The sarcasm/BDSM discussion thread!

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

-Snip-

I am disappointed in myself that I didn't notice this

Daystar's always hard enough. That's a fact.

You let the side down bro.

Your response was flaccid and premature.

So is that why you guys are getting a divorce, some things were flaccid and premature?

[HEADING=1][/HEADING]

 

[Daystar Clarion]

-Snip-

I am disappointed in myself that I didn't notice this

Daystar's always hard enough. That's a fact.

You let the side down bro.

Your response was flaccid and premature.

So is that why you guys are getting a divorce, some things were flaccid and premature?

[HEADING=1][/HEADING]

[sub][sub]Dude, I told you that in secret, why you gotta be that way?[/sub][/sub]

*cough*

Fappy does not have performance issues. Any implication that he does is purely coincidental.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

-Snip-

I am disappointed in myself that I didn't notice this

Daystar's always hard enough. That's a fact.

You let the side down bro.

Your response was flaccid and premature.

So is that why you guys are getting a divorce, some things were flaccid and premature?

[HEADING=1][/HEADING]

[sub][sub]Dude, I told you that in secret, why you gotta be that way?[/sub][/sub]

*cough*

Fappy does not have performance issues. Any implication that he does is purely coincidental.

[sub][sub]Sorry bro, but you left it wide open and I had to go there, I won't divulge any more secrets[/sub][/sub]

*cough*

Well, I'm sure that you guys will still be on the best turns, I mean, bros for life right?

 

[OtherSideofSky]

I imagine that this would be of interest to at least some of you:
http://clarissethorn.com/blog/

Also, the guy from 50 Shades of Grey is 100% pure female fantasy, just like Prince Genji and the heroes of "romance novels" (read: books people don't want to admit are porn).

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

Snippage.

And exactly who do you think write those wikis? You have to remember that the BDSM communities were quite closed and have spent several decades keeping things internal whenever possible, simply because of mainstream condemnation of sexuality in general, and feminism played quite a large role in that incidentally (but that's another topic for another thread. Quite interesting phenomenon, though.). The majority of BDSM and D/s information that was readily available to the average joe/jane was almost mythical in nature and was almost always either exaggerations or outright mistakes.

BDSM and such have exploded quite a bit the last two decades, though, but that has lead to the exact same thing that happened to Wiccans: People invented their own definitions and ideologies even, yelling them out as some sort of truths and what had been kept internal in the communities drowned in the quite frankly ignorant 'truths' of the amateurs that jumped on it. Leaving the "original" watered out and almost on the fringe.

It was not malicious, nor was it outright wrong since there usually was some kernel of truth in it all, but that combined with the very politically correct attitude (at the time, anyway, and to a small degree now) of 'everyone's opinion was relevant and equal in worth' meant that there was massive amounts of misconceptions.

That anything 'roleplayed' is any kind of real BDSM (or D/s in particular, lifestyle in particular) is one of them and it is hugely offensive to those who take the extra steps of giving someone else something so extremely valuable as their unlimited trust, love and bond without pretense or lies.

I don't mind hobbyists of anything, but putting together the kinder egg toy does not make me a master model builder.

Well thank you for the lecture, grandpa. I shall forever think of you as "Hipster BDSM guy".

Okay to be serious here, I know there are a lot of misconceptions about BDSM in the media, on the internet, everywhere. But I don't think it helps to knock down anything that isn't a 100% investment into it. It seems like a very arbitrary line to draw through very significant topics, and acting isolationist about what you do can only spawn more misconceptions.

So sorry, but I disagree. I know I don't have as much experience as you, but your interpretation of BDSM just doesn't seem as enjoyable or fulfilling as what I've heard elsewhere. As in, enjoyable and fulfilling for anyone who might be interested. I'm sure how you approach BDSM is incredibly satisfying for both you and your submissive, and I respect that.

Oh, and sorry about being kinda mocking in the opening of my post. I just found the mix of your tone and the subject matter a bit funny.

 

[fuzz]

I really want to know.

I really want proof that I "hate men" ;D

You haven't said it, but you play up to the rhetoric... you make many comments in these type threads defending women to the bone, no matter what their faults are, whilst making it quite plain that you think men as lesser to women, rather than an equal. This is clear by your inability to accept views that are in any way against any women... even if it is blatant the women is wrong...

It's similar to if someone said: 'Whites are totally awesome, and black people are bad at everything'... but then turn around and say 'I can't be racist because I didn't say I was...'

Thank you.

She hasn't explicitly said she hates men but her attitude towards men are just as damaging, if not much more so. Saying an entire gender should be deprived of holding any power is a very messed up attitude and that kind of thinking should hardly be around in this day and age.

I think it's people wearing the feminist label prancing around trying to have a role reversal of how it was in the early 20th century that are really damaging modern feminism, and even making society take steps back.

It's like all the online petitions about really whiny issues with games and films. It devalues the petitions, so when one is set up for something that needs speaking out on, it has a lessened effect. IE, any legislation put forward to do things like close the wage gap between the sexes is probably more likely to be discarded because of extremist people running around spewing vile everywhere in the name of 'feminism'.

Just some food for thought.

You've got a point but I have to point out that a man and woman doing the same job, working the same hours will earn the same amount of money. The reason men on average earn more is because they choose to get higher paying jobs. Also women often stay at home to raise their children. The 'wage gap' thing is simply not true.

 

[zumbledum]

Aaaaanywho, The topic I want to discuss is: The whole BDSM fetishism type thing. I've heard a lot about a book called 50 shades of gray, a book I am inherently terrified of reading because it started life as a twilight fan-fiction. Buuut, the content of this book is apparently largely sado-masochistic pornography, and, because my brain works in weird ways, It led me to question whether you can truly say the BDSM fetish is sexist or wrong in some other way, considering the fact it requires a lot of mutual trust and co-operation, and that as some people have claimed otherwise, the man is not always dominant.

However, a lot of statements claim that these sorts of actions are inherently sexist towards women, often objectifying them as toys or slaves to a mans whims or desires. But, Even in these situations where the women act submissively, consenting adults usually have to put a lot of trust in their partner to not hurt them too badly, or to any degree that takes away the enjoyment of the experience, and, everything is set in place by choice. So whilst you may not be into that sort of "exchange", Is it neccesarily a bad thing? It almost seems that these exchanges require a deeper and more trustibg relationship from the parties, due to the nature of being immobilised in such a way that your safety is completly in your partners hands. It's interesting to think about, in a kind of "Why the damn hell has this thought just popped into my head" kind of way. So yeah, discuss.

i havent read 50 shades but ive heard enough talking about it to get its not a great window into this world, i would recommend "The training of O" as a better example, again i havent read it but its a well respected book within the scene.

BDSM covers a massive range of practices, sexual and lifestyle. Subs , slaves and Pets all very different things.
I have met women that just like to be submissive with no SM , others than NEED to be whipped/spanked almost for foreplay. some people like to be objectified, tortured, breath control, humiliated, used, degraded, taken by force, put on display.
the amount and range of things as big as the imagination.

is it sexist? i can easily see why the acts are viewed that way, but its a choice thats made, its what they want so i dont see that it matters. and of course there are many switches and dominatrix out there to.

I get the idea of trust being the big thing for some but i have to say for me it isnt, its intense its primal its free and its honest. not implying its not for other flavours we each like a different thing.

i think the fundamental point about the feminist argument is in being able to make the choice in what you want , not in what you happen to want.

 

[Treblaine]

I haven't read 50 Shades... but from what I hear it's the same bodice ripper stories they have been printing since the 1970's only this time far more explicit. From what I've read it does seem to be very focused on the man and what he does and how he makes the woman feel all tingly, I don't think this would appeal to straight males much.

As such I wouldn't call this sexist, it does seem to be serving the genuine non-coerced desires of females but is it healthy? Not my place to say. If I like being tied up and whipped I wouldn't like someone barging into my room an telling me not to have fun.

BDSM is to rape, as Quake is to murder; the difference is a matter of agreed consent and not causing any permanent harm, it's all just a harmless game and everyone has agreed to the rules. Just because I kill my friend in Team Fortress 2 doesn't mean I'd actually violently end his life! I imagine the same is for BDSM play.

 

[Frankster]

Came for the BDSM talk, stayed for the human drama.

Otherwise since a few people say they haven't read it, here's a "lets read" of 50 shades of grey that should bring those interested up to speed:
http://jenniferarmintrout.blogspot.co.uk/p/jen-reads-50-shades-of-grey.html

 

[Nickolai77]

-Snip.-

I disagree completely, it isn't always roleplay and a lot of D/s "couples" are not conventional couples in the slightest, and as such are not equal in anyway (by their own choosing of course.) I guess we're talking about a standard couple that beside to bring BDSM into a relationship, and a relationship formed ground up around BDSM. Relationships like the one in 50 Shades do exist, but it's the way the Mr Grey was portrayed that I think annoyed a lot of people, it implies that to enjoy something like that one has to have severe mental issues.

Yes, there are people who's entire "relationship" revolves around a BDSM lifestyle which i admit seems to fly against what i was saying but- such relationship's arn't conventional relationships- they are all about the sex and fetishism and not the other non-sexual mundane aspects that conventional relationships include. Perhaps the closest comparison people will be familiar with are couples who engage in casual sex but don't pursue a relationship out of it. Nothing wrong with that, but i wouldn't call it a "Relationship" in the same sort of sense of a boy and girlfriend. What i was talking about is people in typical, healthy relationships who integrate BDSM aspects into their sex life. 50 Shades seems to imply that if you engage in BDSM it defines an entire relationship rather than being an aspect of it.

 

[hazabaza1]

Wow, this thread got fun.
Keep it up guys, I'm enjoying this.

 

[Elate]

Yes, there are people who's entire "relationship" revolves around a BDSM lifestyle which i admit seems to fly against what i was saying but- such relationship's arn't conventional relationships- they are all about the sex and fetishism and not the other non-sexual mundane aspects that conventional relationships include. Perhaps the closest comparison people will be familiar with are couples who engage in casual sex but don't pursue a relationship out of it. Nothing wrong with that, but i wouldn't call it a "Relationship" in the same sort of sense of a boy and girlfriend. What i was talking about is people in typical, healthy relationships who integrate BDSM aspects into their sex life. 50 Shades seems to imply that if you engage in BDSM it defines an entire relationship rather than being an aspect of it.

Again I would completely disagree, they aren't just "about the sex and fetishism", they have plenty of their own mundane things, but it's the dynamic of the relationship that is different. Honestly, I find it a little insulting that you view people in those types of relationships similar to those who have casual sex. I know people who've had D/s relationships for years and years, some a lot longer than most marriages. Again I also find that kind of insulting, to insinuate that D/s relationships cannot be healthy relationships. It can define an entire relationship. It's just a different flavour of relationship is all. Like poly and mono relationships, one isn't more valid than the other they're just preferences, but I think we can both agree they're very different, each with their own pitfalls. BDSM centered relationships are much more like that, than like people who go around having casual sex.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

I imagine that this would be of interest to at least some of you:
http://clarissethorn.com/blog/

Also, the guy from 50 Shades of Grey is 100% pure female fantasy, just like Prince Genji and the heroes of "romance novels" (read: books people don't want to admit are porn).

Heroes? Female fantasy? What part of an abusive man coercing a desperate woman into subjugation and suffering makes it only for women?

Pretty sure men can like that.

Apparently a lot of women enjoy fantasizing about that very much, given the astronomical sales figures such novels routinely garner (romance novels and "bodice rippers", like Shakespeare, the Bible and Harry Potter, are barred from most major best sellers lists to prevent them from completely overwhelming more literary works) and the fact that such novels are overwhelmingly authored by women. These are simple, garden variety submissive female fantasies (the male equivalent gives us image of the dominatrix in the mass media and a lot of silly fantasy novels about amazons, among other things). Their are similar fantasies produced by and for men, although they are generally different in focus. Naturally, there is a fair bit of crossover when it comes to interest, but it only takes a brief examination of the people publicly obsessing over Christian Grey to know whose fantasy he is.

It is important to remember that, just as with rape fantasies, someone having a sexual fantasy about something doesn't mean they want it to happen to them in real life.

Also, why the question mark after "heroes"? Are you unacquainted with literary convention and imagining the term in another context (its meaning here is essentially synonymous with "male lead", although not with "protagonist", as such stories are generally written from the female viewpoint), or do you believe a different term would be more applicable? Please note that I am referring specifically to heroes of romance novels, not to heroes in general.

 

[Elate]

-Snip.-

Oh thank god, I thought I was the only person that found it offensive, but yeah, I completely agree with all of that. It makes me kind of sad that (the vast majority, anyway) of people see BDSM as something to "Spice up the bedroom antics" and thus dismiss said relationships, and even more so when perceived views are like those in 50 Shades, where the woman is always the slave, submissive or whatever. Fuck gender roles yo.

Off topic, the escapist was the last place I would have expected a debate on BDSM, especially one this big anyway.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

Just to add fire on the subject. I just read a realtive new study today about how we percieve each other.

They researched how the brain memorizes other people. They showed all test subjects (male&female) diffrent photos of either objects, men or women.
The interesting fact was, that both men and women (78% of the subjects) percieve women the same way they percieve objects. But not so with men.

That's why people could still identify women, when they only showed the people parts of the women, or upside down or both together. Same with objects like cars, houses etc.
But men could only be recognized when seen fully.

So biologicaly our brain objectifies women.