[DreamP346]

Its true that BDSM has become mainstream and many people occassionally play around with it in the bedroom, but for others its a lifestyle. That is the irony that intrigues me. People who practice BDSM are just like everybody else - there is no higher rate of abuse or anything like that. But any other relationship that includes domination, humiliation and/or pain would be unhealthy. But in the BDSM relationship, it is completely natural and health. It seems paradoxical.

Similarly, why do people, even ones that are completey closed off, enjoy complete submission? A person can be a leader in public and also emotionally closed off to their partner but can give up total control in the bedroom, sometimes with somebody who is paid to do it.

Its just so interesting that sex changes the norms that dictate usual rules of relationships.

[rosekitten]

But to us this is just a "game" with a clear safeword that allows either of us to halt it completely and immediately. Rosekitten wouldn't describe my behavior as a "true" BD/SM....OK.

Actually, I wouldn't say that at all. What is or isn't BDSM is up to the people involved. My husband and I are fairly "vanilla" when compared to most of the community. Some BDSM is only in the bedroom, some are switches, some are constant, some aren't. What I meant was that for us it isn't a "game." That doesn't mean that if you treat BDSM as a game, that it isn't "true." Everyone defines their relationships differently, and it's not my place to say what is or isn't the "Truth" about any of it. I just get bothered when I'm told that my relationships is unhealthy.

[rosekitten]

Don't be offended by my lack of understanding, rosekitten. sp346 said she's in control, but likes to be dominated in the bedroom. I asked her questions about it. I think her situation is different from yours.

Anyway, your response is interesting. Thanks.

I understand that, but your response wasn't specifically to the OP in the way that it was written. Also, it wouldn't have been right to assume you were speaking just to the OP, unless I was aware that you had intimate information on their life and personality. I will be offended when when it is said that a relationship where BDSM isn't just a "game" is one that is unhealthy. I'm not offended by the lack of understanding, just by the extent of judgement that was passed.

[rosekitten]

Its true that BDSM has become mainstream and many people occassionally play around with it in the bedroom, but for others its a lifestyle. That is the irony that intrigues me. People who practice BDSM are just like everybody else - there is no higher rate of abuse or anything like that. But any other relationship that includes domination, humiliation and/or pain would be unhealthy. But in the BDSM relationship, it is completely natural and health. It seems paradoxical.

See, I don't see it as a paradox. People that aren't in agreement about being in a dom/sub relationship, aren't in a healthy relationship. The beauty of the D/S is that both parties go into it in agreement. It's not about forcing one to take abuse, but about how the love in the relationship is expressed. Relationships outside of D/S that involve humiliation, physical punishment, etc. are unhealthy, because there is not active consent and agreement between the parties involved.

Similarly, why do people, even ones that are completey closed off, enjoy complete submission? A person can be a leader in public and also emotionally closed off to their partner but can give up total control in the bedroom, sometimes with somebody who is paid to do it.

Its just so interesting that sex changes the norms that dictate usual rules of relationships.

My husband is a leader in a lot of his day-to-day. However, he enjoys being controlled by me, because I love him, and he loves the expression of just serving me and treating me as a goddess. But, he's not emotionally closed off, nor does he pay for it. I don't really feel that sex changes the norms that dictate relationships. It might be due to the nature of the sorts of people I associate with, though. We're all open (to different degrees), and the only "norm" that dictates anything is "always ask before touching someone" (as in, a hug, not sex, usually lol). Although, a lot of people play by "church" norms, but even that seems to vary widely based on where you live. It's interesting to me just to see what is considered normal in different parts of the state, and country.

[Stillness]

I understand that, but your response wasn't specifically to the OP in the way that it was written. Also, it wouldn't have been right to assume you were speaking just to the OP, unless I was aware that you had intimate information on their life and personality. I will be offended when when it is said that a relationship where BDSM isn't just a "game" is one that is unhealthy. I'm not offended by the lack of understanding, just by the extent of judgement that was passed.

My response was specifically to the OP. I copied her quote with her name in it and responded based on what she said. And I do have intimate details about her life and personality because she gave them in the original post and I've followed quite a few of her posts and her blog on this site.

I wasn't judging you. I did say that dominating another person "seems" unhealthy to me. It does. I also said that I don't understand it and asked questions about it. I'm here to learn and exchange ideas, not judge people. So, please, don't take it as a personal attack on your lifestyle. I assure you, that wasn't the intent of my post.

I probably would have chosen my words more carefully if I knew that there were people like you. I didn't know. I'm just going by the dictionary definition of "dominate" as absolutely controlling someone. It sounds like you're descibing something different where both parties come to an agreement and have say over the relationship.

[rosekitten]

I wasn't judging you. I did say that dominating another person "seems" unhealthy to me. It does. I also said that I don't understand it and asked questions about it. I'm here to learn and exchange ideas, not judge people. So, please, don't take it as a personal attack on your lifestyle. I assure you, that wasn't the intent of my post.

I probably would have chosen my words more carefully if I knew that there were people like you. I didn't know. I'm just going by the dictionary definition of "dominate" as absolutely controlling someone. It sounds like you're descibing something different where both parties come to an agreement and have say over the relationship.

Actually, it is absolute control. The safe word is there when I cross a line, but at the end of the day he surrenders to me completely, and trusts that I won't cross those lines (he's never had to use his safe word on anything, sexual or otherwise). As I mentioned in another post, the D/S relationship is healthy because people do take it seriously, and it isn't just a game to us, nor is it a form of abuse, because we have the consent of the other person to fully control them. I think that if you're dominating someone only because you "can" without regard to their happiness, it's troublesome.

[SaharaJim]

Sorry Rosekitten; I certainly did not mean to put words (or anything else-snicker- sorry bad MCP joke) in your mouth. But you did refer to your 24/7 relationship as "true" BD/SM and NOT a game. Since my sub and I both think it IS a game; we dont really fit into the same catagory. Rather like I don't consider the "summer weekend, bar-hopping, less than 5 years experience, image buying" rider of motorcycles a "Biker". The yuppy may ride a motorcycle; but I have ridden year round for more than 40 years. We don't even talk the same language. But to see them strutting around in their "Harly-Davidson" underwear trying to give the impression that they are "Big Bad Bikers"; brings a contemptuous sneer to my face. They may ride bikes...but they ain't bikers in my book. So I think I woulld understand if we weren't BD/SM in YOUR book.

[Stillness]

People who practice BDSM are just like everybody else - there is no higher rate of abuse or anything like that. But any other relationship that includes domination, humiliation and/or pain would be unhealthy. But in the BDSM relationship, it is completely natural and health. It seems paradoxical.

Relationships outside of D/S that involve humiliation, physical punishment, etc. are unhealthy, because there is not active consent and agreement between the parties involved.

Now it seems paradoxical to me too. Forgive my not being a savvy sexologist and an adherent to "church norms," but how does consent not make something unhealthy?

Say a woman is part of a family where women are beaten. She falls in love with a man like daddy. He beats her before and after they marry when she displeases him, not so bad so as to kill her or do lasting physical damage, just to put her in her place. He does things for her and tells her he loves her. She can leave him went she wants. She has a job, money, resources. She's happy a lot of the time. She raises her children. Has good friends. Recycles. She doesn't necessarily want to be beat, but views it as an expression of love. They've both consented, at least tacitly, to physical beatings. Is this healthy? How is it different from what's being discussed?

[rosekitten]

Now it seems paradoxical to me too. Forgive my not being a savvy sexologist and an adherent to "church norms," but how does consent not make something unhealthy?

Say a woman is part of a family where women are beaten. She falls in love with a man like daddy. He beats her before and after they marry when she displeases him, not so bad so as to kill her or do lasting physical damage, just to put her in her place. He does things for her and tells her he loves her. She can leave him went she wants. She has a job, money, resources. She's happy a lot of the time. She raises her children. Has good friends. Recycles. She doesn't necessarily want to be beat, but views it as an expression of love. They've both consented, at least tacitly, to physical beatings. Is this healthy? How is it different from what's being discussed?

The key to the answer is actually in your statement. She doesn't want to be beat. Not only is there consent in BDSM relationships, but the parties involved *want* that type of relationship. They don't just settle for it because it's what they think is appropriate (in most cases, just as with any community, there are those who happily take advantage of others), but they ask for what they want. Those in proper D/S relationships can, and will, leave when the relationship becomes something they don't want to be a part of. For example, my husband does not want anything to do with fire and knife play. He has expressed this to me as what we call a "hard limit" and because I love him (no matter how much I enjoy it myself), I won't force him to participate in it. If I were to burn him anyways, that would be a form of abuse, because he does not want that sort of action performed on him. To me, consent isn't "fine, whatever, it's just something you do to show your love" but "I want this, and am happy to have you give it to me."

[rosekitten]

Sorry Rosekitten; I certainly did not mean to put words (or anything else-snicker- sorry bad MCP joke) in your mouth. But you did refer to your 24/7 relationship as "true" BD/SM and NOT a game. Since my sub and I both think it IS a game; we dont really fit into the same catagory. Rather like I don't consider the "summer weekend, bar-hopping, less than 5 years experience, image buying" rider of motorcycles a "Biker". The yuppy may ride a motorcycle; but I have ridden year round for more than 40 years. We don't even talk the same language. But to see them strutting around in their "Harly-Davidson" underwear trying to give the impression that they are "Big Bad Bikers"; brings a contemptuous sneer to my face. They may ride bikes...but they ain't bikers in my book. So I think I woulld understand if we weren't BD/SM in YOUR book.

I'm just bad with words. lol There are different levels to BDSM, and for those of us who choose it as a lifestyle, it is much different than those who choose it as a game. If BDSM is limited to the bedroom, it's still BDSM. I was just a little defensive because of the implication that if it wasn't a game it wasn't healthy.