The sarcasm/BDSM discussion thread!

[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.

 

[Elate]

-Snip.-

Personally I like the "It's whatever you want it to be" school of thought, which is why it really grates when people either dismiss it as "just roleplay" or "just sexual" and try and claim that what they are saying is fact. It's whatever that person wants it to be for them and who is anyone else to say otherwise.

It is nice that it's becoming a lot more widespread, though from what I understand it's still a bit iffy here in the UK due to abuse laws, from what I understand there's no real clauses so far (last I checked they were in the works.) to protect the partner of anyone who goes crying wolf, after consenting. But then again, everyone into BDSM is a super rapist-pedophile, abusing, sociopath, that eat children and worship the devil, so it's completely understandable. That was a joke. Just in case anyone thought I was serious.

-Snip.-

..Or because they're more identifiable due to being presented in images a lot more than men, so people see those parts more and recognize them easier than male parts.. What the hell study was this?

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

Don't make me whack you with my cane, whippersnapper. It's not your standard old-man kind.

Anyway, your disagreement is quite expected. While it may seem hipster or at the very least exclusionist, it's the truth. I think you see BDSM as something with... if you'll forgive the reference... ## Shades of Grey. In a certain percentage of the spectrum, you'd put the 'roleplaying' kind.

However, the definitions that precede that, quite clearly puts the 'roleplaying' kind as... well, just roleplaying. It's roleplaying engaging in BDSM or D/s, not actually going the full mile. It's not in any way or form worth less or less "right" for the people in question, don't get me wrong. It's perfectly valid sex or otherwise interaction. It's just not what they pretend it to be.

BDSM and D/s isn't supposed to be enjoyable and fulfilling to everyone who might be interested, sadly. Similar to pretty much any other activity or endeavor (sports, model building, whatever), there's the actual performance by someone involved in it and there's those with the interest (and even amateur attempts at it) but not quite what's needed to go all the way.

I like rally driving and I've taken a cheap hatchback down a forest road at times, and I watch a lot of it on the TV or the internet, but I'm not a rally driver nor can I call what I've done rally. It doesn't make what I did any less fun nor does it make me any less enthusiastic about it. My neighbor and I ride bikes every day for exercise and fun, but we're not in any way professional cyclists. That doesn't diminish what we do in any way, it just doesn't make us professionals. It doesn't take our enjoyment out of it.

So don't get me wrong, I not only welcome those that just roleplay it or otherwise go the - dare I say it? - casual route, I love seeing them embrace something that used to be very taboo. I just don't call it BDSM until they actually get into that territory.

FakeEdit: I'm on call and was rushed out on an ambulance run while writing this post. Everything is at least two and a half hours late.
RealEdit: Unfucking a quotefail.

Okay, when you put it like that I think I can see where you're coming from, and having seen one of your newer posts I now get why you find it offensive when you feel people are calling what you do roleplaying. Personally I think I agree with Elate's view, the "It's whatever you want it to be" one:

Personally I like the "It's whatever you want it to be" school of thought, which is why it really grates when people either dismiss it as "just roleplay" or "just sexual" and try and claim that what they are saying is fact. It's whatever that person wants it to be for them and who is anyone else to say otherwise.

It's just easy for misunderstandings to flare up when the question of the technical definition of what people are doing is brought up in such close confines with how valid it is, so my apologies about that.

And I realise this might come off as naive and disingenious for me to say it now, but I want to say that I do recognise the... For lack of a better word, beauty of what you described as "giving someone else something so extremely valuable as their unlimited trust, love and bond without pretense or lies". So, y'know... Kudos to you for achieving it.

Just out of curiousity though... And I may be prodding where I shouldn't be here... But what do you consider the defining differences between complete BDSM and everything else?

 

[Ljs1121]

I have to say that I felt extremely compelled to post here just because of how unique the title was. Serious Cat was also a good touch.

Anyways, BDSM isn't really my thing, but if two consenting adults want to do it to each other then I don't have any reason to not be okay with it.

 

[Varun Garuda Maharaj]

I don't like the male dominant version because I dislike men having any power.

Should I even be surprised?

 

[Nickolai77]

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.

You've misunderstood why i equated a D/s relationships to casual sex relationships- it's not about the duration of the relationship, or the fact that casual sex is casual sex and you think i think D/s relationships are casual, it's the fact that it's all persons concerned come together solely for the sex- or more specifically how the sex is done. In order to avoid insulting you again, i emphasise that i don't think there is anything wrong with this at all. But in other types of relationships, the couple come together not just because they want sex, but that they socially want to spend time with that person and share their interests. It isn't all about sex. And granted i'm sure a D/s relationship can turn into a more typical relationship and vice versa, and there are grey areas etc etc- but that's not the point i'm wanting to argue about.

My actual point is that the 50 Shades stories imply that if one's to indulge in BDSM it has to define the entire sexual relationship, when really you can have a perfectly "normal" relationship with "normal" sex and on occasion indulge in a bit of fetishistic roleplay. Basically my concern with these novels is that they paint an inaccurate picture of couples who do indulge in BDSM roleplay. In such relationships the theme of domination and submission doesn't define the entire relationship like that in the 50 shades novels, and if you're into it then that doesn't mean your mentally fucked up like the male lead (or indeed the female one as well).

 

[Ryan Hughes]

One thing we are all agreeing on here: "Fifty Shades of Grey" is a terrible book. I tried to read it, and could not get past page five. Not because of sexual content, but because of aesthetic content. E.L. whatshername is a terrible author.

Something I am disagreeing with:

I do not know much about BDSM, but one thing that I do know quite a bit about is violence. I will say that if you cannot keep a strict and clear line between acts of violence and acts of Eros, then you seriously need some help. Sure, it may be a fantasy between consenting adults, but the erotic and emotional pleasure felt by the partners is quite real, and if that pleasure some from any act that even remotely resembles physical or emotional violence, then get thee to a nunnery.

There is a reason that Eros and Thanatos are antithetical, and a very good reason at that.

Also, if someone chooses to be submissive in a BDSM relationship, then they devalue themselves in a way that is perhaps even more unhealthy, regardless of their gender. If someone gives up their own will to another to the point where they cannot act freely on their own, then they cease being a partner and become a parasite.

Sure, you have the right to do these things, but that does not mean they are in anyone's best interest, and I doubt the line drawn between "Grey" and "real" BDSM by the practitioners of the latter is nearly as clear as they would like to think.

 

[aba1]

I like the fem-dom kind of BDSM roleplay, personally. I don't like the male dominant version because I dislike men having any power. My current boyfriend enjoys it, so I've little reason to care about changing lol.

50 Shades of Grey had BDSM in it to the same degree that A Serbian Film has sex in it--i.e. it's all wrong. The book itself is creepy, but not sexist.

I am into the same stuff, I never really got how these feminists could possibly think BDSM is sexist if you do even a tiny bit of research you would quickly find that everything they claim is off or just straight out wrong.

 

[Vault101]

Also, if someone chooses to be submissive in a BDSM relationship, then they devalue themselves in a way that is perhaps even more unhealthy, regardless of their gender. If someone gives up their own will to another to the point where they cannot act freely on their own, then they cease being a partner and become a parasite

the BSDM in 50 shades of grey is NOT a good portraly and should not even be considered/looked at when discussing BSDM...hell I'm no experet and even I can see that

it seems a little rich coming from somone (as they said) who doesnt "get it" the fact is "domination" fantasy actually seems pretty common mabye even not to the point of BSDM

in other words "being submissive" gets some people off like nothing else...some people take the whole dynamic outside the bedroom but others dont

somone getting their partner to tie them to the bed while doing it seems pretty harmless really

 

[Elate]

You've misunderstood why i equated a D/s relationships to casual sex relationships- it's not about the duration of the relationship, or the fact that casual sex is casual sex and you think i think D/s relationships are casual, it's the fact that it's all persons concerned come together solely for the sex- or more specifically how the sex is done.

Yeah, no see I did understand, and I disagree and find that offensive. I know, I know you don't intend to, but think of it like this. Saying BDSM is "All about da sex" is like saying vanilla relationships are all about putting your pee pee in a woman. It just isn't true.

In order to avoid insulting you again, i emphasise that i don't think there is anything wrong with this at all. But in other types of relationships, the couple come together not just because they want sex, but that they socially want to spend time with that person and share their interests. It isn't all about sex. And granted i'm sure a D/s relationship can turn into a more typical relationship and vice versa, and there are grey areas etc etc- but that's not the point i'm wanting to argue about.

And a BDSM relationship also functions in similar ways, it isn't all about the sex it really isn't, that seems to be a massive misconception. The majority of serious, long term BDSM relationships are not based around sex. They're based around the power dynamic.

My actual point is that the 50 Shades stories imply that if one's to indulge in BDSM it has to define the entire sexual relationship, when really you can have a perfectly "normal" relationship with "normal" sex and on occasion indulge in a bit of fetishistic roleplay. Basically my concern with these novels is that they paint an inaccurate picture of couples who do indulge in BDSM roleplay. In such relationships the theme of domination and submission doesn't define the entire relationship like that in the 50 shades novels, and if you're into it then that doesn't mean your mentally fucked up like the male lead (or indeed the female one as well).

Honestly, I do not view that as BDSM but just fetishism. BDSM lifestylers as they're known, and fetishism are completely different things. Agreed in those relationships, it doesn't define it, but there are a lot of relationships similar to those in 50 Shades (I use the term similar very loosely, since that book is still insulting.)

 

[aba1]

I like the fem-dom kind of BDSM roleplay, personally. I don't like the male dominant version because I dislike men having any power. My current boyfriend enjoys it, so I've little reason to care about changing lol.

50 Shades of Grey had BDSM in it to the same degree that A Serbian Film has sex in it--i.e. it's all wrong. The book itself is creepy, but not sexist.

I am into the same stuff, I never really got how these feminists could possibly think BDSM is sexist if you do even a tiny bit of research you would quickly find that everything they claim is off or just straight out wrong.

*Some feminists

I think it's because the most popular version to see is male domination of a female, so some people see that and assume it is all men controlling women. In reality, it has nothing to do with gender and anyone and any number of people can take on any role.

Well I said these feminists referring to the specific set of feminists from the article this thread spawned from. Also I can see how people would be inclined towards thinking it is one way because of how common maledom is but still if you are going to talk like you know things you should be certain what you are talking about it absolutely true ESPECIALLY what you are trying to influence others.

Also I keep seeing all these people harassing you over the not liking men having power comment and I gotta ask because I took at as to be referring sexual preferences and not everyday sorta ideals but everyone else took it completely the other way.

 

[Nickolai77]

Yeah, no see I did understand, and I disagree and find that offensive. I know, I know you don't intend to, but think of it like this. Saying BDSM is "All about da sex" is like saying vanilla relationships are all about putting your pee pee in a woman. It just isn't true.

The power dynamic in D/s relationships is a style of sex- when i'm saying D/s is about the sex i don't literally mean the act itself but rather the context and mentalities behind the act. Traditional relationships arn't built solely round a certain style of sex, and indeed therefore motives for getting and maintaining a traditional relationship are different to those in a D/s relationship.

Honestly, I do not view that as BDSM but just fetishism. BDSM lifestylers as they're known, and fetishism are completely different things. Agreed in those relationships, it doesn't define it, but there are a lot of relationships similar to those in 50 Shades (I use the term similar very loosely, since that book is still insulting.)

I'm curious now- what makes BDSM lifestylers different to fetishists? Fetishism itself is a sexual arousal associated with an act or behaviour or thing which isn't in itself sexual. The dom/sub power dynamic isn't inherently sexual, but a number of people find it so, and therefore i would personally classify it as a fetish. The difference i suppose is that BDSM lifestylers carry on that fetish outside the bedroom- and that's effectively making a lifestyle out of a fetish.

 

[Tallim]

Also, if someone chooses to be submissive in a BDSM relationship, then they devalue themselves in a way that is perhaps even more unhealthy, regardless of their gender. If someone gives up their own will to another to the point where they cannot act freely on their own, then they cease being a partner and become a parasite

the BSDM in 50 shades of grey is NOT a good portraly and should not even be considered/looked at when discussing BSDM...hell I'm no experet and even I can see that

it seems a little rich coming from somone (as they said) who doesnt "get it" the fact is "domination" fantasy actually seems pretty common mabye even not to the point of BSDM

in other words "being submissive" gets some people off like nothing else...some people take the whole dynamic outside the bedroom but others dont

somone getting their partner to tie them to the bed while doing it seems pretty harmless really

Quite. Although this article/blogpost really shows why 50 Shades versio of BDSM is awful from the point of view of someone into the scene.

http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2012/07/fifty-shades-of-grr.html

 

[axlryder]

Yeah, no see I did understand, and I disagree and find that offensive. I know, I know you don't intend to, but think of it like this. Saying BDSM is "All about da sex" is like saying vanilla relationships are all about putting your pee pee in a woman. It just isn't true.

The power dynamic in D/s relationships is a style of sex- when i'm saying D/s is about the sex i don't literally mean the act itself but rather the context and mentalities behind the act. Traditional relationships arn't built solely round a certain style of sex, and indeed therefore motives for getting and maintaining a traditional relationship are different to those in a D/s relationship.

Honestly, I do not view that as BDSM but just fetishism. BDSM lifestylers as they're known, and fetishism are completely different things. Agreed in those relationships, it doesn't define it, but there are a lot of relationships similar to those in 50 Shades (I use the term similar very loosely, since that book is still insulting.)

I'm curious now- what makes BDSM lifestylers different to fetishists? Fetishism itself is a sexual arousal associated with an act or behaviour or thing which isn't in itself sexual. The dom/sub power dynamic isn't inherently sexual, but a number of people find it so, and therefore i would personally classify it as a fetish. The difference i suppose is that BDSM lifestylers carry on that fetish outside the bedroom- and that's effectively making a lifestyle out of a fetish.

In terms of lifestylers, I imagine that many of them extend the BDSM's range of influence beyond just the sexual domain, evolving it into something more than just a fetish. It defines the relationship, and, to an extent, the individuals themselves. I can imagine it being used for specific types of relational needs/wants based around dependancy, trust, motivation, personality training, etc.

I guess the deciding factor might be whether or not the root the lifestyler's relationship was based around sexual satisfaction/gratification.