Open Air Bondage - the best outdoor BDSM shoots    [other banners]

	TSR : Web boards : M/s D/s O&P : "A community continuum?" 1 2 3 4 A community continuum? (33) This post is on the M/s D/s O&P web board. 21 Apr 09, 3:52 PM Paper_of_the_Pen CA, 3 yrs I don't have very mch to say on the subject, so I'm sorry as this topic is so vast and yet I have so little to contribute... I've yet to see any oppression personally. I've even gone so far as to look for it online and found none...no hate groups or anythign of the sort. The only thing I have seen/found are other M/s peoples that are afraid of being oppressed or persecuted... Any examples of discriminatory behaviours against people within the M/s lifestyle to share? 21 Apr 09, 4:34 PM blue_girl US, 3 yrs Omocha wrote: The only thing I have seen/found are other M/s peoples that are afraid of being oppressed or persecuted... Any examples of discriminatory behaviours against people within the M/s lifestyle to share? Omocha, on the other BDSM-related sites I've visited (and even here occasionally, especially of late), there have been those who relegate 24/7 M/s relationships that don't follow the SSC protocol (e.g. use of safe words, contracts, etc.) to the category of "extreme" or, more often, simply "unhealthy." i can't begin to tell you how many accusations of "abuse" i've encountered in various discussion forums. It may appear to some that 24/7 lifestylers are overly sensitive--and there may be some merit to this accusation--but as MT points out, W/we're a minority within a minority, so it isn't surprising that W/we feel somewhat defensive. i haven't seen any specific hate groups either, but i think that's because BDSM is already excluded from and persecuted by the larger vanilla community. (In other words, there's no need to form a hate group against a group that's already rejected and/or marginalized.) Having to tip-toe around in the "real" world is stressful enough (and depending upon the communities to which we belong, more stressful for some than others), but discovering O/one also must tip-toe around in the virtual world--and in communities in which W/we should feel relatively safe and accepted--is particularly hurtful. It's a complex issue, so the solution must necessarily be complex, as well. While i agree that those who are in a position to 'normalize' BDSM and M/s relationships by living "out of the closet," so to speak, help O/our cause in measurable ways, it's going to take a multi-faceted approach to ever create something resembling acceptance in the vanilla community for M/s relationships--especially if W/we're even considered "unhealthy" by members of the BDSM community. ~blue~ (Edited to clarify one minor point.) "I was being called to surrender the very citadel of my self. I was completely in the dark. I did not really know what repentance was or what I was required to repent of. It was indeed the turning point of my life." --Bede Griffiths Edited 21 Apr 09, 4:36 PM by blue_girl 21 Apr 09, 7:03 PM Sklavos_mou_Kyriah 3 yrs I'll try to keep my contribution short. We are a minority group and in some cases as MT has pointed out, minorities within minorities. The majority do not and in some cases will not understand us. Thankfully the proverbial man in the street, (in the UK at any rate), tends to the "live and let live" view so long as it doesn't bother them. i.e. we don't impose our views on them. However, there is a large potential opposition which we need to keep an eye on. The Spanner Case and its ramifications is an example. It lurks in the background and given the right conditions could end up becoming law and enforced with draconian force. All of us, whether BDSM, M/s, D/s and whatever variations there are in between, need to stick together. We need all the friends we can get. To be a true slave is to be truly free Slave/Sklavos 21 Apr 09, 7:45 PM kaitlyn 4 yrs Not necessarily outright hatred by any means. I think as a group BDSM-ers, D/s-ers, and M/s-ers are fairly reserved about their lifestyles. What I hate found more than anything else is a need for others to "fix me". For example, I'm fairly open about my lifestyle and I wear a collar all the time. But occasionally, if the wrong people ask about it, it leads to some problems. Lately I've started to sensor who I tell the truth to and who I lie to more and more simply because it makes my life a lot easier. I don't know, I had real issues with my roommates in college my freshman year (i even posted on it here) and it took it's toll on my relationship with my Domme. I started acting out and all kinds of stuff. It took someone essentially saying, ya it's annoying but what happens if your Domme releases you? Would that be better? I think with roommates especially it's a difficult thing because they're there all the time. You really don't have privacy at all. So idk if that answers your discrimination question at all but that's been my main experience with it. kait 22 Apr 09, 1:23 PM 693-911-949 US(VA), 3 yrs i whole heartedly agree with you, bluegirl about having to tip toe in the BDSM community. It confuses me endlessly how people that have to contend with their own unusual desires can still find it within themselves to judge someone elses activities. My conclusion is that people figure it this way: If i can point the finger at someone else and call them weird, or extreme, or in need of help, then suddenly i can feel "normal." For as much as people in BDSM like to say they are fine with what they do, I think most still have some level of... omg, i'm weird. If they can call someone or something else weird or wrong, or whatever, then they can tell themselves they aren't really all that odd and as much as they say, i'm fine with what i like, i've accepted this part of myself... it is human nature, or societal training, to make that a whole lot harder to really feel, than say. i have a hard time feeling comfortable talking with others about the relationship i have with Master for several reasons. 1. i get the... well it can't reallllly be like that alll the time, and if you say it is, then you are lying to me, and to yourself. 2. you think you are better than me. (WTF?) 3. oh. Well, MY Master doesn't want a doormat and that must be what you are. The problem with all of these things is that everyone misses having what could be really in depth, positive discussions, and yes, therefor a lack of community. i know i've grown tired of going around in circles and never actually getting past them to delve into the stuff that really matters. i'm sure others have also decided their time was better spent elsewhere. Owned and operated by Ph0enixFire ~By making me nothing, He makes me everything. 22 Apr 09, 5:47 PM Degenerate UK, 3 yrs M_Shea wrote: Degenerate wrote: (A great deal of intelligent discourse only not added to avoid excessive scrolling) I really ought to be studying for my midterm on Wed, so I'll keep this brief: Could it not be MT's point that we (if I may be so bold as to include my slave and I despite our newbishness) need to convince the other aspects of BDSM that we are all indeed a part of a whole, so that we may face the outside as a united front? I think a few people here and elsewhere need to be convinced of this, but I think on the whole people understand this even though we may not understand each other. For example on the last CAAN protest we saw a fabulous spectrum of BDSM and non BDSM people including M/s people, D/s people, SM people, roleplayers, cross dressers, poly people, naturists, sex workers, porn models, even an adult baby carrying a placard "I want a Nanny, not Nanny State" in solidarity with gay activists and disabled activists. M_Shea wrote: I think that you're both essentially saying the same things, but perhaps with a different emphasis. Did I read either/both of you incorrectly? -Shea I think we agree on everything except where to pick our battles and who with. Once we're battling our own people, we don't even need outside enemies because it's community suicide. I think we need to use our precious energies together against those outside who'd happily rid the world of us ALL. Working together this way is the perfect time to educate each other and people are more receptive to learning when they feel solidarity instead of blame and challenge. De Edited 22 Apr 09, 5:49 PM by Degenerate 22 Apr 09, 10:13 PM Mistress_Tiara 5 yrs I think blue_girls posts on this thread have very articulately expressed some of what I am referencing and are a great starting point to examine this a little further. blue_girl wrote: This is social exclusion theory at its best: the larger BDSM community, i think, actually defines itself in part by its separateness from those who practice M/s. They point to the fact that BDSM is “just temporary,” and “role-playing,” and because it's SSC, nobody “really” gets hurt. i recently read a smart, theoretical book (“A Defense of Masochism” by Anita Phillips) that was ground-breaking, academically speaking, but which frustrated me because of the author's dependence upon the temporary, scene-based nature of BDSM. Of masochists, for example, she says, “It is about being hurt in exactly the right way and at the right time, in a sophisticated, highly artificial scenario” when “the masochist has initiated a highly controlled situation involving bondage and pseudo-domination” (14). She points out that because of the use of safe words, contracts, and SSC as its fundamental qualifier, BDSM is really no more 'freaky' than the playing out of any other psycho-sexual fantasy. In other words, it's okay because it's all just pretend. As i read, i kept thinking what a narrow view of masochism she perpetuated. Clearly, her definition was true for her, as well as for countless others, i'm sure, who “play” in the “scene,” but i felt utterly excluded from her “defense” because unlike her, i don't have safe words or contracts, and there's nothing artificial or sophisticated or temporary about my relationship or my masochistic desires. Left out of her defense, i evidently either fall into the category of 'victim' of patriarchal violence or i'm mentally ill. Thus, while i applaud Phillips' efforts to lay some of the groundwork that may make BDSM more palatable to the vanilla community at large, it's also unfortunately at the expense of those of us who eschew the SSC mantra and scene-play to embrace a 24/7 TPE. We become the ones that even the “freaks” point to as “freaks,” and because our relationships can't be relegated to the realm of fantasy in the same way that BDSM can be, our existence could otherwise potentially hinder the BDSM community's attempts to be more unobjectionable to an increasingly tolerant mainstream. I think this is a very astute analysis, and does seem to me to be true. While I think it is great to emphasise commonality in an effort to promote unity, I also believe that valuing diversity is important. I also agree with blue_girls assessment regarding the process sometimes seen at work when discussing M/s. While it is easy and tempting to say 'the BDSM community embrace people in M/s', I agree that this is not as straight forward as it looks if the reasons that M/s is 'accepted' are based on legitimising it via sanitisation. For example, when Tanos says; Tanos wrote: It does also feel things are getting better in the wider BDSM scene. In point of fact, IC has been quite gratifying recently, including this recent thread: "sub/ bottom vs slave". It starts out with some drunken 3am comments from someone who didn't get it at all, but the replies steer it onto a broad consensus that's pretty good - certainly on the "slave = owned" point. The consensus certainly isn't that M/s is done by abusive whackos. Tanos I instantly think, 'oh great'! When I looked at the thread he references to support this however I see a lot of what blue_girl points to at work, with posts legitamising M/s with comments such as; The_Morrighan wrote: My opinion is: slavery in the Ds sense should not and must not interfere with the dynamics of the slave's personal life. star_phoenix wrote: I am a slave to my Master when we are together. When I'm home I'm me but I adhear to creeds and rules. When Im at His feet I have no say at all. This is what I need. I cannot be a slave 24/7, I'd go insane. Ms_Valentine wrote: I think some 'so called' slave owners with a very high state of personal insecurity will want to take their slave away from the world completely and allow them no contact with family and friends, no job, no hobbies but they are in the absolute minority. Premo_1 wrote: That's nice and it's a beautiful thing, the enjoyment you get from pleasing your Master. One of my favourite things about domming is when my girl does something I know she isn't exactly crazy about in regards to the act itself, but the overall feeling she gets of having pleased me and as a result feeling happy is something that brings a lot of pleasure to me. I have actually done a few things that aren't really my cup of tea in the past, and felt really good about it after. The difference is it wasn't coming from a submissive headspace on my part. It was just about me wanting to please and turn on the girl I was with at the time. Master_slave wrote: I am in the fortunate position that my Master decrees that I am able to do anything unless expressly forbidden. Plinth_For_Her_Feet wrote: If someone fills a role within a relationship that they and their "owner" can realistically define as that of a slave, and that is what they feel themselves to be, then that should be good enough and further discussion is pointless….In a consensual environment, questions such as the OP raises should not arise. Everyone has "rights", and even where we suspend or sacrifice those rights we all have the choice of who we choose to submit to and at what level. And we all have the right and the ability to withdraw that submission if it is inadvisably given to someone who behaves arbitrarily in a malicious or deranged manner. TheMarquise wrote: The main thing that jumped out to me about your post was that you seemed to think that a dom or slave owner would be inclined to insist their charge give up all interests and independence or at the least be prepared to. Of course, if that were the case, I can see your being puzzled why someone would give themselves a label that would limit their options in life and that of their very being. Maybe some M/s couples do live this way, but I haven't met them, so I would say they would be in the minority. Most people would rebel against a situation that was that proscriptive and restrictive to this degree and/or to be told who they could and couldn't love or to deny their passions. But besides that, why would someone require this, outside of being an abusive control freak that is? It seems to me that quotes such as these (which are all posts from the supporting position in the debate) attempt in part, to try to legitimise M/s by emphasising that slavery does not involve any significant loss of power, just like when blue girl said; blue_girl wrote: i felt utterly excluded from her “defense” because unlike her, i don't have safe words or contracts, and there's nothing artificial or sophisticated or temporary about my relationship or my masochistic desires. Left out of her defense, i evidently either fall into the category of 'victim' of patriarchal violence or i'm mentally ill. about reading the book she referenced. And I do recognise what she's referencing when she says; blue_girl wrote: on the other BDSM-related sites I've visited (and even here occasionally, especially of late), there have been those who relegate 24/7 M/s relationships that don't follow the SSC protocol (e.g. use of safe words, contracts, etc.) to the category of "extreme" or, more often, simply "unhealthy." i can't begin to tell you how many accusations of "abuse" i've encountered in various discussion forums. It may appear to some that 24/7 lifestylers are overly sensitive--and there may be some merit to this accusation--but as MT points out, W/we're a minority within a minority, People are of course entitled to not feel comfortable about M/s, or be interested in M/s or want to listen to uncomfortable definitions about M/s from M/s people. I do feel though that attempting to legitimise M/s by making it more acceptable through trying to say 'it's all ok because no one really gets controlled' is not that far off the old 'slavery is not real and your all just role players' argument, all be it for a rather different agenda. It seems to me to be self defeating, and a rather strangely motivated form of censorship. BDSM is always probably going to be more popular than M/s and there will probably always be people who find the notion of full ownership of human beings – all be it as the result of an initial consent – morally problematic, or feel it is something it does not make sense to align themselves with for career/ commercial/ publicity reasons or whatever. I understand that totally and believe that's their right. I do think that this form of definitional dilution may ultimately be self defeating for all parties within the BDSM community however, and that seems sad and ultimately neither inclusive or helpful to any of us. Blue_girls comment, blue_girl wrote: it's going to take a multi-faceted approach to ever create something resembling acceptance in the vanilla community for M/s relationships--especially if W/we're even considered "unhealthy" by members of the BDSM community. seems very astute to me. It's not about creating divisions, it's about not censoring people or asking them to dilute their own experience to make it more acceptable. Like many here, I'm a member of several minority groups and/ or subcultural groups and this process is something I have seen before. It's like saying to a gay man 'oh well I have no problem with gay men as long as they don't have sex. It spreads AIDS you know. Don't get me wrong, I'm not prejudice, I have plenty of gay friends and I believe in equality. I just think that it's irresponsible and dangerous to have gay sex. Gay men are fine, better than fine even, they're great. I just only like ones that don't engage in gay sex' (this by the way is a genuine example I came across when working for a LGBT organisation). Of course there are gay men who don't have sex. And there are even more who do not engage in high risk sexual practices. And it is sometimes easier – in the short term – for people to nod their heads and say 'oh no, I/ my gay friend/ the gay community in general, never do any nasty potential HIV spreading activities'. The problem is though is that this contributes to an insidious belief in the inherent irresponsibility of any kind of homosexual activity, rather than accepting and supporting diversity. While it is fine for people to say 'oh that's not for me', or 'I don't want to know about that thankyou' I find the idea of trying to gain acceptability or legitimacy through definitional appeasement flawed. I also think it creates unnecessary divisions. I also believe that actions such as these; especially in an era when legislation to criminalise some aspects of BDSM are being implimented; ultimately serve to legitimise claims that the practices of all of us, wherever we come on the continuum, are illegitimate. Thankyou to everyone for your input so far Tiara Edited 22 Apr 09, 10:16 PM by Mistress_Tiara 22 Apr 09, 11:54 PM UltimateSwitch US(MI), 3 yrs Ok, so I have now read this entire thread 2 times, though with all the quoting and requoting, it seems like 3; and I still find myself with the exact same reaction that I had at MT's op. Which is simply: "Can't we all just get along?" I say that because, as a true switch in almost every way (see my profile if you want a better explination) I have been in many many different situations and seen them from multiple viewpoints, and no matter where Y/you stand on the planet you are always on one side of a line or another. It doesn't matter if Y/you drew the line in the sand and challenged others to cross, or didn't even know said line existed. Many good points have been raised about legality, freedom of choice, freedom of speech, and ranging dgrees of D/s in general. I do believe that the most profound statement here yet was still just that W/we as a group tend to be rather introverted as a whole anyway, and on top of that W/we sometimes neglect the attempts to explain O/ourselves just to simplify the current situation. As far as MT's original question: I believe W/we as an entire group of BDSM nation need to all 'live and let live' with each other if for no other reason than to not dwindle O/our own numbers in the future, even if that means that W/we (this W/we refers directly to the ownership subculture) don't get total inclusion within the larger BDSM circuit.... I personally would rather have them as allies than have them pointing at U/us as there excuse for who is trully weird. your's in service *SWITCH* You're in my service UltimateSwitch 23 Apr 09, 12:42 AM Degenerate UK, 3 yrs Mistress_Tiara wrote: I also believe that actions such as these; especially in an era when legislation to criminalise some aspects of BDSM are being implimented; ultimately serve to legitimise claims that the practices of all of us, wherever we come on the continuum, are illegitimate. Thankyou to everyone for your input so far Tiara Mmm... but what do you think we should DO (given that anyone who comes here to ask questions is at risk of being given a hard time for it by some members - either they go there to ask questions and are swamped with SSC, or they come here and people sigh heavily)? What's the solution? As I agree it would be great if it didn't happen. Yes M/s people are misunderstood by lots of other BDSM people (same goes for other types of BDSM people - M/s people get accused of abuse, but for example age-players get accused of 'simulating paedophilia'). There's assholes on every website, scene and community, we cannot sanitise against them. Yes people use SSC to justify - on that board because most of them use it - and surely even M/s begins consensually (even though once full in we do not need to seek further consent), because if it didn't it would just be kidnapping/abuse at first base. Yes some people use a different definition of M/s to the one used here.. I'm not really sure what can be done about that, even if it were a good idea. People DO explain in that forum regularly, often though they are too bored of it to bother - and yes once we talk about things which to many of them feel non consensual then we get accused of abuse, it's happened to me too, it was horrible. But what do you think we should we DO? Me, I talk about stuff in what seems to be the most appropriate place, if I think I will be drowned out by cries of 'abuse' on IC, I come here instead. Or at least I started to before I became concerned my presence here was pissing people off. Now I worry about talking about it in either place as we may be not M/s enough for here and may be too much real D/s for there. I find it really interesting that you seem to define BDSM as other to yourself. Do you mean M/s is not even part of BDSM? What about all the SM (or is it CP/discipline) that you do, for example? It feels like you are talking as if you want inclusion, but are actually advocating for excluding yourself and keeping a separateness in arguing that M/s is so different to what BDSM people do. We can't expect people to include us if we are othering ourselves and them. It's very confusing and I just can't seem to get to the point of what you are trying to say - unless this thread is just about talking about how annoying it is when people don't understand M/s (or define it differently) in which case I am just looking too deep for meaning/ point/ constructiveness. De Mistress_Tiara wrote: I think blue_girls posts on this thread have very articulately expressed some of what I am referencing and are a great starting point to examine this a little further. blue_girl wrote: This is social exclusion theory at its best: the larger BDSM community, i think, actually defines itself in part by its separateness from those who practice M/s. They point to the fact that BDSM is “just temporary,” and “role-playing,” and because it's SSC, nobody “really” gets hurt. i recently read a smart, theoretical book (“A Defense of Masochism” by Anita Phillips) that was ground-breaking, academically speaking, but which frustrated me because of the author's dependence upon the temporary, scene-based nature of BDSM. Of masochists, for example, she says, “It is about being hurt in exactly the right way and at the right time, in a sophisticated, highly artificial scenario” when “the masochist has initiated a highly controlled situation involving bondage and pseudo-domination” (14). She points out that because of the use of safe words, contracts, and SSC as its fundamental qualifier, BDSM is really no more 'freaky' than the playing out of any other psycho-sexual fantasy. In other words, it's okay because it's all just pretend. As i read, i kept thinking what a narrow view of masochism she perpetuated. Clearly, her definition was true for her, as well as for countless others, i'm sure, who “play” in the “scene,” but i felt utterly excluded from her “defense” because unlike her, i don't have safe words or contracts, and there's nothing artificial or sophisticated or temporary about my relationship or my masochistic desires. Left out of her defense, i evidently either fall into the category of 'victim' of patriarchal violence or i'm mentally ill. Thus, while i applaud Phillips' efforts to lay some of the groundwork that may make BDSM more palatable to the vanilla community at large, it's also unfortunately at the expense of those of us who eschew the SSC mantra and scene-play to embrace a 24/7 TPE. We become the ones that even the “freaks” point to as “freaks,” and because our relationships can't be relegated to the realm of fantasy in the same way that BDSM can be, our existence could otherwise potentially hinder the BDSM community's attempts to be more unobjectionable to an increasingly tolerant mainstream. I think this is a very astute analysis, and does seem to me to be true. While I think it is great to emphasise commonality in an effort to promote unity, I also believe that valuing diversity is important. I also agree with blue_girls assessment regarding the process sometimes seen at work when discussing M/s. While it is easy and tempting to say 'the BDSM community embrace people in M/s', I agree that this is not as straight forward as it looks if the reasons that M/s is 'accepted' are based on legitimising it via sanitisation. For example, when Tanos says; Tanos wrote: It does also feel things are getting better in the wider BDSM scene. In point of fact, IC has been quite gratifying recently, including this recent thread: "sub/ bottom vs slave". It starts out with some drunken 3am comments from someone who didn't get it at all, but the replies steer it onto a broad consensus that's pretty good - certainly on the "slave = owned" point. The consensus certainly isn't that M/s is done by abusive whackos. Tanos I instantly think, 'oh great'! When I looked at the thread he references to support this however I see a lot of what blue_girl points to at work, with posts legitamising M/s with comments such as; removed because it`s not from this site wrote: removed because it`s not from this site wrote: . removed because it`s not from this site wrote: removed because it`s not from this site wrote: removed because it`s not from this site wrote: removed because it`s not from this site wrote: removed because it`s not from this site wrote: It seems to me that quotes such as these (which are all posts from the supporting position in the debate) attempt in part, to try to legitimise M/s by emphasising that slavery does not involve any significant loss of power, just like when blue girl said; blue_girl wrote: i felt utterly excluded from her “defense” because unlike her, i don't have safe words or contracts, and there's nothing artificial or sophisticated or temporary about my relationship or my masochistic desires. Left out of her defense, i evidently either fall into the category of 'victim' of patriarchal violence or i'm mentally ill. about reading the book she referenced. And I do recognise what she's referencing when she says; blue_girl wrote: on the other BDSM-related sites I've visited (and even here occasionally, especially of late), there have been those who relegate 24/7 M/s relationships that don't follow the SSC protocol (e.g. use of safe words, contracts, etc.) to the category of "extreme" or, more often, simply "unhealthy." i can't begin to tell you how many accusations of "abuse" i've encountered in various discussion forums. It may appear to some that 24/7 lifestylers are overly sensitive--and there may be some merit to this accusation--but as MT points out, W/we're a minority within a minority, People are of course entitled to not feel comfortable about M/s, or be interested in M/s or want to listen to uncomfortable definitions about M/s from M/s people. I do feel though that attempting to legitimise M/s by making it more acceptable through trying to say 'it's all ok because no one really gets controlled' is not that far off the old 'slavery is not real and your all just role players' argument, all be it for a rather different agenda. It seems to me to be self defeating, and a rather strangely motivated form of censorship. BDSM is always probably going to be more popular than M/s and there will probably always be people who find the notion of full ownership of human beings – all be it as the result of an initial consent – morally problematic, or feel it is something it does not make sense to align themselves with for career/ commercial/ publicity reasons or whatever. I understand that totally and believe that's their right. I do think that this form of definitional dilution may ultimately be self defeating for all parties within the BDSM community however, and that seems sad and ultimately neither inclusive or helpful to any of us. Blue_girls comment, blue_girl wrote: it's going to take a multi-faceted approach to ever create something resembling acceptance in the vanilla community for M/s relationships--especially if W/we're even considered "unhealthy" by members of the BDSM community. seems very astute to me. It's not about creating divisions, it's about not censoring people or asking them to dilute their own experience to make it more acceptable. Like many here, I'm a member of several minority groups and/ or subcultural groups and this process is something I have seen before. It's like saying to a gay man 'oh well I have no problem with gay men as long as they don't have sex. It spreads AIDS you know. Don't get me wrong, I'm not prejudice, I have plenty of gay friends and I believe in equality. I just think that it's irresponsible and dangerous to have gay sex. Gay men are fine, better than fine even, they're great. I just only like ones that don't engage in gay sex' (this by the way is a genuine example I came across when working for a LGBT organisation). Of course there are gay men who don't have sex. And there are even more who do not engage in high risk sexual practices. And it is sometimes easier – in the short term – for people to nod their heads and say 'oh no, I/ my gay friend/ the gay community in general, never do any nasty potential HIV spreading activities'. The problem is though is that this contributes to an insidious belief in the inherent irresponsibility of any kind of homosexual activity, rather than accepting and supporting diversity. While it is fine for people to say 'oh that's not for me', or 'I don't want to know about that thankyou' I find the idea of trying to gain acceptability or legitimacy through definitional appeasement flawed. I also think it creates unnecessary divisions. I also believe that actions such as these; especially in an era when legislation to criminalise some aspects of BDSM are being implimented; ultimately serve to legitimise claims that the practices of all of us, wherever we come on the continuum, are illegitimate. Thankyou to everyone for your input so far Tiara Edited 23 Apr 09, 12:48 AM by Degenerate 23 Apr 09, 1:21 AM blue_girl US, 3 yrs UltimateSwitch wrote: As far as MT's original question: I believe W/we as an entire group of BDSM nation need to all 'live and let live' with each other if for no other reason than to not dwindle O/our own numbers in the future, even if that means that W/we (this W/we refers directly to the ownership subculture) don't get total inclusion within the larger BDSM circuit.... I personally would rather have them as allies than have them pointing at U/us as there excuse for who is trully weird. i agree! Wouldn't that be great? Unfortunately, i don't think W/we (the "ownership subculture") get to decide whether or not the larger BDSM community accept 24/7 M/s with open arms. As i've stated previously on this thread, i think they feel they must reject us in order to embrace the definition of BDSM that will allow them a greater likelihood of acceptance in the vanilla world. There's a line that the vanillas won't cross, and we're too far beyond that line. If the BDSM community embraces us, it will undermine the way it's currently being marketed as a realm of fantasy in which desires are acted out safely, sanely, and consensually in temporary and artificial "scenes" that serve legitimate psychological needs and desires (because O/our relationships are about "real" people who "really" give up free will in the "real" world in order to serve another, and by contemporary cultural and psychological standards, that's just not a "healthy" thing to do). We can talk all day long about how we should all join together and be a community, that W/we shouldn't alienate the BDSM crowd or push them away, that W/we should ally ourselves with them, but really, that's not up to U/us, is it? Why did W/we seek a little corner on the Web to call O/our own to begin with? Because W/we weren't really welcomed or accepted elsewhere... This isn't a case of U/us rejecting them. This is simply U/us being offended by their rejection. Totally different thing, imho... ~blue~ "I was being called to surrender the very citadel of my self. I was completely in the dark. I did not really know what repentance was or what I was required to repent of. It was indeed the turning point of my life." --Bede Griffiths Next page