I’m not all that interested in the space program either but I can tell you when we landed on the moon and what country made it into space first. I don’t think any intimate relationship where the balance of power is tipped so much in one persons favor is healthy. Even if that “slave” is fully consenting. That’s one of the reasons I think Promise Keepers makes for an unhealthy relationship.
**
If you’re encountering prejudice over BDSM then perhaps you’re talking about it in the wrong places. And perhaps in this case the public perception of BDSM isn’t so wrong.
**
Well I’m sure it isn’t all rubber suits and flogging. It really doesn’t change my perspective on it though.
**
Hey, I didn’t say you guys were the spawn of Satan or that you weren’t productive citizens.
Well…it was a massive generalization about what people get into BDSM for, how it works, etc. Most of your statements only pertain to a portion of those with BDSM interests. Which is why I said it was a generalization. Were I to find actual CITES to prove my statement, they would be from works like “Screw the Roses, Send me the Thorns,” or “Different Loving” which are simply a collection of various points of view, and not any serious hard and clear fact.
You stated that this was your point of view at the time, which is cool. And I merely suggested that not everyone adhered to those concepts, and I DID cite an example: my distaste of the use of safewords and the fact that many other people feel the same way.
If you’d like me to go through your “Primer” word for word and give you examples of behavior to the contrary I can. But I truly didn’t intend to start an argument by suggesting that what you wrote wasn’t the be-all-end-all of BDSM education.
[hijack] redtail, I’m told that puts you solidly in the Dom camp. Evidently, two subs arguing would be embarrassing to other subs (or so I’m told by my friend the sub. ;))
I’m with Marc, I didn’t think this was about sex either. Not that I wouldn’t partake of such an act were the possibility to present itself, but nonetheless I don’t think “sex” when I think “slave.”
Anyway. Short of sex, I always liked Fight Club’s take on it, “The things you own end up owning you.” It is conceivable, jmull, that the slave does indeed own the master in a way when the master becomes dependent on the slave for, well, whatever.
Should that “whatever” be sex, as in a true fetish (required to attain arousal, not just “Gee, I like feet”), I think this is especially the case. On the outside the master has control, but on the inside the slave becomes the master.
Consentual beatings aren’t exaclt my cup of tea, either. I think there is a bit of a difference between bondage and masochism, and masochism is the far side of instability, sorry if that does pertain to anyone here, but that’s my take on it. Abuse is not welcome…that’s why it hurts
Where does the OP suggest that consentual [sic] beatings are a part of a master/slave relationship? Where does it suggest masochism is involved?
The question wasn’t whether you all think sex that involves pain to varying degrees (wildly varying, by the way) is “gross” or “yucky” or “not your cup of tea.”
No, there is NOT a “bit of difference” between bondage and masochism. The two are completely and utterly different activities.
And as far as masochisim being “instability” which do you do when you have an ich: brush it with a feather or SCRATCH it good and hard?
Although I have to ask, jmullaney - did you intend for this to be about SMBD Master/Slave relationships, or were you really talking about slavery, i.e., pre-Civil War United States?
Oh, but if we are talking about SMBD, the slave, surely, if for no other reason than they can stop all action with one safe word. Similarly, I’ve always said that in the act of top/bottom, the bottom has all the control. (I also used to say that about my church choir, that I, the director, wasn’t as important as them, the singers. I now have a whole new, weird view of being a choir director…)
Dunno, I found the quote at MusicFolio.com and a cursory search of google.com shows several other sites that credit Reid with the quote. I really have no idea who said it first.
[/OT - reprise]
I realize that consistency can be overrated, but how do you reconcile these two ideas? Or am I completely misreading the situation?
And, following the idea put forth by SexyWriter (once again, she’s faster at the draw than I), masochism and submission are not the same thing. I view the term BDSM to be an umbrella term that incorporates any number of related but different activities that fall under the shelter of its name. Simply because one enjoys the act of submission does not automatically imply that they will also enjoy the same things a masochist will enjoy, nor is the reverse true. There is, in my experience, a lot of overlap in the activities that fall under the label of BDSM. Many, do enjoy more than one, and incorporate it into their sex lives, but it is by no means universal.
That holds true if the people who are engaged in the activity all play by the same rules, so to speak. As has been mentioned before, once someone is tied up and immobile, unable to defend themselves, they are utterly dependent upon the dom/me to honor the safeword/gesture. As a matter of philosophy, and assuming that the tenets of Safe, Sane and Consensual are being followed, the sub/slave does exert at least a measure of control over the situation. As a matter of pragmatics, however, the dom/me is the one in control and the one who decides whether or not to honor the safeword.
Just because I have nothing else to do with my life right now and I’m following this thread WAY too closely, I would like to repeat what I’ve already said.
I do not use a safeword. I feel that it should not be necessary if you’re with the right partner. So for those of you who insist that the submissive is truly in control simply because s/he has a safeword that will stop the activity, you are assuming everyone uses this practice. Perhaps you’re still right and the submissive/slave IS in control, but use of a safeword is not something to rely on as evidence of that.
Consequently, this is not because I’m a freak…it’s rather common.
…the party in control of a BDSM relationship is generally neither the master/slave.
I think the people controlling the BDSM couple are the people who failed to provide adequate nurture and/or safety to them as children.
I fully expect to be attacked for daring state that I believe BDSM is unhealthy, but I believe it is the reenactment of childhood trauma, and again casting oneself as victim, perpetrator, or rescuer. It’s just one more unhealthy dance step in the drama of trauma.
As far as whether the master/slave controls the relationship as the OP intended the question, it varies. The person most willing to leave the relationship has more power—regardless of who wears the collar, much like the vanilla world.
No, of course they aren’t the same thing. They are, as you might note even in this very thread, grouped together though, often enough. Or does BDSM or SMBD mean something different that I don’t understand?
I’m not going to play the line drawing game of when playing becomes painful. If the OP is strictly about sex then so be it; I’m out. Not very interesting to me. I thought it was sufficient to take the stand that beating someone, whether they wanted it or not, was not the right thing to do. If you’d care to find out why I say such things then you can browse this thread at your leisure.
There is no contradiction in my previous post. Beatings, which I expressed my distaste for, are not a necessary part of bondage (duh), which I would take a part in were a partner so inclined(again, the bondage, not the beatings).
Perhaps we view pain differently. When one of my friends was shooting BBs into her chest and cutting herself for pleasure, I didn’t say “kinky!” I felt she had a problem. I am sorry if that interferes with your personal tastes, and I don’t know that I can reconcile it.
Upon re-reading the OP, I don’t believe there was any asking for whether one enjoyed said activity or not - it was simply a question of who, of those engaged, might be in control. Y’all can save your pop psychological treatises and moral indignations for another thread, mayhap.
#1. Is there a reason why acting out childhood trauma in this manner is necessarily a BAD thing? Consider the other options for people who are seriously damaged by abuse. What if being spanked is the catharsis they need to live otherwise “normal” lives?
#2. Not everyone who engages in BDSM has had some sort of trauma in their lives.
#3. Not everyone who has had some sort of trauma in their lives engages in BDSM. The point here being that just because they factors overlap, it doesn’t mean they cause one another 100% of the time. Correlation and causation, baby.
I just want to point out, though, that you do have control over the situation as a submissive, Sexy, even if you don’t use a safeword. By your own admission, you control the situation by chosing carefully who you’re going to play with in advance. In fact, you have so much control that you don’t even need a safeword.
I’ve sometimes thought that D/s is very interesting mirroring relationship in which, beneath the surface, the actual roles are reversed. That is to say, at a deeper the level the dominant is the submissive, and vice versa. Just speculating out loud, here…for what it’s worth, my knowledge of the subject is slight and purely theoretical.
Now THAT’S a real argument! Very compelling. I agree with you to a certain extent.
Though, the first thing that comes to mind is what happens when you choose a physician. If you need surgery, you’re going to take charge, interview surgeons, check out their backgrounds, perhaps get to know them. Then you will decide who to allow to perform the operation by making the best possible decision using the information available to you. You check in to the hospital, you are anesthetized…and…who’s holding the scalpel? Who’s in charge here?
This is not a perfect analogy. I suppose the same could be said about a car mechanic. Once they’ve got your hood up…
It strikes me that this analogy assumes a sort of “superiority” of the dom/me. In the sense that it presupposes the dominant partner knows more, is better educated, better able to “perform surgery” than the submissive. I don’t think that’s always true…your lover doesn’t always know what you need better than you, clearly. Not in any situation. However, my point is only that under certain circumstances, once control is turned over it’s very close to absolute.
Upon rereading the OP, I don’t see that sex was implied either, hence my suprise at the focus it has taken.
The “pop psychological treatise” was a sidenote to a post which explained why I felt the slave was in control given the context of necessity.
And since I’ve already said it, I unfortunately can’t save it for another thread. Just thinking out loud, you know?
So sexy, you don’t feel that the submissive half is in control? I suppose it has to do with what we talking about by control. I would agree that the power angle played by the dominant party gives an inclination to that view. But in your surgeon analogy, what power does the surgeon have without the patient? It is contextual power. I guess that may be nitpicking the context, though.
