Education... where is it these days?

[_ID_]

I think the notion of educating new people to BDSM is a noble notion, but one that presents more unsolvable problems than it can be possible fathom.

For instance, in the opening post the OP states that we can educate newbies on simple things like the difference between submissives and slaves. However even this one simple concept is fraught with differences in definition amongst life-stylers that results in no clear definition at all. That is unless you subscribe to the pigeon hole idea of a label for roles the majority believes in.

WTF? you might ask. Well some people have one definition for submissive, and a different definition for slave. Yet another person will say that the definition you give for submissive is their definition for slave. So you then enter into a problem of what definition to use, and if you try to give a newbie a definition they should use, you are condemning them to using your rules for their style of BDSM. As we all know BDSM is as individual to each person as are our fingerprints. All have similarities to call them fingerprints, but are all different. The same idea applies to BDSM. We all have our own style, but it is similar enough we can all call it BDSM.

So while the notion of educating newbies is a good idea, you must be able to restrict your enthusiasm for your own style to allow for their growth. Presenting principles to follow, rather than rules and boxes to be put in.

There are things we can educate on that isn't as in flux as definition of sub/slave. Things like flogging, caning, single tails. We can educate new people on what areas to hit and not hit, on what areas are okay to put a needle through, and what ones are not. We can educate on how to electrocute a person without killing them. Anything beyond those basic things are and should be restricted to foundation of ideas and principles, rather than rules.

[The Lord Winter]

I think the notion of educating new people to BDSM is a noble notion, but one that presents more unsolvable problems than it can be possible fathom.

I'm glad that you agree at least that the notion is noble, but if no one attempts it, how are we to maintain the barely accepted status of our lifestyle in the eyes of global society? Already, we are faced with laws that restrict BDSM in the printed word. Laws on the practice of BDSM are sure to follow.

For instance, in the opening post the OP states that we can educate newbies on simple things like the difference between submissives and slaves. However even this one simple concept is fraught with differences in definition amongst life-stylers that results in no clear definition at all. That is unless you subscribe to the pigeon hole idea of a label for roles the majority believes in.

WTF? you might ask. Well some people have one definition for submissive, and a different definition for slave. Yet another person will say that the definition you give for submissive is their definition for slave. So you then enter into a problem of what definition to use, and if you try to give a newbie a definition they should use, you are condemning them to using your rules for their style of BDSM. As we all know BDSM is as individual to each person as are our fingerprints. All have similarities to call them fingerprints, but are all different. The same idea applies to BDSM. We all have our own style, but it is similar enough we can all call it BDSM.

Well, my friend, the consequences of not pigeon-holing it are more severe than the consequences of doing so.

A submissive is someone who gives up control in a BDSM relationship with the expectation of being able to demand that her/his needs be met, he/she is also able to walk away from the relationship at any time, for any reason, collared or not. A submissive is also able to set limits. From a Dom's point of view, a sub is someone to be claimed, someone to be collared, but never truly owned.

A slave is someone who defines their pleasure through pleasing their master. His/her own needs are always secondary to the master's. This first part is from the perspective of a slave's mentality. From the eyes of a Master, the slave has no rights at all, is a piece of property to be used as the owner sees fit. They do not have the right to walk away, though they are perfectly welcome to beg for release, which may or may not be granted.

The consequences of not setting even this most basic of definitions are quite dire. They invite unscrupulous Doms to twist the definitions so that they may trick a new submissive into believing that he/she has no rights at all, and thus institute entrapment and abuse from a position of gross deception. I must disagree with you here, Dawg, the potential for harm is just too great to ignore.

As for issues of style, that is another matter of entirety. You speak of principles, what are these if not rules that a competent Dom should follow? How is a submissive to expect that she will be treated fairly, be kept safe while giving up power through trust, if her Dom's principles are not a hard and fast set of rules to which he holds himself accountable, and is held to account by his peers as well? Principles vary in their interpretation as well, and if we do not organize them into a set of standards we will fall prey to the old adage "You have to stand for something, or you will fall for anything".

I do agree with you, however, on your final point of educating people on proper application of techniques with the tools of our trade, however. There is a right and wrong way to swing a flogger, a whip, and just about any other impact instrument we use, and for safety's sake alone, educating others in the proper application of these tools should be paramount.

Well, time to pass the soapbox to someone else.

[Ozme52]

A submissive is someone who gives up control in a BDSM relationship with the expectation of being able to demand that her/his needs be met, he/she is also able to walk away from the relationship at any time, for any reason, collared or not. A submissive is also able to set limits. From a Dom's point of view, a sub is someone to be claimed, someone to be collared, but never truly owned.

A slave is someone who defines their pleasure through pleasing their master. His/her own needs are always secondary to the master's. This first part is from the perspective of a slave's mentality. From the eyes of a Master, the slave has no rights at all, is a piece of property to be used as the owner sees fit. They do not have the right to walk away, though they are perfectly welcome to beg for release, which may or may not be granted.

Good examples...


of exactly why you'll never get consensus for a curriculum.

I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the membership would say that these definitions do not fit their own situations.

[_ID_]

Well, my friend, the consequences of not pigeon-holing it are more severe than the consequences of doing so.

I disagree.

A submissive is someone who gives up control in a BDSM relationship with the expectation of being able to demand that her/his needs be met, he/she is also able to walk away from the relationship at any time, for any reason, collared or not. A submissive is also able to set limits. From a Dom's point of view, a sub is someone to be claimed, someone to be collared, but never truly owned.

A slave is someone who defines their pleasure through pleasing their master. His/her own needs are always secondary to the master's. This first part is from the perspective of a slave's mentality. From the eyes of a Master, the slave has no rights at all, is a piece of property to be used as the owner sees fit. They do not have the right to walk away, though they are perfectly welcome to beg for release, which may or may not be granted.

And therein lies the crux of the problem with your vision.

The entire lifestyle is based on consensuality. The moment you remove that you commit what is called false imprisonment or in some places kidnapping. Both slave and submissive must have the ability to leave a relationship should they desire. This single requirement invalidates your definition, and makes the definition of submissive and slave nearly impossible to define for everyone.

The better way to proceed would be to give someone who's new an idea of what a slave mindset might be based on, and what a submissive mindset might be based on. Then let them decide how they want to apply either or neither to their relationship.

For example, you did say that a slave derives pleasure out of serving their Master. This a submissive can also do. Derive pleasure out of serving their dominant. A foot rub, cleaning house in a maids outfit are two examples that can be done by either submissive or slave. It is the mindset while doing so, and the context in which it is done that makes the difference. Both are individual to the people involved, and so makes it impossible to define.

As for issues of style, that is another matter of entirety. You speak of principles, what are these if not rules that a competent Dom should follow? How is a submissive to expect that she will be treated fairly, be kept safe while giving up power through trust, if her Dom's principles are not a hard and fast set of rules to which he holds himself accountable, and is held to account by his peers as well? Principles vary in their interpretation as well, and if we do not organize them into a set of standards we will fall prey to the old adage "You have to stand for something, or you will fall for anything".

Principles are not rules, they are principles. Rules are laws, and save for the consensuality aspect of our lifestyle, there are no hard and fast rules or laws. So how is a sub to expect to be treated fairly you ask? By negotiating the conditions of their submission. Each person, bottom/submissive/slave, does this before entering into a relationship with a Top/Dominant/Master. How else would you be able to come to an agreement of what safe words to use, what things are limits, both hard and soft? Once those conditions have been agreed upon, the person submitting, be it a single scene or a 24/7 relationship, has the expectation that the Top/Dominant/Master will respect those boundaries. Not doing so removes the consensuality aspect I mentioned earlier, and becomes abuse. People who are abusive have no business in BDSM, nor any relationship for that matter.

I do agree with you, however, on your final point of educating people on proper application of techniques with the tools of our trade, however. There is a right and wrong way to swing a flogger, a whip, and just about any other impact instrument we use, and for safety's sake alone, educating others in the proper application of these tools should be paramount.

There are multiple ways to swing a flogger. The key is knowing what areas not to hit, and how to prevent serious injury. There are multiple ways to use a cane, knowing how to prevent serious injury with it is the part we can pass on. Technique for either is something we can show, and let the person learning decide for themselves if that is the technique they wish to use. So is it windmill or Florentine for swinging a flogger, wrap-arounds or not when striking the body? Some people want the wrap-arounds, some don't. Some people can't do windmill, some can't do Florentine, so give both, and let them decide. Again principles of technique, rules of consensuality and what areas of the body to avoid are things we teach, the rest is up to them to define for themselves.

[The Lord Winter]

I disagree.



And therein lies the crux of the problem with your vision.

The entire lifestyle is based on consensuality. The moment you remove that you commit what is called false imprisonment or in some places kidnapping. Both slave and submissive must have the ability to leave a relationship should they desire. This single requirement invalidates your definition, and makes the definition of submissive and slave nearly impossible to define for everyone.

Actually, consent can be coerced, even forced. The entire lifestyle is based upon TRUST. The moment you remove that, you create resentment in your partner and they start looking for a way out of your control, and out of your life. The requirement of consensuality, while valid, is tagential to the point you make on slavery. A slave is, by definition, a piece of property. If you, as a Master or Mistress, do not make the slave feel owned, you are falling short in your duties, and will soon find yourself asked for the release of your charge. Ownership and possession are paramount to the mindset of a slave, and must be tended first and foremost in all aspect of the relationship... personal life included.

The better way to proceed would be to give someone who's new an idea of what a slave mindset might be based on, and what a submissive mindset might be based on. Then let them decide how they want to apply either or neither to their relationship.

For example, you did say that a slave derives pleasure out of serving their Master. This a submissive can also do. Derive pleasure out of serving their dominant. A foot rub, cleaning house in a maids outfit are two examples that can be done by either submissive or slave. It is the mindset while doing so, and the context in which it is done that makes the difference. Both are individual to the people involved, and so makes it impossible to define.

Well, to start with, you quoted me accurately with the website function, then misread my words. I said a slave DEFINES their pleasure through PLEASING their master. There is a fundamental difference here. One does not have to serve directly or even indirectly to please. It may be the master's pleasure to treat the slave as a complete pain toy, yet the slave has no particular affinity for pain, but enjoys being treated as such because it is pleasing to their master. You also neglected the rest of my definitions on submissives and slaves entirely. Slaves do not believe they have the right to set limits. It becomes the master's responsibility to uncover what is traumatic for the slave, what is neutral, and what is enjoyable. This is vastly different from a submissive, as the sub as the right to set limits from the beginning. Furthermore, the sub has the right to walk away from the relationship, collared or not, without question. The slave, while in the eyes of the law, does as well, if the Master or Mistress is doing their job correctly, then the slave will feel that they MUST beg for release or else remain until released.

Principles are not rules, they are principles. Rules are laws, and save for the consensuality aspect of our lifestyle, there are no hard and fast rules or laws. So how is a sub to expect to be treated fairly you ask? By negotiating the conditions of their submission. Each person, bottom/submissive/slave, does this before entering into a relationship with a Top/Dominant/Master. How else would you be able to come to an agreement of what safe words to use, what things are limits, both hard and soft? Once those conditions have been agreed upon, the person submitting, be it a single scene or a 24/7 relationship, has the expectation that the Top/Dominant/Master will respect those boundaries. Not doing so removes the consensuality aspect I mentioned earlier, and becomes abuse. People who are abusive have no business in BDSM, nor any relationship for that matter.

I could not disagree more with your use of semantics here. Principles are rules if nothing else, especially when they become personal principles. These principles serve as a guide to all aspects of the person involved. Rules are NOT laws. I have yet to visit a public pool where the rules were codified law, or any other public locale for that matter. I have already addressed the issue of consensuality versus trust in my previous paragraph, and will not resort to redundancy in order to drive that point further. Also, in my previous paragraph, I addressed the issues of limits and the slave versus sub mindset, though, I freely admit to agreeing with you on the negotiation. It is paramount to forging any BDSM relationship. However, once again, when dealing with a slave, it becomes the Master's responsibility to discover what is traumatic for the slave, as the slave will not likely be willing to set limits upon the Master if the person sees the Master as someone suitable to meet their needs.

There are multiple ways to swing a flogger. The key is knowing what areas not to hit, and how to prevent serious injury. There are multiple ways to use a cane, knowing how to prevent serious injury with it is the part we can pass on. Technique for either is something we can show, and let the person learning decide for themselves if that is the technique they wish to use. So is it windmill or Florentine for swinging a flogger, wrap-arounds or not when striking the body? Some people want the wrap-arounds, some don't. Some people can't do windmill, some can't do Florentine, so give both, and let them decide. Again principles of technique, rules of consensuality and what areas of the body to avoid are things we teach, the rest is up to them to define for themselves.

While I agree that there are multiple safe ways to swing a flogger, and also to use many of the tools of our trade, I must call you to task on the issue of wraparound. Wraparound is a result of a poor aim. How can you defend something so obviously a result of poor technique, when you spoke just a few sentences before that to the importance of preventing serious injury. If one cannot properly hit where one is aiming, how is it that injury is to be avoided?

[_ID_]

Actually, consent can be coerced, even forced. The entire lifestyle is based upon TRUST. The moment you remove that, you create resentment in your partner and they start looking for a way out of your control, and out of your life. The requirement of consensuality, while valid, is tagential to the point you make on slavery. A slave is, by definition, a piece of property. If you, as a Master or Mistress, do not make the slave feel owned, you are falling short in your duties, and will soon find yourself asked for the release of your charge. Ownership and possession are paramount to the mindset of a slave, and must be tended first and foremost in all aspect of the relationship... personal life included.

No, when ANYTHING is forced it ceases to be consensual. This again is the crux of the fault with your thinking. Until you understand that, you will not come to understand how people can define the same words and ideas so very differently.

Well, to start with, you quoted me accurately with the website function, then misread my words. I said a slave DEFINES their pleasure through PLEASING their master. There is a fundamental difference here. One does not have to serve directly or even indirectly to please. It may be the master's pleasure to treat the slave as a complete pain toy, yet the slave has no particular affinity for pain, but enjoys being treated as such because it is pleasing to their master. You also neglected the rest of my definitions on submissives and slaves entirely. Slaves do not believe they have the right to set limits. It becomes the master's responsibility to uncover what is traumatic for the slave, what is neutral, and what is enjoyable. This is vastly different from a submissive, as the sub as the right to set limits from the beginning. Furthermore, the sub has the right to walk away from the relationship, collared or not, without question. The slave, while in the eyes of the law, does as well, if the Master or Mistress is doing their job correctly, then the slave will feel that they MUST beg for release or else remain until released.

That is your definition and yours alone. It is not how I nor my slave define our relationship. Again, hence the reason your idea is faulted from the very beginning.

I could not disagree more with your use of semantics here. Principles are rules if nothing else, especially when they become personal principles. These principles serve as a guide to all aspects of the person involved. Rules are NOT laws. I have yet to visit a public pool where the rules were codified law, or any other public locale for that matter. I have already addressed the issue of consensuality versus trust in my previous paragraph, and will not resort to redundancy in order to drive that point further. Also, in my previous paragraph, I addressed the issues of limits and the slave versus sub mindset, though, I freely admit to agreeing with you on the negotiation. It is paramount to forging any BDSM relationship. However, once again, when dealing with a slave, it becomes the Master's responsibility to discover what is traumatic for the slave, as the slave will not likely be willing to set limits upon the Master if the person sees the Master as someone suitable to meet their needs.

Then we will have to agree to disagree. We see things differently, and that's my point.

While I agree that there are multiple safe ways to swing a flogger, and also to use many of the tools of our trade, I must call you to task on the issue of wraparound. Wraparound is a result of a poor aim. How can you defend something so obviously a result of poor technique, when you spoke just a few sentences before that to the importance of preventing serious injury. If one cannot properly hit where one is aiming, how is it that injury is to be avoided?

Like I said, some people want the wrap around.

[The Lord Winter]

No, when ANYTHING is forced it ceases to be consensual. This again is the crux of the fault with your thinking. Until you understand that, you will not come to understand how people can define the same words and ideas so very differently.

Oh? Perhaps that is how so many criminals get out of rape because of the confusion on the consent issue? I have to continue to disagree here.

Willing consent cannot exist without trust.

Don't believe me? Ask a virgin who got talked out of her pants on prom night when just a few hours before, she'd been adamant on maintaining that virginity as a gift for her groom on the first night of the honeymoon, and went on to regret that decision for the rest of her life because of a smooth talking young man. That is a fine example of coerced consent.

For an example of forced consent we need only look to cases of ransom. It takes consent of the account holder to remove funds from the bank, funds that would not be touched under normal circumstances. Yet the parents who find themselves in the situation give consent to not only withdraw the money, but hand it over to the kidnappers in that situation because no other option is available to them... thus it is forced.

No, trust is the most important aspect of any relationship, bar none. Love cannot exist without it, and nor can the concept of Willing Consent. When trust fails in a marriage, divorce soon follows. Ask a spouse who's been a victim of marital infidelity.

Do your homework on the terms, my friend. I'll be waiting patiently.

That is your definition and yours alone. It is not how I nor my slave define our relationship. Again, hence the reason your idea is faulted from the very beginning.

Seems like you haven't studied Gorean slave psychology very much. Gorean slaves are expected to exist solely for their master's pleasure. Their wants and needs are a secondary consideration, if a consideration at all. And there are slaves that absolutely THRIVE on this kind of treatment. Does it make my idea faulted just because it doesn't match up with yours when I put it out there, absolutely not. What it shows is that my definitions of submissive and slave are illustrations of the complete spectrum from a view of the opposing poles. Then we can fill in the gaps by identifying all the combinations that fall in between.

Since you opened the door by labeling my ideas as faulted, I believe I shall reciprocate in kind by labeling yours as short-sighted. That, in and of itself is a sad thing, when one considers that the responsibility of every Dom and Master is not to understand just their own sub or slave, but to understand the entire spectrum so that they may not only identify the needs of their charge, but help them grow beyond their preconceived notions and limits.

Then we will have to agree to disagree. We see things differently, and that's my point.

Seems that we have reached an accord on that point.

Like I said, some people want the wrap around.

Interesting that you would advocate safe practices, then turn around and defend unsafe practices in a follow-up response.

[_ID_]

Oh? Perhaps that is how so many criminals get out of rape because of the confusion on the consent issue? I have to continue to disagree here.

Willing consent cannot exist without trust.

Don't believe me? Ask a virgin who got talked out of her pants on prom night when just a few hours before, she'd been adamant on maintaining that virginity as a gift for her groom on the first night of the honeymoon, and went on to regret that decision for the rest of her life because of a smooth talking young man. That is a fine example of coerced consent.

For an example of forced consent we need only look to cases of ransom. It takes consent of the account holder to remove funds from the bank, funds that would not be touched under normal circumstances. Yet the parents who find themselves in the situation give consent to not only withdraw the money, but hand it over to the kidnappers in that situation because no other option is available to them... thus it is forced.

No, trust is the most important aspect of any relationship, bar none. Love cannot exist without it, and nor can the concept of Willing Consent. When trust fails in a marriage, divorce soon follows. Ask a spouse who's been a victim of marital infidelity.

Do your homework on the terms, my friend. I'll be waiting patiently.





Seems like you haven't studied Gorean slave psychology very much. Gorean slaves are expected to exist solely for their master's pleasure. Their wants and needs are a secondary consideration, if a consideration at all. And there are slaves that absolutely THRIVE on this kind of treatment. Does it make my idea faulted just because it doesn't match up with yours when I put it out there, absolutely not. What it shows is that my definitions of submissive and slave are illustrations of the complete spectrum from a view of the opposing poles. Then we can fill in the gaps by identifying all the combinations that fall in between.

Since you opened the door by labeling my ideas as faulted, I believe I shall reciprocate in kind by labeling yours as short-sighted. That, in and of itself is a sad thing, when one considers that the responsibility of every Dom and Master is not to understand just their own sub or slave, but to understand the entire spectrum so that they may not only identify the needs of their charge, but help them grow beyond their preconceived notions and limits.




Seems that we have reached an accord on that point.




Interesting that you would advocate safe practices, then turn around and defend unsafe practices in a follow-up response.

I am going to cease debating with you. Why? Because you refuse to see the fallacy of your proposal. I don't espouse that my ideas are the best, are the most correct. They are mine, and I subscribe to them because that's what I want.

On the point of preaching safety. I didn't. I said teach different methods and ideas. A wrap-around is risky sure, but some people want them. The point was that people have differing techniques, some of them very risky. Explaining the different methods, and letting the person decide for themselves what it is they want is the point. Being the SSC police is as wrong as being the definition police. I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp that concept.

On the notion of gorean slaves. It's a fantasy world that can't be subscribed to as the books are written. The removal of consensual relationships (as is written in the books) ceases to be a relationship. And as you pointed out, removes the trust that might have been.

Be well, and hopefully your mentor can teach you some of things I was unable to.