RE: Traditional vs Contemproary Domination (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message


Jeffff -> RE: Traditional vs Contemproary Domination (1/2/2008 12:33:04 PM)

What is best in life?.........to crush your enemies, to see them run before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!

Conan The Barbarian




Shawn1066 -> RE: Traditional vs Contemproary Domination (1/2/2008 12:33:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shawn1066

quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong

and Women seek Conan the Barbarian (intelligence optional) types.
 



And just for the record...my inner nerd couldn't let this go... Conan the Barbarian is a very intelligent character in the original stories, the comics, and even in the movie(despite the fact he's very short on words).  He's multilingual, capable of rather advanced reading, writing, and decyphering abilities.  He's also a talented strategist, and a top-rate administrator.  And yes, there was at least one story that I'm aware of where he had sadomasochistic leanings with a great love of his.  God, I think we should make Conan president of Collarme!

The preceding was paid for by the friends and supporters of Conan of Cimmeria.


yet, still a fictional character :)


*Sticks fingers in ears* YOU'RE a fictional character.  He's still real to me, dammit! :-p




catize -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 12:35:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I am a traditionalist, and dominate only in contemporary fashion.

Haute Couture Master


When canes are outlawed....only outlaws will have canes

Charlton Heston


Another 'Cane' Mutiny?
Lt.Cmdr. Queeg




RCdc -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 12:36:36 PM)

Ds does not have to include BDSM.  For some Ds relationships, BDSM is an absolute.  For some it is not.
 
I do not have rules.  Darcy does.  Those are what are submitted to, not convention.
Everyone has rules and their own structure.  Not everyone is conventional.
Your retort makes no sense.


And you still have not defined the programme so I will assume this is because there is no definition.  That indicates that there is no specific rules or structure for a definition would exude these as a quality pertaining to this 'programme'.  If there was - surely you would be able to define them.
 
the.dark.




RCdc -> RE: Traditional vs Contemproary Domination (1/2/2008 12:40:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

What is best in life?.........to crush your enemies, to see them run before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!

Conan The Barbarian


That is good!  That is good!

General





Padriag -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 12:41:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong

I am SO glad to hear that.  Because groups that have a structure and represent themselves with dignity are the ones society pays attention to.  They can EXPLAIN themselves.  But then, it's the outer fring tag-alongs that draw the negative attention.  It's SO much easier to point a finger at someone else as the probelm, no?  (remember, when one points a finger, there are 3 pointing back at them)
 
No... they aren't the ones society pays attention too.  They pay attention to the outlandish, which is why you're upset and Jerry Springer's ratings are higher than Oprah's.  If what you just said was really true, you'd have no argument at all because heck... society would be paying attention to those fine upstanding representatives of whatever it is you believe and all that outlandish stuff wouldn't matter because they wouldn't be getting a single headline.  But the reality isn't that at all, its those upstarts, those tag alongs as you call them... those... dare I say... freaks... who don't know how things are supposed to be done... why they're the problem.  What was that you were saying about pointing fingers?  What makes them any less valid than you?  Do you have some special pedigree?

That's the thing you don't seem to see about your posts, that offensive stench of elitism.  And that's where you and I are absolute opposites.

quote:


Everyone lives in a box.  whether it's a defined box or one of ambiguity. 
 
For those that know me, part of my charm is my "certainty"  :)

Yes, we may all live in a box... but we choose the box, whether that is one of our own making or joining someone else's box.  No one has the right to force their box on someone else, and that is precisely what you have suggested doing.

All that asside, I'll point out something else.  The whole concept of "lifestyle" rules, of some uniform code for all kinksters or anyone identifying as involved in BDSM... will simply never happen.  Wish for it all you want, but there simply isn't any possibility at this time for that to happen.  The reason why, for any who think about it, is rather simple... there is  no governing body with the authority to do so.

  • See. for rules to exist, there have to be rule makers.  We don't have any rule makers as a "community", in fact we're rather rebellious about that.
  • Even if we had rule makers (and some do try to be)... they have no authority.  For the rules of the rule makers to work they have to have the authority to enforce them which comes from those governed.  That brings us back to the fact we tend to be a rebellious and fractious lot who haven't consented to any such thing.
  • Not only are there no rule makers, no authority to make rules, there's no one and no way to enforce them.  You can have someone stand up and annouce a bunch of rules about how things should be (and we have had plenty in these forums attempt to do so) but there isn't squat they can do if the rest of us, any of us, decides to ignore them... well... they could rant, and we can ignore that too.  Its not like any of us are going to get demerits or have our play privileges revoked if we don't follow "the one twue way" or someone elses rules.
  • In short...beyond individual clubs and organizations which actually do have charters, governing bodies and membership requirements... and thus enforceable rules... this idea will simply never work.


My suggestion to anyone who doesn't like the way things are... whatever that may be... go form your own club, or join one that suits you... but stop bitching about what a nebulous, chaotic, ungoverned "community" does because its a waste of time.  One might as well contend with the ocean.




LotusSong -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 12:45:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Ds does not have to include BDSM.  For some Ds relationships, BDSM is an absolute.  For some it is not.
 
I do not have rules.  Darcy does.  Those are what are submitted to, not convention.
Everyone has rules and their own structure.  Not everyone is conventional.
Your retort makes no sense.


And you still have not defined the programme so I will assume this is because there is no definition.  That indicates that there is no specific rules or st

structure for a definition would exude these as a quality pertaining to this 'programme'.  If there was - surely you would be able to define them.
 
the.dark.


 
When I came to this all... the rules (unspoken as they were..well, some were posted)
 
Discretion.. the whole world doesn't need to know your "business".  What happens in the dungeon, stays in the dungeon. 
 
Privacy
 
Simple manners
 
Be prepared to "write the check" if you fuck up.
 
You have a right to be selective of those you wish to interact with.
 
Mind your own business,
 




RCdc -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 12:48:33 PM)

 
Community cannot for long feed on itself; it can only flourish with the coming of others from beyond, their unknown and undiscovered brothers.
H.Thurman
 
the.dark.




RCdc -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 12:51:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong
 
When I came to this all... the rules (unspoken as they were..well, some were posted)
 
Discretion.. the whole world doesn't need to know your "business".  What happens in the dungeon, stays in the dungeon. 
 
Privacy
 
Simple manners
 
Be prepared to "write the check" if you fuck up.
 
You have a right to be selective of those you wish to interact with.
 
Mind your own business,
 


And this is the definition of the 'programme'?  It sounds no different from any healthy relationship regardless - not specific to BDSM or Ds.
 
the.dark.




catize -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 12:53:54 PM)

quote:

 Mind your own business,  


 
Now that is irony at its finest.




Jeffff -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 12:56:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: catize

quote:

 Mind your own business,  


 
Now that is irony at its finest




Smirks

Jeff




Padriag -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 12:59:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

quote:

ORIGINAL: catize

quote:

 Mind your own business,  


 
Now that is irony at its finest




Smirks

Jeff

I'll second that smirk... had to get off the floor laughing first though. [8D]




Shawn1066 -> RE: Traditional vs Contemporary Domination (1/2/2008 1:00:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

quote:

ORIGINAL: catize

quote:

 Mind your own business,  


 
Now that is irony at its finest




Smirks

Jeff

I'll second that smirk... had to get off the floor laughing first though. [8D]


If irony were strawberries, we'd be having smoothies by now. :-p




daddyncherry -> RE: Traditional vs Contemproary Domination (1/2/2008 1:39:06 PM)

~FR~

i have only gotten through the OP and the first couple of responses...so please forgive me if this has already been covered (i'll have to come back and read this later)

But, swingers are getting a bad wrap in 2 of the 3 posts i read already.....Why can't you be both an M/s couple and swingers? (oh yeah, you can be, cause we are)...Why is swinging an issue? Or is it just the ppl who wear Dominantion and submission as a costume/role to play?

Also, to the OP, i couldn't give a rats ass what someone at some leather conference has to say about my Daddy's form of Domination or my form of submission. Why the hell should i give a damn about them? They don't live my life or hang out in my bedroom and just because they have won a contest doesn't make them any more twue than we are (and some may be more serious and some less than we)

Anyway, i got a tan to get while the sun is still out and shining.




scottjk -> RE: Traditional vs Contemproary Domination (1/2/2008 2:10:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong
My point.. I do think there are rules and there should be.  M/s, D/s  has the potential to be too emotionally and physically devastating not to.


I haven't read the entire thread, I got the flavor of how this was going on the first two pages worth, and honestly, I'm alarmed.
 
I agree with you, L.S. There are and should be rules, just as in any activity that you engage in. Rules provide a 'social contract' where we all can interact without crossing interpersonal and ethical lines. Forget about SSC, it's an abstract, at least the 'sane' part. What is sane for one person could be psychotic to another. Do I have to provide an example? Not really.
 
The reason for my alarm is the 'Rules? I don't need your stinking rules!' attitude. From my point of view, it's an admission of the avoidance of self-responsibility. If there are no rules, then it's impossible to cause harm. The logic is simple on the face of it, but alarming from an ethical point of view. It's also, from my point of view, anti-social. It also shows a lack of judgment in philosophy class. (chuckle) Education in philosophy is about ideas and their discussion in a logical context, regardless of the idea's validity as well as learning how to THINK and express those thoughts.
 
There is also evidence that we are not alone, or in a minority regarding the rules question. 'It's all good.' and it's similar statements are, on the face of it, a tolerant point of view but ascribes to avoiding accountability to yourself and fellow members of the community. If you refuse to be held accountable (no rules), you will quickly find yourself outside of the community you want to be part of. The evidence that I speak of can be found in the form of community leaders, writers, educators, clubs and centers. All are people and locations predicated on the concept of rules, accountability and mutual obligations.
 
As far as I'm concerned, 'It's all good.' is at the same level of ignorance as 'I have no limits.' and I wouldn't be interested in associating myself with that concept.
 




Shawn1066 -> RE: Traditional vs Contemproary Domination (1/2/2008 2:18:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: scottjk

quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong
My point.. I do think there are rules and there should be.  M/s, D/s  has the potential to be too emotionally and physically devastating not to.
 
 
As far as I'm concerned, 'It's all good.' is at the same level of ignorance as 'I have no limits.' and I wouldn't be interested in associating myself with that concept.
 



The lifestyle is too big for any set of rules to apply to it, aside from clear, general ones like the SSC that you seem to dislike.  Direct rules would not make any sense nor would they be enforced.  How would we decide them?  Would we have a Dominant Senate and a Submissive House of Representatives?

Yes, there are things in the lifestyle that are not OK, but endless lists of rules and protocol won't fix that one bit.  All we can do is keep our eyes and ears open, educate when appropriate, speak out when we feel the need, and that's really about it.  It's a lifestyle of consenting adults.  We should let adults take care of themselves.




mnottertail -> RE: Traditional vs Contemproary Domination (1/2/2008 2:21:25 PM)

OK, traditionally:

She hasta have big tits.
She gotta wanna take it up the ass.
She gotta suck cock like a wildwoman.

Contemporarily:
She hasta be alive.

Leastaways, those were the rules when I was in school.

Ron 




Jeffff -> RE: Traditional vs Contemproary Domination (1/2/2008 2:26:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

OK, traditionally:

She hasta have big tits.
She gotta wanna take it up the ass.
She gotta suck cock like a wildwoman.

Contemporarily:
She hasta be alive.

Leastaways, those were the rules when I was in school.

Ron 


Wait,,,,,,,,,, I have it on good authority that YOU my friend...are a scumbag. Not that thats  bad or anything..........nevermind

Jeff




mnottertail -> RE: Traditional vs Contemproary Domination (1/2/2008 2:29:07 PM)

Was there any other school to go to?

You a Harvard man or something?

Wm. F. Buckley




RCdc -> RE: Traditional vs Contemproary Domination (1/2/2008 2:30:34 PM)

scott
 
I don't believe that the majority are suggesting that there aren't any 'rules' - just that each person has their own structure to their own specific relationships - unlike what the OP is suggesting that there is a standard that defines what 'we' are.  If we take the standard definition as the OP gave - then for one - the OP by her own definition shouldn't be interfering in others relationships, definitions or structures and rules and that the definition could be used in any relationship, regardless whether Ds, sexual, friendship, non BDSM or 'insertrelationshiptypehere'.
 
Your structure will not be everyones structure, if it was then finding a partner - regardless of orientation - wouldn't be such a difficulty for most people.  And yet you find people constantly stating they cannot find a suitable partner - and why?  Because everyone has their own rules and limits - it's finding people that are compatable that is the key.
 
the.dark.




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875