damyanti
10-22-2008, 04:12 AM
Before I begin...I would be extremely grateful if we could keep this on a nice intellectual debate about BDSM level as opposed to digressing into a political debate on female rights and position, because if you do that I swear I am going to puke so hard it will hit you in the face no matter where you live. Keep it personal, no one here will object or judge you for what you do in your own home, but the moment you start talking about the society as a whole and or generalizing all women, my gagging reflex activates.
What is BDSM? I am talking about more than just the meaning of the acronym.
A very good site called Taken in Hand (http://www.takeninhand.com/why.is.bdsm.so.popular) has an interesting article about it...(its an interesting site, but while I like a lot of what he says, I also find a lot of it very stifling and suffocating. )
"Those in the BDSM community have worked tirelessly to develop an ethos that is responsible (anti-abuse, etc.) and acceptable to more conventional folk. This work has been very successful. Whilst most people are not particularly drawn to BDSM themselves, they do not regard those in the BDSM community as mentally ill (any more). To the extent that they know of its existence, most people are aware that BDSM is firmly a part of the liberal tradition rather than a throwback to the bad old days. The BDSM community has successfully argued that BDSM is not a threat to the individual rights we have rightly fought so hard for, it is a sexual kink or lifestyle individuals can legitimately choose. BDSM writers typically stress consent and safety, often advocating the use of a “safeword” when “playing” or in a “scene”. Some devote much space to stressing that the control and dominance expressed in these “scenes” is just pretend, not real. BDSM people are proud of the fact that their forums are open to people of all inclinations and orientations.
BDSM is thus seen as a sexual kink, safe, sane and consensual, non-sexist, nondiscriminatory, an equal opportunities lifestyle, tolerant, inclusive, trendy, thoroughly liberal, and not having an atavistic tendency in sight! All in all, what could possibly upset anyone about BDSM? It meets all the criteria for political correctness.
By comparison, Taken In Hand has a loooooong way to go to achieve the same level of acceptance from the wider community. Taken In Hand casually violates just about every taboo in the book. For a start, whilst Taken In Hand is very much a choice and highly consensual in a deep sense, you won't find the BDSM maxim safe, sane and consensual peppered around this site. Secondly, this site is aimed strictly at those whose preference is for a relationship in which the man is in control of the woman. This is because Taken In Hand is my website, and I am more interested in exploring my own preferences than in toeing the line or winning any popularity contest. So Taken In Hand has been accused of being sexist, discriminatory, old-fashioned, and atavistic. (I don't think it is at all.) And I have been accused of advocating taking away women’s rights, and of avocating even non-consensual “violence against women”. (I'm not.) Taken In Hand folk tend to have little interest in “safewords” and “scenes” (or indeed, in “the scene” or “the lifestyle”), and unlike many in the BDSM community, we stress that the control is real. To some, if it is real, then it is by definition abuse. Is it any wonder then that Taken In Hand triggers a little social disapprobation both from society in general and to an even greater extent from some corners of the BDSM community?
Most people would not want to be part of something likely to attract huge disapprobation so BDSM is the safe option. Moreover, success breeds success, and the more well-known and acceptable BDSM has become, the more likely it has become that anyone interested in relationships in which there is an element of control will investigate BDSM. But not everyone involved in BDSM is at heart BDSM. I myself assumed that I must have BDSM inclinations many years ago, because there was nothing else out there at the time that I knew of. This seems to be a common experience of those who are drawn to Taken In Hand. People try to squeeze themselves into the BDSM shoe, but it doesn’t always fit very well.
One of the reasons I often say that I hate to be put in a box or labelled as being BDSM, DD, D/s, TPE or anything else is that I think that tying oneself down to a particular defined box tends logically to exert pressure upon oneself to become a better fit for the label instead of forging one’s own path. Often, people are very much in the process of exploring their nature and preferences, and evolving a better understanding of these things, and in that case, defining themselves can impede the evolution of the self-knowledge that could be so extremely valuable to them in the long-run. It is much easier to discover and develop your own unique preferences and ideas if you aren't stuck in the mire of a lot of fixed ideas.
BDSM is very good at being inclusive and tolerant in some respects, but I find it terribly rigid and fixed in other respects. Some of the most heated criticism I have had on my article, When rape is a gift, has been from BDSM people. Individuals who consider themselves BDSM have started their own forum on consensual ‘ravishment” because they have been shunned by the BDSM community. Visit any BDSM forum and you will see tedious amounts of arguing about protocol, who may address whom and how, who has been “in the lifestyle” for how long (the implication being that those who have been BDSM for the longest are likely to know more or be more right in their ideas than those who have not), people castigating one another for incorrect form, and lots of stress on how to become “a better submissive”. With its tendency to have quite rigid protocols, assumptions and fixed ideas about how people should interact and what it's all about, BDSM is bound to feel stifling to anyone who wants to explore their own preferences and ideas in this sphere in an unfettered way.
And because BDSM scenes must be ‘pretend’ or ‘just fantasy’ to avoid upsetting the political applecart, a whole rigmarole of jargon and artificial-seeming modes of address and interaction, strange clothing and equipment, and stylised rituals and scenes has developed in BDSM. Even those who do not take the line that the control is just ‘pretend’ have been influenced greatly by these things. These things are not really the point at all, they are merely a way of stressing the consensual and harmless nature of BDSM. If we look at the idea of authority and control in itself, there is nothing in those ideas that necessarily leads to BDSM forms of expression. People of good will can have different preferences.
Some might like one BDSM element but not others. Not all men who want control in a relationship are interested in rules and rituals or making the woman beg or kneel or sit on the floor or eat out of a dog's bowl. Not all men want the woman to call them sir or master or speak in the third person. Not every woman who wants to be under the authority of a man wants to be a BDSM slave, or to wear a BDSM collar, or engage in anything undignified or humiliating, and not all submissive women have a desire to serve.
Lots of different individuals have an interest in relationships in which the man is in control. BDSM people might like highly planned and stylised “scenes”; D/s people might stress the idea of training and service; DD people might stress punishment spanking; and Taken In Hand people might not want to get too fixed on any one way a man can control a woman.
Another effect of the insistence of many in the BDSM community that the control is just pretend, not real, is that logically, that means that to get the same level of intensity and erotic tension as real control can give, much more extreme practices are needed. Thus, BDSM tends to be associated with esoteric sexual kinks and fetishes and ever more rigid protocols and rituals rather than more conventional-seeming or traditional relationships.
Both because of its rather odd culture and despite it, BDSM is and will continue to be popular, and probably a lot more popular than Taken In Hand for many years to come. You might think that BDSM is too liberal for Taken In Hand folk, but in my case at least, you'd be wrong. If anything, BDSM culture is not liberal and tolerant enough! Taken In Hand is by no means for everyone, but if you are a person who is drawn to the idea of male-controlled relationships and you want to be free to explore your interest without rigid prescriptions and proscriptions about how to behave and what to think, you might find Taken In Hand worth a look. "
A friend of mine has another interesting point on it....
A person who plays a villain in the movie is not actually a villain; and if you and your partner play out roles for your mutual enjoyment, it doesn't mean you're being abusive. You and your partner can play out roles in which he is harsh and demanding and you are his sex slave, and this does not mean that either of you actually believe women should be subordinate to men.
submissive - inclined or willing to submit to orders or wishes of others or showing such inclination; "submissive servants"; "a submissive reply"; "replacing troublemakers with more submissive people"
subordinate - belonging to a lower or inferior class or rank; secondary. Subject to the authority or control of another.
What distinction do you make between the two?
I always defined myself as submissive, but not subordinate...though obviously they interlope somewhat.
What is BDSM? I am talking about more than just the meaning of the acronym.
A very good site called Taken in Hand (http://www.takeninhand.com/why.is.bdsm.so.popular) has an interesting article about it...(its an interesting site, but while I like a lot of what he says, I also find a lot of it very stifling and suffocating. )
"Those in the BDSM community have worked tirelessly to develop an ethos that is responsible (anti-abuse, etc.) and acceptable to more conventional folk. This work has been very successful. Whilst most people are not particularly drawn to BDSM themselves, they do not regard those in the BDSM community as mentally ill (any more). To the extent that they know of its existence, most people are aware that BDSM is firmly a part of the liberal tradition rather than a throwback to the bad old days. The BDSM community has successfully argued that BDSM is not a threat to the individual rights we have rightly fought so hard for, it is a sexual kink or lifestyle individuals can legitimately choose. BDSM writers typically stress consent and safety, often advocating the use of a “safeword” when “playing” or in a “scene”. Some devote much space to stressing that the control and dominance expressed in these “scenes” is just pretend, not real. BDSM people are proud of the fact that their forums are open to people of all inclinations and orientations.
BDSM is thus seen as a sexual kink, safe, sane and consensual, non-sexist, nondiscriminatory, an equal opportunities lifestyle, tolerant, inclusive, trendy, thoroughly liberal, and not having an atavistic tendency in sight! All in all, what could possibly upset anyone about BDSM? It meets all the criteria for political correctness.
By comparison, Taken In Hand has a loooooong way to go to achieve the same level of acceptance from the wider community. Taken In Hand casually violates just about every taboo in the book. For a start, whilst Taken In Hand is very much a choice and highly consensual in a deep sense, you won't find the BDSM maxim safe, sane and consensual peppered around this site. Secondly, this site is aimed strictly at those whose preference is for a relationship in which the man is in control of the woman. This is because Taken In Hand is my website, and I am more interested in exploring my own preferences than in toeing the line or winning any popularity contest. So Taken In Hand has been accused of being sexist, discriminatory, old-fashioned, and atavistic. (I don't think it is at all.) And I have been accused of advocating taking away women’s rights, and of avocating even non-consensual “violence against women”. (I'm not.) Taken In Hand folk tend to have little interest in “safewords” and “scenes” (or indeed, in “the scene” or “the lifestyle”), and unlike many in the BDSM community, we stress that the control is real. To some, if it is real, then it is by definition abuse. Is it any wonder then that Taken In Hand triggers a little social disapprobation both from society in general and to an even greater extent from some corners of the BDSM community?
Most people would not want to be part of something likely to attract huge disapprobation so BDSM is the safe option. Moreover, success breeds success, and the more well-known and acceptable BDSM has become, the more likely it has become that anyone interested in relationships in which there is an element of control will investigate BDSM. But not everyone involved in BDSM is at heart BDSM. I myself assumed that I must have BDSM inclinations many years ago, because there was nothing else out there at the time that I knew of. This seems to be a common experience of those who are drawn to Taken In Hand. People try to squeeze themselves into the BDSM shoe, but it doesn’t always fit very well.
One of the reasons I often say that I hate to be put in a box or labelled as being BDSM, DD, D/s, TPE or anything else is that I think that tying oneself down to a particular defined box tends logically to exert pressure upon oneself to become a better fit for the label instead of forging one’s own path. Often, people are very much in the process of exploring their nature and preferences, and evolving a better understanding of these things, and in that case, defining themselves can impede the evolution of the self-knowledge that could be so extremely valuable to them in the long-run. It is much easier to discover and develop your own unique preferences and ideas if you aren't stuck in the mire of a lot of fixed ideas.
BDSM is very good at being inclusive and tolerant in some respects, but I find it terribly rigid and fixed in other respects. Some of the most heated criticism I have had on my article, When rape is a gift, has been from BDSM people. Individuals who consider themselves BDSM have started their own forum on consensual ‘ravishment” because they have been shunned by the BDSM community. Visit any BDSM forum and you will see tedious amounts of arguing about protocol, who may address whom and how, who has been “in the lifestyle” for how long (the implication being that those who have been BDSM for the longest are likely to know more or be more right in their ideas than those who have not), people castigating one another for incorrect form, and lots of stress on how to become “a better submissive”. With its tendency to have quite rigid protocols, assumptions and fixed ideas about how people should interact and what it's all about, BDSM is bound to feel stifling to anyone who wants to explore their own preferences and ideas in this sphere in an unfettered way.
And because BDSM scenes must be ‘pretend’ or ‘just fantasy’ to avoid upsetting the political applecart, a whole rigmarole of jargon and artificial-seeming modes of address and interaction, strange clothing and equipment, and stylised rituals and scenes has developed in BDSM. Even those who do not take the line that the control is just ‘pretend’ have been influenced greatly by these things. These things are not really the point at all, they are merely a way of stressing the consensual and harmless nature of BDSM. If we look at the idea of authority and control in itself, there is nothing in those ideas that necessarily leads to BDSM forms of expression. People of good will can have different preferences.
Some might like one BDSM element but not others. Not all men who want control in a relationship are interested in rules and rituals or making the woman beg or kneel or sit on the floor or eat out of a dog's bowl. Not all men want the woman to call them sir or master or speak in the third person. Not every woman who wants to be under the authority of a man wants to be a BDSM slave, or to wear a BDSM collar, or engage in anything undignified or humiliating, and not all submissive women have a desire to serve.
Lots of different individuals have an interest in relationships in which the man is in control. BDSM people might like highly planned and stylised “scenes”; D/s people might stress the idea of training and service; DD people might stress punishment spanking; and Taken In Hand people might not want to get too fixed on any one way a man can control a woman.
Another effect of the insistence of many in the BDSM community that the control is just pretend, not real, is that logically, that means that to get the same level of intensity and erotic tension as real control can give, much more extreme practices are needed. Thus, BDSM tends to be associated with esoteric sexual kinks and fetishes and ever more rigid protocols and rituals rather than more conventional-seeming or traditional relationships.
Both because of its rather odd culture and despite it, BDSM is and will continue to be popular, and probably a lot more popular than Taken In Hand for many years to come. You might think that BDSM is too liberal for Taken In Hand folk, but in my case at least, you'd be wrong. If anything, BDSM culture is not liberal and tolerant enough! Taken In Hand is by no means for everyone, but if you are a person who is drawn to the idea of male-controlled relationships and you want to be free to explore your interest without rigid prescriptions and proscriptions about how to behave and what to think, you might find Taken In Hand worth a look. "
A friend of mine has another interesting point on it....
A person who plays a villain in the movie is not actually a villain; and if you and your partner play out roles for your mutual enjoyment, it doesn't mean you're being abusive. You and your partner can play out roles in which he is harsh and demanding and you are his sex slave, and this does not mean that either of you actually believe women should be subordinate to men.
submissive - inclined or willing to submit to orders or wishes of others or showing such inclination; "submissive servants"; "a submissive reply"; "replacing troublemakers with more submissive people"
subordinate - belonging to a lower or inferior class or rank; secondary. Subject to the authority or control of another.
What distinction do you make between the two?
I always defined myself as submissive, but not subordinate...though obviously they interlope somewhat.