KinkPodcasts.com - podcasts about BDSM, Fetish and Kink    [other banners]

	TSR : Web boards : Other Topics : "BDSM: Sexual Life style VS Mental Life style" 1 2 BDSM: Sexual Life style VS Mental Life style (20) This post is on the Other Topics web board. 2 May 10, 4:56 AM submissive_lyric US(IL), 3 yrs ChaosxSeduction wrote: I'm glad I am not the only one who feels that BDSM is not just about sex. No, you are not. lol Personally, I feel that sex is on;y about 10% of the total relationship. Of course, as a human being, the sex needs to work well for both of you, but that is always brought to new levels as the mental bond grows. There is a connection in a D/s relationship that i feel is so much stronger than what you would have being just vanilla. Not that you can't have a perfectly amazing vanilla relationship, but there is a level beyond anything else when it is combined with a healthy D/s bond. 2 May 10, 8:27 AM EvaMaria US(CA), 3 yrs I don't understand why a person would need a personal (vs. conventional) definition for BDSM - to my thinking, it's an invitation to be misunderstood. The term BDSM originated as a description of those sexual practices involving power exchange and I can't see the sense in insisting it ought to mean otherwise. If a person's relationship involves more than BDSM it's easy enough to say so and most relationships fit somewhere under the terms M/s or D/s. They all fit under O&P. As far as these boards are concerned (and as mentioned in a previous post), Tanos has given us a mutual "language" via O&P Wiki and he's asked that we use it. Unless I specifically make some mention to the contrary anything I post should be interpreted this way. ... ChaosxSeduction wrote: Some watching material for you: The Secretary. I think this movie is very helpful in explaining the bdsm life style, and how a slave, once in a bottomless pit of depression can be set free by the love of a Master. I loved "Secretary" but I don't think it was intended to be more than a playful romance à la Cinderella, etc. I don't believe that BDSM is an effective cure for depression or will resolve psychological issues serious enough to cause self-harm. Nor have I read any authoritative work to that effect. Eva (The property formerly known as Camille ) Edited 2 May 10, 8:36 AM by EvaMaria 2 May 10, 4:57 PM submissive_lyric US(IL), 3 yrs EvaMaria wrote: I don't understand why a person would need a personal (vs. conventional) definition for BDSM - to my thinking, it's an invitation to be misunderstood. The term BDSM originated as a description of those sexual practices involving power exchange and I can't see the sense in insisting it ought to mean otherwise. If a person's relationship involves more than BDSM it's easy enough to say so and most relationships fit somewhere under the terms M/s or D/s. They all fit under O&P. As far as these boards are concerned (and as mentioned in a previous post), Tanos has given us a mutual "language" via O&P Wiki and he's asked that we use it. Unless I specifically make some mention to the contrary anything I post should be interpreted this way. ... ChaosxSeduction wrote: Some watching material for you: The Secretary. I think this movie is very helpful in explaining the bdsm life style, and how a slave, once in a bottomless pit of depression can be set free by the love of a Master. I loved "Secretary" but I don't think it was intended to be more than a playful romance à la Cinderella, etc. I don't believe that BDSM is an effective cure for depression or will resolve psychological issues serious enough to cause self-harm. Nor have I read any authoritative work to that effect. Eva I agree that the terms are defined, but it is a broad swatch which leaves room for someone in the lifestyle to personalize how it defines them. Not everyone practices every aspect of the spectrum. So, asking what BDSM means to you and expressing your personal definition, or how it fits into your life is not something that should be looked down upon. Every person on this site has a personal definition of BDSM and how it applies to their lives...I think that is what the original poster was asking about. When a person tells you what they think it means to them and does not push their personal feelings off as something that everyone in the lifestyle should share, and then it is an opportunity for the rest of us to contemplate their words and respond with our own personal meaning. Now, it would be different and I can see your point if the original poster had said something like "BDSM is all about how well you cross stitch!!", then there would be reason to redirect them to Wiki to set them straight. If we are not expected to share our views and feelings, then there would be no point to this site having a message board...it would just be a website with nothing more than the O&P Wiki definitions page. Now...as for the Secretary...I agree that BDSM should not be used to cure depression or tendencies toward self harm. However, in watching it, it did guide me toward my own definition of the lifestyle. It showed that a master should love and care for his slave, provide instruction and structure, encourage (and demand) total communication. It also put attention to the fact that Masters have their own demons and are in fact, human above all else...which is something that I think all subs/slaves/bottoms need to keep in mind. It also makes me chuckle to myself every time I make a meal with peas and creamed potatoes for supper. **Edited for clarity** Edited 2 May 10, 4:59 PM by submissive_lyric 3 May 10, 2:04 AM EvaMaria US(CA), 3 yrs submissive_lyric wrote: If we are not expected to share our views and feelings, then there would be no point to this site having a message board...it would just be a website with nothing more than the O&P Wiki definitions page. To be clear, I'm not speaking of discussions re: how a person feels BDSM (or any practice, relationship type, etc) defines them, how significant they feel it is in their lives, or what aspects they practice. I'm speaking of the idea that says a word or term should be accepted as having whichever meaning the individual user prefers to give it, regardless of conventional understanding or in the case here, the O&P Wiki. I don't believe that approach would be productive in any dialogue, but where communication is already hampered by the limitations of a written format I think the result is even worse. It invariably causes confusion which in turn necessitates either a) a response based on an assumption re: what the poster means by BDSM, b) digression for questions in order to establish exactly what the poster means by BDSM or c) comments that the poster obviously doesn't know what he/she is speaking of (or worse) - this last in particular having happened in a recent thread. I think the best example of this would be the use of "slave" vs "submissive". When I first joined both words were used fairly strictly according to O&P Wiki definitions, and when a poster used either one their meaning was clear. Over the past few months these words have routinely come to be used to indicate anyone from a person whose relationship fits the Wiki definitions to one who simply believes they're suited to those or similar situations to anything inbetween. For these words to have lost any real meaning in the interest of freedom of individual usage doesn't make any sense to me. Eva (The property formerly known as Camille ) Edited 3 May 10, 2:08 AM by EvaMaria 3 May 10, 4:14 PM mamabear NL, 2 yrs EvaMaria wrote: submissive_lyric wrote: If we are not expected to share our views and feelings, then there would be no point to this site having a message board...it would just be a website with nothing more than the O&P Wiki definitions page. To be clear, I'm not speaking of discussions re: how a person feels BDSM (or any practice, relationship type, etc) defines them, how significant they feel it is in their lives, or what aspects they practice. I'm speaking of the idea that says a word or term should be accepted as having whichever meaning the individual user prefers to give it, regardless of conventional understanding or in the case here, the O&P Wiki. I don't believe that approach would be productive in any dialogue, but where communication is already hampered by the limitations of a written format I think the result is even worse. It invariably causes confusion which in turn necessitates either a) a response based on an assumption re: what the poster means by BDSM, b) digression for questions in order to establish exactly what the poster means by BDSM or c) comments that the poster obviously doesn't know what he/she is speaking of (or worse) - this last in particular having happened in a recent thread. I think the best example of this would be the use of "slave" vs "submissive". When I first joined both words were used fairly strictly according to O&P Wiki definitions, and when a poster used either one their meaning was clear. Over the past few months these words have routinely come to be used to indicate anyone from a person whose relationship fits the Wiki definitions to one who simply believes they're suited to those or similar situations to anything inbetween. For these words to have lost any real meaning in the interest of freedom of individual usage doesn't make any sense to me. Eva Everyone approaches this lifestyle differently. Personally I see the definitions as guidelines to work with and help to put thoughts into context, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily set in stone. This lifestyle changes constantly, just as people do. How many defintions have changed or expanded over the years...it's something of an evolution. I decided to look up the word "bad"...36 different meanings and interpretations. I wasn't around when the first dictionary came out, but I'm pretty sure that little bitty word probably didn't have 36 definitions back then. Even the bible is simply an interpretation and how many interpretations has that gone through. You might notice that even on the O&P Wiki page it says to check "Wiki help page for guidelines about the style and content of articles" for the wiki itself which means they are a culmination of interpretations. Once again it simply comes down to "what floats your boat". 4 May 10, 12:30 AM Phoenix002 UK, 2 yrs Y! In my own mind a BDSM relationship originates from a mental, intellectual need rather than a physical one. The feeling of being owned & possessed is psycho-somatic. The need to serve & belong & obey, I believe, is a mental need. The heart will surely follow. The emptiness of being unowned can sometimes be overwhelming, & it takes great mental fortitude to survive it. 4 May 10, 2:54 AM 000-844-137 US, 7 yrs Y! BDSM is VERY mental long before it ever gets physcial. i honestly beleive that intrest in and a love for BDSM is something that is born into you. There is an X chromosome, a Y chromosome, and a bondage chromosome. In chains i feel free 4 May 10, 3:21 PM mamabear NL, 2 yrs 000-844-137 wrote: a bondage chromosome. That explains alot... 20 Aug 10, 10:42 PM 491-315-154 US(CA), 2 yrs BDSM in my view has already been described by it's normal definition. My only problem is that people use it as in a play stance. They usually are only in it for the occasional kink of the whole thing. I must admit I grew tired of going to play parties and seeing so called slaves topping from the bottom, and the Dominant acting like it was alright. I in no way mean to sound as if that is not right for maybe their relationship, but it just never set well with me. 22 Aug 10, 4:34 PM 375-295-503 UK, 2 yrs I think, initially for me, my introduction into BDSM from my Master was a very powerful mix of both mental and physical. Mental, because of the intensity of the M/s dynamic, and all that goes with that; but that intensity and my willingness to submit transcends into the physical. Throw into the equation, the raw passion of any new sexual union and that makes for a pretty powerful relationship. Almost 2 years on, I would say the mental aspect overrides, because I am completely enslaved to my Master and just to be in his company is an honour. Although, still being a very sexual person, this aspect is important to me, and maybe is the glue that binds me to Him; however, if it was my Master's desire, I would of course serve without any physical contact.