D/S as BDSM.

D/S as BDSM. (Full Version)

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

Message

Jasmyn -> D/S as BDSM. (10/3/2006 7:12:38 AM)
Some people think in terms of BD/SM - bondage, discipline/sadism, masochism while others include dominance and submission, and others master/slave as well. Me, I've always included 'fetish' merely because I think it gets a bad rap, though I think a lot of what we, rephrase, I do, is dripping in fetish elements ... Anyway the question ... D/S where it fits for you? You see D/S as a seperate identity/lifestyle to BDSM (eg totally unrelated, can have D/S without BDSM? You think of D/S as the essence of BDSM (eg it's inclusion is moot: without it bondage, discipline, sadism, masochism, master, slave would not exisit)? You see D/S as a seperate identity/lifestyle under BDSM (eg it is something seperate within BDSM, ie dom, sub)? Something else ... Not important ... Thanks in advance, I'm of the essence persuasion, so interested in others thoughts ;)

toservez -> RE: D/S as BDSM. (10/3/2006 7:27:27 AM)
I think they are separate and you do not need both top practice/live the other. Personally for me though, I consider BDSM to be an important part of my submission. I like to think that I participate in BDSM because of the M/s. Though this does hit on one of my pet peeves as I do consider the two to be different things very much. BDSM is much more physical and in the moment and D/s is more mental/core being and is always present. I am not a big fan when people use the terms interchangably.

mstrjx -> RE: D/S as BDSM. (10/3/2006 7:28:10 AM)
I believe that D/s is a portion of the greater BDSM 'whole'. You can have pure 'scenes', topping and bottoming, but those fall into the SM portion of what we do. D/s is more the granting/receiving of power and control in a relationship sense, where the power/control is granted or taken during a 'portion' of a couple's or group's relationship. M/s is then an adjunct of D/s, taking the power and control closer to a complete exchange. On the other end of the scale (opposite SM) is BD, but that is more about the exchange during a scene as well. My views. Jeff

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: D/S as BDSM. (10/3/2006 7:30:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JasmynYou see D/S as a seperate identity/lifestyle to BDSM (eg totally unrelated, can have D/S without BDSM? Yup. quote: You see D/S as a seperate identity/lifestyle under BDSM (eg it is something seperate within BDSM, ie dom, sub)? Both go under the "alt lifestyles" umbrella.

LotusSong -> RE: D/S as BDSM. (10/3/2006 7:32:54 AM)
Separate.

Jasmyn -> RE: D/S as BDSM. (10/3/2006 7:53:54 AM)
f/r Jeff ... see I think of all of it master/slave, sm, b&d, fetish, alt.sex (as in not vanilla) ..as having elements of dominance and submission ...I can't seperate D/s as in dom/sub from master/slave ... seeeing them as having the same elements .. eg D/S is master/slave ..dominance/submission being required for it to exist ... if dom/sub is the label thats ok, its a label, but the elements for submission and control are inherently the same ... consensual comes when together you negotiate the degree ... so some identify as dom/sub ...others as master/slave ... but it's ALL m/s ... and BD/SM again, a dominant and a not dominant party is required ... Thanks for the responses so far.

mstrjx -> RE: D/S as BDSM. (10/3/2006 8:07:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jasmyn f/r Jeff ... see I think of all of it master/slave, sm, b&d, fetish, alt.sex (as in not vanilla) ..as having elements of dominance and submission ...I can't seperate D/s as in dom/sub from master/slave ... seeeing them as having the same elements .. eg D/S is master/slave ..dominance/submission being required for it to exist ... if dom/sub is the label thats ok, its a label, but the elements for submission and control are inherently the same ... consensual comes when together you negotiate the degree ... so some identify as dom/sub ...others as master/slave ... but it's ALL m/s ... and BD/SM again, a dominant and a not dominant party is required ... Thanks for the responses so far. Jasmyn, Maybe I wasn't real clear. If not, I apologize. I can see where you think that B/D and SM have elements of dominance and submission. Certainly the bottom is submitting to the 'action' of the top. But it's contained within the scene. Once the scene is over (with aftercare), then if there is no D/s 'relationship' to carry the 'mood', if you will, then that is where the submission ends. I'm hoping we both agree that D/s and M/s are both relationship dynamics. All I was trying to say before was that M/s is a 'deeper' dynamic than D/s. I guess, in other words, M/s is a subset of what an outsider would recognize as being D/s. Jeff

MasterFireMaam -> RE: D/S as BDSM. (10/3/2006 8:18:37 AM)
I see BDSM, Ds and Ms as three different things. BDSM is physical, Ds is mental and Ms is spiritual. These definitions are not my own. They simply make sense to me. Each can contain aspects of the other, but not necessarily. For example, I know an Ms couple who does not practice SM. Master Fire

thetammyjo -> RE: D/S as BDSM. (10/3/2006 8:39:34 AM)
For me Ds is about the relationship and a defined authority dynamic. It includes a range of relationships from the one-time scene to 24/7 and its various incarnations. The rest, SM, Bondage and Discipline are about activities, the things you do and they frankly don't require an authority dynamic in my opinion. It is easy to combine different elements in BDSM but that doesn't make them the same thing nor does it mean that you need to or even should combine them. I say do what makes you and yours happy and healthy.

Jasmyn -> RE: D/S as BDSM. (10/3/2006 8:55:40 AM)
quote: I guess, in other words, M/s is a subset of what an outsider would recognize as being D/s. Jeff To me it's all d/s power play ... bondage and discipline is power play...emotional/authority exchange, sadism, masochism is power play (spiritually/often with oneself)...physical/spiritual exchange , master/slave ...power play ... spiritual/authority exhcange ... I guess that is why I struggle for the need to seperate out D/S from M/S ... or maybe I'm talking in circles and M/S should be kicked to curb and D/S and all it's subsets is the way to go ;) lol thanks for the epithany ;)

Iskander -> RE: D/S as BDSM. (10/3/2006 9:05:35 AM)
I can't claim to know every aspect of BDSM, but in the bits I do know, I see Ds as an integral part to some degree... However, Ds is also very much present in daily (non-kink) life, thus seperate... Other aspects of BDSM generally don't fit in daily life... So my (limited) opinion is that one can have Ds without BDSM, but not BDSM without Ds... Iskander..

juliaoceania -> RE: D/S as BDSM. (10/3/2006 9:25:53 AM)
I do not see the two as mutually exclusive...

Celeste43 -> RE: D/S as BDSM. (10/3/2006 9:49:51 AM)
Can be separate, can be intertwined. Now, the first few times we played, even though it was bondage, I never felt as though I was submitting. It was play only and a lot of fun. Submitting came after I came to trust him emotionally.

Jasmyn -> RE: D/S as BDSM. (10/3/2006 9:52:25 AM)
quote: So my (limited) opinion is that one can have Ds without BDSM, but not BDSM without Ds... Iskander.. Yes I guess that's the epithany for me tonight ... which takes me back to many moons ago when B&D/S&M were BDSM, M/S has stood alone from it ... alt.lifestyles and all that jazz ..

SassySue -> RE: D/S as BDSM. (10/3/2006 10:02:40 AM)
I believe that as humans we are mostly energy, that is what makes us unique in this world. Relationships, no matter what kind, use our energy. How that energy is used is determined by the different types of people. There are those who seem to drain you dry and those who immediately make you feel better when they walk into a room. In a D/s relationship, I believe that the energy exchange becomes a thing of great beauty, a way of giving back to the world. The whole is far greater than the sum of it's parts and the energy is returned to the earth and others. Many consider that a spiritual path, I believe it to be the most fulfilling. Can you have D/s without BDSM, absolutely. Can you have the other elements without the D/s, absolutely. I wonder why you would want to....

MistressMelissa -> RE: D/S as BDSM. (10/3/2006 10:05:55 AM)
Ds is how I live. BDSM is what I do.

RedSavageSlave -> RE: D/S as BDSM. (10/3/2006 10:06:56 AM)
If I had to guess where I am ... I would have to say 90% is a need for the D/s and 10% is a need for the BDSM.... But I like it all 100% of the time.

charismagirrl -> RE: D/S as BDSM. (10/3/2006 10:09:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iskander So my (limited) opinion is that one can have Ds without BDSM, but not BDSM without Ds... Iskander.. In my opinion (and i'll try hard to get this out the way i'm thinking it lol) i agree with half of that statement... i was in a vanilla relationship that was completely D/s (just that relationship's dynamic) He was the man and in control and it was very much like a 1950s style relationship.But, in this relationship i would never have trusted him to do the B or SM aspects of BDSM. There was however some ammount of discipline (as in guiding,expectations tht type of thing) the punishment aspect was only that of having a total douche bag on myhands if i didn't do as he wanted.(not healthy punishment- to read: mental/verbal abuse) So i agree with D/s not having to include BDSM. Where my opinion differs is the part about BDSM having to include D/s... A bottom can chose to bottom to get their need fulfilled (as a Top can), alot of times in an SM context but not really be submitting to the Top. They are agreeing to wear the X hat (bottom) or Y hat for that particular time. There really isn't any real D or s. To continue.. some things that made me think that may be things to consider (or to consider to be crap-LOL-they're just my thought and opinions) . IMO M/s cannot exist without D/s (or it would simly be illegal, no consent slavery) At some point the D and the s decide that they want to move to a point where things are different in their relationship.One decides to give up all control to the other and the other decides they want to take such control . But still one is Dominating and the other is submitting to the will of the Dominanting party. Then they become M/s athough they are still D/s. (this aspect never changes) Sadists can do their thing and sometimes (in a Top/Bottom D/S or M/s sense) this can be a wonderful thing to the masochist or slave or sub receiving it. It can also be punishment for the "s". A sadist only needs someone, not necessarily a masochist, to be sadistic towards.It can also take the form of abuse (vanilla and "lifestyle" alike). So SM does not have to include D/s or M/s to be alive and kicking but it can as well. The same could be said in reverse about a masochist. Also a masochist can chose to be their own inflictor of pain if the need arises and they don't need to be part of the "lifestyle" So SM can be a part of D/s or M/s but it isn't necessary one way or the other. The reverse of this part would be the D/s or M/s couple that don't do any type of SM. but who are in every sense D/s or M/s So the things aren't necessary to eachother to make them occur. IMO Bondage can be part of all of it within the "lifestyle"(but isnt absoultely necessary-or is it?) What of the D/s couple or the M/s couple who aren't involved in the ropes etc part of bondage but the "s" is in emotional bondage? Or mental bondage? Or the like. These "s" are no less bound because there are no ropes or chains holding them. (It all depends on the type of bondage you prefer) Discipline- IMO there is more to discipline than actual punishment. The guiding of one to make them "your disciple" or to have them follow you is discipline.So is the act of giving up your will to the will or your D or M allowing yourself to follow and be disciplined in their ways? It would seem so. If this is in a Top/bottom sense then the discipline aspect may not be so much but it could possibly extend to play in a scene as well So it would seem that with all of my thinking it through that the only things that are exclusively bound together are that with M/s you must have D/s. The rest are a matter of your preference.

Iskander -> RE: D/S as BDSM. (10/3/2006 10:22:52 AM)
charismagirrl, I read your post twice to ensure i fully understood it. You made me rethink my statement, and i realised it comes from the simplistic notion of giver = dominant, receiver = submissive... Then I thought of someone pouring tea into a cup... Is the cup submissive for receiving the tea, or is the cup dominant for giving the tea 'boundaries'?! Thanks for some good arguments that have given me some food for thought... Iskander...

gypsylee -> RE: D/S as BDSM. (10/3/2006 10:33:17 AM)
as i see it, D/s is the essence of my relationship and i do think D/s can exist without the kink factor, but i like to add bondage, discipline, sadism and masochism as a sort of ritualistic enhancement of the D/s. and well, i get off on it. heh.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875