Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #481  
Old 10-02-2011, 08:00 PM
ray's Avatar
ray ray is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 819
Default

I agree the kink has broad range of interest/dynamics/reasons..etc. But I was only finally able to accept it when I internalized that people do it because they WANT to. If some one hates being in the lifestyle, they won't do or they're being abused. It's not all always fun and games but ultimately, it's something we do because we gain a lot of positive things from it. Whether that be pure pleasure, fun, cathartic release, emotional needs, sexual needs, etc.... I've found that a lot of my play can be extremely fun although it runs the spectrum. I feel like I agree with MZ, not that we should be flippant but that we do it because it adds good things to our lives whether on a casual or serious basis.
Reply With Quote
  #482  
Old 10-02-2011, 08:05 PM
NeonKaos NeonKaos is offline
Custodian
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new england
Posts: 3,221
Default

As with anything else, there is a distinguishing between doing something because it is what YOU want or like, and doing something for the benefit of other people (whether that benefit be to fit in with a "scene", to make others think you're not "uptight", or what have you... the list could go on indefinitely.).
Reply With Quote
  #483  
Old 10-02-2011, 08:44 PM
AnnabelMore's Avatar
AnnabelMore AnnabelMore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,233
Default

I can see both sides of the "game" argument. On the one hand, the term game can help people understand what Ray described above -- that BDSM can look non-consensual or dubiously consensual or damaging but it's not. "Game" is more approachable than the phrase "mutually supportive and negotiated relationship construct", even if the latter might be more accurate for a given situation. And it doesn't necessarily need to the trivialising... consider the phrase "game of life". That said, I can see how it would be too unserious in connotation for some folks. I probably wouldn't use it myself in some cases, though in plenty others I would.

In my internal world of turn-ons, dreams, and desires, BD and S&M are subordinate (heh) to D/s. I understand that this makes me more confusing and worrying for people who can understand at least a little the idea of someone getting spanked or tied up because they like it, but who see all that psychological stuff as sad, sick, unhealthy and otherwise highly problematic.

In my blog, I just posted a personal D/s manifesto. It covers how I got here, what it means to me, and what I wish for.
Part 1: http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showp...&postcount=201
Part 2: http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showp...&postcount=202
__________________
Me, 30ish bi female, been doing solo poly for roughly 5 years. Gia, Clay, and Pike, my partners. Davis, ex/friend/"it's complicated." Eric, Gia's husband. Bee, Gia and Eric's toddler.
Reply With Quote
  #484  
Old 10-03-2011, 08:00 AM
Lucinda Lucinda is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
That as a submissive you can't stand up for yourself and say you won't take bullshit anymore unless you call a time-out and negotiate that you may now speak. It just goes against everything I feel about treating another human being with honor and respect to put them in that subservient position, beyond a sexy bedroom game. I know it's real and the way people choose to live, and I've thought about it a lot, but I have a very hard time understanding the benefits.
Well the thing is, a lifestyle submissive needs the other person to take the leadership role. To be dominant honours the submissive person's desire to not have the responsibility of directing the relationship. To be dominant respects the submissive's very real need to have somebody to serve.

Ideally, the dominant person is somebody who will be responsibily about this so that stepping out of role to renegotiate is unnecessary. Occassionally, even when the dominant person acts in good faith and does their best to be responsible, some renegotiation is necessary. But when they step out of their role, they put their real self on hold. The dominant or submissive aspect of their personality is their real self.
Reply With Quote
  #485  
Old 10-03-2011, 01:33 PM
AnnabelMore's Avatar
AnnabelMore AnnabelMore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucinda View Post
Well the thing is, a lifestyle submissive needs the other person to take the leadership role. To be dominant honours the submissive person's desire to not have the responsibility of directing the relationship. To be dominant respects the submissive's very real need to have somebody to serve.

Ideally, the dominant person is somebody who will be responsibily about this so that stepping out of role to renegotiate is unnecessary. Occassionally, even when the dominant person acts in good faith and does their best to be responsible, some renegotiation is necessary. But when they step out of their role, they put their real self on hold. The dominant or submissive aspect of their personality is their real self.
I'm sure that's very true for some people but I don't think it is for all. My roommates, Eddie and Liam, are in a 24/7 D/s relationship, with Eddie as the sub. There are a few limits in their contract but for the most part it's total power exchange.

And, oddly enough, Eddie actually has the somewhat more dominant personality between the two of them. But they tried a dynamic with Liam as the sub and he just didn't respond to it well. Still, they both craved a D/s dynamic, and Eddie was switchy enough that they found it worked the other way. So they went with it, and it's been that way for a year now. As near as I can tell (and I spend a lot of time with these guys), they're both happier now.

Yet I know Eddie could easily take on a dom role with someone else, in a different situation.

I don't think they're just total freaks either, I know of other people who tend to top tops and dom doms, and in theory some of their relationships could become 24/7 too. Plus, for instance, a dom could say to their sub "I order you to pursue and then dominate someone at this club here tonight, for my pleasure, since I enjoy watching you do it" and then the "dommy sub" would get to have their cake and eat it too.

Shit's complex, yo!
__________________
Me, 30ish bi female, been doing solo poly for roughly 5 years. Gia, Clay, and Pike, my partners. Davis, ex/friend/"it's complicated." Eric, Gia's husband. Bee, Gia and Eric's toddler.
Reply With Quote
  #486  
Old 10-03-2011, 06:32 PM
Lucinda Lucinda is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnnabelMore View Post
I don't think they're just total freaks either, I know of other people who tend to top tops and dom doms, and in theory some of their relationships could become 24/7 too. Plus, for instance, a dom could say to their sub "I order you to pursue and then dominate someone at this club here tonight, for my pleasure, since I enjoy watching you do it" and then the "dommy sub" would get to have their cake and eat it too.
Oh, absolutely. I don't doubt that people can be switches. What I was responding to is the idea that if or when people take a break from power exchange, they get to be their real selves. For many people, being in a power exchange relationship is a part of their real selves, even if they're on different sides of the slash in different relaitonships.
Reply With Quote
  #487  
Old 10-03-2011, 07:26 PM
AnnabelMore's Avatar
AnnabelMore AnnabelMore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucinda View Post
Oh, absolutely. I don't doubt that people can be switches. What I was responding to is the idea that if or when people take a break from power exchange, they get to be their real selves. For many people, being in a power exchange relationship is a part of their real selves, even if they're on different sides of the slash in different relaitonships.
Cool, I'm down with that view. What you said sounded to me kinda absolutist but I see now how it didn't need to be read that way.
__________________
Me, 30ish bi female, been doing solo poly for roughly 5 years. Gia, Clay, and Pike, my partners. Davis, ex/friend/"it's complicated." Eric, Gia's husband. Bee, Gia and Eric's toddler.
Reply With Quote
  #488  
Old 10-03-2011, 08:47 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magdlyn View Post
24/7 power exchange isn't a game.

Would you call a traditional MF couple, like from olden days up to the mid 1960s, where the wife has promised to "obey" her husband and defer to his final decision, game players?
Yes, I would. And no, I would not.

Playing a game implies both conscious choice of the game being played and access to an alternative to that game. Checkers... or chess ... or baseball... or ... or...? In playing a game one knows one is playing.

Feminism exposed the above as a game. Anyone playing this game post-1960s in America knows it is a game -- unless they are way out in the boonies and never have access to media like magazines, tv, radio....

One can continue to play the game and pretend it is very serious, as one does when one watches a horror movie and gets all scared and pees one's pants. One can pretend that one is powerless because one is a woman -- or a man, or....

I think people can forget that they are playing a game. And sometimes that's actually desired. We generally want to get lost in our games like we want to get lost in our movies. (Who wants to be reminded that these are actors and this story is pure fiction while watching the film?) But there are degrees and kinds of forgetting. Things get weird, at best, when we forget that it is a game, altogether. Then it is no longer a game, really. And that can get really weird.
__________________
bi, partnered, available

River's Blog
Reply With Quote
  #489  
Old 10-04-2011, 01:11 AM
AnnabelMore's Avatar
AnnabelMore AnnabelMore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucinda View Post
Oh, absolutely. I don't doubt that people can be switches. What I was responding to is the idea that if or when people take a break from power exchange, they get to be their real selves. For many people, being in a power exchange relationship is a part of their real selves, even if they're on different sides of the slash in different relaitonships.
Out or curiosity I brought the "can you call 24/7 D/s a game" thing to Eddie, and he said the word didn't offend him but that he found it inaccurate for his relationship, basically because of the point Lucinda makes above, that while he and Liam may roleplay or play other games from time to time, most of the time they're being themselves. They just experience their relationship within a power structure that's different from the egalitarian model. It's not a matter of pretending or playing, it's "I own you and we're in love" instead of the usual marriage thing which basically says "we own each other and we're in love" (I know the word "own" is anathema to most polys, but that's essentially how most mutually monogamous and closed couples operate, as I see it, and keep in mind that I don't see that as a negative thing at all).
__________________
Me, 30ish bi female, been doing solo poly for roughly 5 years. Gia, Clay, and Pike, my partners. Davis, ex/friend/"it's complicated." Eric, Gia's husband. Bee, Gia and Eric's toddler.

Last edited by AnnabelMore; 10-04-2011 at 01:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #490  
Old 10-04-2011, 12:05 PM
Magdlyn's Avatar
Magdlyn Magdlyn is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Metro West Massachusetts
Posts: 3,619
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnnabelMore View Post
It's not a matter of pretending or playing, it's "I own you and we're in love" instead of the usual marriage thing which basically says "we own each other and we're in love" (I know the word "own" is anathema to most polys, but that's essentially how most mutually monogamous and closed couples operate, as I see it, and keep in mind that I don't see that as a negative thing at all).
Yes, and in the patriarchal mindset, as reflected in ancient literature and up to the early 20th century, men truly owned their wives. She did NOT own him. It's become a bit more egalitarian since the 1960s, but old habits die hard.

Might be difficult for vanilla people to understand, but subs/slaves truly enjoy being owned by their Masters/Mistresses. They need to feel taken care of, and feel free not being responsible for final decisions on everything (or anything), for one reason or another. Slaves feel safe with their contract, the chores, the enforced bedtime, etc. The structure helps them to grow and be more productive.

My gf has a slave mentality and has been a 24/7 slave. When we met she kind of wanted me to be her Miss, but I didn't have it in me, even though I am comfortable with decision-making. It felt too much like parenting to me, and I'd already BTDT, for decades. However, once in a while when miss pixi just can't decide on something, she'll ask me to choose and I do.

As far as actual kink play/sex play, I've triggered her inner Top, since I am a switch in that arena.
__________________
Love withers under constraint; its very essence is liberty. It is compatible neither with envy, jealousy or fear. It is there most pure, perfect and unlimited when its votaries live in confidence, equality and unreserve. -- Shelley

me: Mags, 59, living with:
miss pixi, 37
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
bdsm, d/s, dominant, fetishes, metamours, poly, relationships, sex play, submissive

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:12 PM.