that you have no desire to relive a Father Knows Best episode, with or without kinky sex thrown in, yet this works perfectly well for many. What was wrong with the 50's is that everyone was expected to conform to this model. It's not much better to expect everyone NOT to conform to it.

Just as an aside- is there a model of relationship that you consider safe?

 

[MadamaMiniTopic]

Goooooooooooooooooood Morning

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/rebecca000/MT2.jpg

Please excuse interuption, just leave another picture to consider , please continue enjoy coversation.

~ bows ~ ​

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

Goooooooooooooooooood Morning

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/rebecca000/MT2.jpg

Please excuse interuption, just leave another picture to consider , please continue enjoy coversation.

~ bows ~ ​

Score : 6......smiles

Obviously I have seen this before there is no shock factor involved . I must say I love it. This really rocks !!!! The colors are superb, the design whimsical and the subject matter .......ooohh.....lol......well lets just say adequate. Ohh for Heavens sake don't let my friend Shankara see this !!!

Puff, the magic dragon lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called honah lee,
Little jackie paper loved that rascal puff,
And brought him strings and sealing wax and other fancy stuff. oh

Puff, the magic dragon lived by the sea

And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called honah lee,
Puff, the magic dragon lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called honah lee.

Together they would travel on a boat with billowed sail
Jackie kept a lookout perched on puff’s gigantic tail,
Noble kings and princes would bow whene’er they came,
Pirate ships would lower their flag when puff roared out his name. oh!

Puff, the magic dragon lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called honah lee,
Puff, the magic dragon lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called honah lee.

A dragon lives forever but not so little boys
Painted wings and giant rings make way for other toys.
One grey night it happened, jackie paper came no more
And puff that mighty dragon, he ceased his fearless roar.

His head was bent in sorrow, green scales fell like rain,
Puff no longer went to play along the cherry lane.
Without his life-long friend, puff could not be brave,
So puff that mighty dragon sadly slipped into his cave. oh!

Puff, the magic dragon lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called honah lee,
Puff, the magic dragon lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called honah lee.
​

 

[FurryFury]

A 6 for me too. One of the few cocks that is actually interesting and different to look at other than our own Shankara's!

I love dragons, "Puff," indeed! *winks*

Fury

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

A 6 for me too. One of the few cocks that is actually interesting and different to look at other than our own Shankara's!

I love dragons, "Puff," indeed! *winks*

Fury

Ohhh Hiya Miss Fury

We soooooooo agree on this one huh........smiles. Seems we are getting quite a look in but very few comments . I don't bite do you ? Well unless I am asked nicely....lol.

hugssss

@}-}rebecca----- promising not to bite now leave a comment dammit

 

[FurryFury]

Hi Rebecca!

*hugs*

Why yes I do bite, rather frequently and well. *winks* I promise you will like it if I do!

Fury

 

[alice_underneath]

Many people actually trust each other, rightly or wrongly, and for you to characterize this as dangerous comes across as presumptuous. With or without the label 'D/s relationship', the things you describe are aspects of thousands of real relationships.

Suffice it say, you have misinterpreted my comments to a very large degree.

Just as an aside- is there a model of relationship that you consider safe?

Surely you do not expect me to respond to such an obnoxious question.

Alice

 

[alice_underneath]

Goooooooooooooooooood Morning

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/rebecca000/MT2.jpg

Please excuse interuption, just leave another picture to consider , please continue enjoy coversation.

~ bows ~ ​

Oh, thank you, Madama! This is just the sort of comic relief that I need at the moment.

[I think this minitopic #2 is a wonderful idea, btw. Even if I don't enjoy every photo, this sort of thing is a lot of fun!]

I am laughing at myself so much right now, Madama. To tell you the truth, it took me quite a few minutes to realize what I was even looking at. LOL....

I voted a "3" for this one, because it is definitely interesting to look at, in an omigod-how-did-they-DO-that kinduva way. I am having a hard time focusing on the design and colors, though, because I keep wondering about the technicalities of the painting process.

Every time I've touched this type of...uhhh.... "canvas", there has been a lot of twitching and changing of shape and size (if you know what I mean). I really, honestly, don't understand how an artist could do that detail work on a constantly shifting "canvas".



Alice

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

Hi Rebecca!

*hugs*

Why yes I do bite, rather frequently and well. *winks* I promise you will like it if I do!

Fury

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

Suffice it say, you have misinterpreted my comments to a very large degree.Surely you do not expect me to respond to such an obnoxious question.

Alice

Ummn Miss Alice ......smiles......lol.....I want to know !!!! Any chance you might reconsider and respond please to Purple Sage's question............love @}-}rebecca---- ​

 

[alice_underneath]

Ummn Miss Alice ......smiles......lol.....I want to know !!!! Any chance you might reconsider and respond please to Purple Sage's question............love @}-}rebecca---- ​

No, I will not respond to the obnoxious question. However, I will clarify the remarks which he misinterpreted. To avoid confusion, I'll begin by extracting relevant comments from the recent conversation.

In other respects, however, women and children have been largely the property of the male head of household. This is a model of D/s relationship that some people contextualize in a 1950's setting

Opportunities and expectations regarding the education and employment of women have changed dramatically since the 1950s. Further, discrimination based on gender is illegal in lending money, selling homes, etc. What this all adds up to is a profound shift from an era in which women were financially dependent in many ways, to an era in which women have the opportunity to maintain responsibility for their own financial well-being.

These changes render the 1950s model obsolete and irrelevent in 2006.

In a 2006 D/s relationship, would a pyl let her Dom instruct her on how to behave at her job? Would she let him take control over her personal savings accounts, leaving her at his financial mercy? Would she let him dictate: don't take that extra class, you don't need that skill?

If so, then this pyl is engaging in what I consider to be very dangerous Retro Role Play. Anyone contemplating such a model for their 2006 relationship should pause and consider the following.

While intelligent, fair, generous Doms may exist, Prince Charming does not. Sometimes, notwithstanding the best efforts of all involved, relationships crumble. Alternatively, the guy could just walk out the door or die any time. And every day after that happens, you will still be hungry, you will still need shelter, and will still want something to wear.

My advice: don't embrace the 1950s model of dependency. In my opinion, that's over the top.

Clarifying remarks:

#1. We were discussing D/s relationships, not marriages. The image in my head projected by a total power exchange relationship in which women are dependent following the 1950's America model involves women placing themselves in the complete financial control of their SOs.

The Dom says: "Give me all your personal savings and I'll let you know when you can buy a new dress," I Love Lucy style.

In a non-marital relationship, I contend that this is a very risky and unwise thing to do. In a marriage, people have joint accounts all the time, of course! And for many couples of all kinds, one spouse makes all the financial decisions. Further, there are property and family laws to protect women in the event of death or divorce.

#2. There is a profound difference between giving advice & counsel, and dictating behavior. If a woman (married or not) is employed by someone outside the home, then SHE is responsible for her job performance. Not her Dom. He can advise her, guide her, etc. (Couples do this all the time!) But for him to attempt to directly control her behavior at work is, in my opinion, a very risky precedent for the pyl. Why? Because she needs to be able to maintain ultimate responsibility for her own behavior in the working world. She needs to be independent in her ability to provide for herself, because she may be alone and dependent ONLY on herself for survival one day.

FYI, for those who may be misinterpreting my comments as feminist extremism - I am currently a stay-at-home-mom. I have many jobs..... chauffeur, chef, homework helper, maid, etc...... none of which involve a paycheck. In other words, I am currently "dependent" in a quasi-1950's kind of a way.

Alice