Dogma in the BDSM world

Dogma, as defined by dictionary.com:

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.

3. A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).

My question is this: Are there dogmas in the BDSM world that you cling to and defend? Do you believe there is BDSM dogma at all? Do you think that there is a right and wrong way to think and believe, concerning BDSM, or do you believe that much of the behaviours etc in BDSM are open to interpretation and to varied expression?

vixenshe said:

Dogma, as defined by dictionary.com:

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.

3. A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).

My question is this: Are there dogmas in the BDSM world that you cling to and defend? Do you believe there is BDSM dogma at all? Do you think that there is a right and wrong way to think and believe, concerning BDSM, or do you believe that much of the behaviours etc in BDSM are open to interpretation and to varied expression?

Click to expand...

There are preset ideas here as there are anywhere. It is a colorful place, vixen, and should be open to anyone's ideas/practices/opinions. What may work in the relationship i have with Him may not work for you or A/anyone else and that is okay. E/everyone is entitled to T/their own belief, and i try like hell not to ever judge or stereotype or to convince A/another that i am right. i don't think there is a "right way." i don't have to agree to accept. If someone rolls their eyes and says some slave she is, i really don't care. What i have to care about is my relationship with Him and His satisfaction with me. If i fall short of the mark, then i work harder. If i am praised for a job well done, then i can take pride in serving Him well. It is about Him, not the outside world. If no one else likes or accepts me, then i will have to deal with that. i would like to think i could be part of something larger like this board b/c it is nice to have a place to go where i can talk to like-minded F/folk. It doesn't mean A/anyone likes me or has to like me. If i am here and posting as anything other than who i am, then there really is no point in my mind. i can only be who i am and if that rubs S/someone else the wrong way, that is unfortionate. All i can do is try to be respectful to O/others and T/their ideas and hope on some level that comes through in my words/posts. That does not mean A/anyone else is going to like me, approve of me, or befriend me.

wishing you a good day,

z

Re: Re: Dogma in the BDSM world

zanna said:

There are preset ideas here as there are anywhere. It is a colorful place, vixen, and should be open to anyone's ideas/practices/opinions. What may work in the relationship i have with Him may not work for you or A/anyone else and that is okay. E/everyone is entitled to T/their own belief, and i try like hell not to ever judge or stereotype or to convince A/another that i am right. i don't think there is a "right way." i don't have to agree to accept. If someone rolls their eyes and says some slave she is, i really don't care. What i have to care about is my relationship with Him and His satisfaction with me. If i fall short of the mark, then i work harder. If i am praised for a job well done, then i can take pride in serving Him well. It is about Him, not the outside world. If no one else likes or accepts me, then i will have to deal with that. i would like to think i could be part of something larger like this board b/c it is nice to have a place to go where i can talk to like-minded F/folk. It doesn't mean A/anyone likes me or has to like me. If i am here and posting as anything other than who i am, then there really is no point in my mind. i can only be who i am and if that rubs S/someone else the wrong way, that is unfortionate. All i can do is try to be respectful to O/others and T/their ideas and hope on some level that comes through in my words/posts. That does not mean A/anyone else is going to like me, approve of me, or befriend me.

Click to expand...

Yikes. Not to hijack the thread so early, but as somebody who doesn't practice this capitalization trend seen online so often now, this paragraph just made me cringe. The "i/He" thing is bearable, but doubling every damn letter like that drives me up the wall. (Can you tell I was an English major? )

Re: Re: Re: Dogma in the BDSM world

Etoile said:

Yikes. Not to hijack the thread so early, but as somebody who doesn't practice this capitalization trend seen online so often now, this paragraph just made me cringe. The "i/He" thing is bearable, but doubling every damn letter like that drives me up the wall. (Can you tell I was an English major? )

Click to expand...

i don't care much for it either other than using the small i and a cap for Him and for the most part (as seen in previous posts) i rarely use it. i was making such a general statement, i felt it was good manners. In this case, it would seem in an effort to be respectful, i annoyed anyway. Proper English is a top priority in my family. i was raised with a Mom who would correct notes sent home by the teacher in red and make me take them back to her. i chose what i used here with great thought.

*shrug* sorry i did not win in either case and still managed to annoy another on some level.

???

What is that C/capitalization thing?

As for dogmas, I'd guess I say it depends. There are certainly aspects for a BDSM relationship I insist on, but I'm pretty open. I would not say anyone does it "wrong."

Damn I'm posting alot tonight

The punctuation thing is a Klingon, er Gorean thing.

And it's stupid.

We used to have a "No Gors" sign around here...did someone take it down?

But back to the thread topic....is Vixenshe talking about dogs again? I love her doggie stories. Woof!

Lancecastor said:

The punctuation thing is a Klingon, er Gorean thing.

And it's stupid.

We used to have a "No Gors" sign around here...did someone take it down?

But back to the thread topic....is Vixenshe talking about dogs again? I love her doggie stories. Woof!

Click to expand...

Not in my experience, no it is not exclusive to Gor. i apologized once earlier for doing it and i won't do so again.

i don't know where the proverbial sign is but considering i am not the only one who has done or does it around here, maybe you should consider hanging another...then maybe we will all know to adhere to the rules.

IMO, there are all kinds of dogmas in the BDSM mainstream, not the least of which is that a dom/me's activity of 'dominating' flows from pure benevolence and altruism. Thus while some dom/mes are admitted to be selfish, that is seen as a falling away, a defect in true dom(me)hood--as when, for example, the dom/me is alcoholic.

J.

Yes, down with weird capitalization.

vixenshe said:

....or do you believe that much of the behaviours etc in BDSM are open to interpretation and to varied expression?

Click to expand...

Of course it is. It's a human experience, so therefore it is not going to be the same for all who engage in it.

vixenshe said:

My question is this: Are there dogmas in the BDSM world that you cling to and defend? Do you believe there is BDSM dogma at all? Do you think that there is a right and wrong way to think and believe, concerning BDSM, or do you believe that much of the behaviours etc in BDSM are open to interpretation and to varied expression?

Click to expand...

None that I cling to and defend, other than the "safe, sane and consensual." There are certainly others -- particularly if you get into the online chat rooms (protocols, et al) and Gorean stuff.

The "behaivours in BDSM" should be open to interpretation, and so on... whether they are depends on who you are talking to at the time. People are people, whatever label you put on them.

Fungi,

//None [dogmas] that I cling to and defend, other than the "safe, sane and consensual."//

Ah come clean, man! Maybe you're knee deep in strawberry jello pieties and don't notice it! SSC as a way of staying out of hospital and jail --and looking like decent human beings--was not the topic. Sure the slogan and practice help in those respects.

There's another dogma--or maybe myth: getting someone to say they consent to an SM practice, esp. in writing, will keep you out of jail.

Here's another one: The SM ssc 'sadist', when s/he inflicts pain and 'gets off' has none of the motives of others in the vanilla world, who do so, like overly rough cops, or strap-happy school teachers.

Have a happy perverted day!

vixenshe said:

Dogma, as defined by dictionary.com:

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.

3. A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).

My question is this: Are there dogmas in the BDSM world that you cling to and defend? Do you believe there is BDSM dogma at all? Do you think that there is a right and wrong way to think and believe, concerning BDSM, or do you believe that much of the behaviours etc in BDSM are open to interpretation and to varied expression?

Click to expand...

Quite frankly I am only interested in my own dogma as it were. I do not live my life by dogma, and I am in a position to decide what I want in the tenets of BDSM & D/s. What I personally cannot use, I leave alone.

As of late, I've had PM's and comments from people who have a SET idea of what BDSM should be, and they cling to that, and outside that, all is wrong. That, to me, is clinging to dogma... it might be their own perception of the dogma of BDSM, but that is what I mean. And the dogma issue is directly related to 'do we tolerate variations in lifestyles', because some who cling to dogma DON'T allow that variation. They see it as wrong. I think it is fine for other people to believe what they believe, but I merely ask for that respect to be returned.

It is my question whether people are open-minded enough to accept others, even though they might not subscribe to the same beliefs.

An example of what I'm talking about is found in my "I wore a collar to work today" thread. I see MY current collar as a reminder of my own submission, it makes me think of Sir, etc, but it was not given me by him, or anyone else. It is merely my reminder. And he knows about it and is fine with it. But there are those that adamantly believe otherwise... that a collar should be given by a Dom/me to a sub, and that it is a symbol of X belief or Y belief, or whatever. And that's fine if they believe that. But I, in this case, believe differently.


I could have asked it from a religous point of view, as they are relatively the same question. I don't fit in the Catholic religion (in which I was raised), because I don't cling to MANY of the dogmas of Catholicism. Therefore, I am not considered Catholic. In the same way, I view certain things in BDSM very differently from others, and some of those others have contacted me saying that I'm not a true submissive, or lifestyler because of my variation.

This is just the point.

Pure said:

Fungi,

//None [dogmas] that I cling to and defend, other than the "safe, sane and consensual."//

Ah come clean, man! Maybe you're knee deep in strawberry jello pieties and don't notice it! SSC as a way of staying out of hospital and jail --and looking like decent human beings--was not the topic. Sure the slogan and practice help in those respects.

There's another dogma--or maybe myth: getting someone to say they consent to an SM practice, esp. in writing, will keep you out of jail.

Here's another one: The SM ssc 'sadist', when s/he inflicts pain and 'gets off' has none of the motives of others in the vanilla world, who do so, like overly rough cops, or strap-happy school teachers.

Have a happy perverted day!

Click to expand...

Hmmm... you've lost me here, Pure.

I went through a huge struggle in dealing with a past soaked in dogma and doctrine and discipline. Sound good? Not when you are a 10 year old living through literal beatings. Not when your mother dies of breast cancer untreated because medicine is "unbiblical." Etc etc.

So will I rush to accept any doctrine or dogma, whatever the guise? No. That includes BDSM. I don't do the written contracts. I don't do collars. I don't do... well, basically I do have fun! And I do communicate. But there are a stack of things (be they Roissey, or Gor, or whatever) that I am told BDSM'ers do and accept as "gospel" than I don't.

Safe, sane, consensual make sense. I'm happy to oblige those because I can see the point of them. I've lived through non-consensual abuse, and I'm not about to repeat that with someone else.

And to be frank, I'm not much of a sadist. Biting, spanking, clamps... are fine, and fine. But I have in the past refused to cane someone. Not my thing.

So is that clean enough for you, Pure? Or is there something you were asking that I missed? If my "SSC" doesn't qualify as dogma, then what does? Certainly not your "myths". Unless you lump all mistaken beliefs together as "dogma".

vixenshe said:

It is my question whether people are open-minded enough to accept others, even though they might not subscribe to the same beliefs.

Click to expand...

Drools over vixen's AV, then forcibly brings mind back to topic.

In my experience, in any "walk of life", hobby, or whatever, you will always find two kinds of people: those who are close minded and say "this is how is must be done." You will find those who are rebellioous and deliberately flaunt the rules. And you will find those who are in the middle who like the protection of their being "rules", but don't live by them and are willing to see them change if there's a reason.

Of course, there are three kinds of people in the world, those who can count, and those who can't.

Anyway... BDSM as a "culture" has accumulated a body of lore and "wisdom" and sayings and behaivours and... my goodness, we're human! Along the way, we've picked up the people who have the "true faith", and everyone else is wrong. Sad, but true.

Afraid that's life. We might not like it, but it's part of the human condition.

Vixen, I'm sorry to hear you've been dumped on by these people. You're not alone. I've been told I'm not a "real Dom" (See the earlier conversation about "Real Dom/mes or submissives" I think it was called -- started by MissT anyway) whatever a "real Dom" is. Does that make me a fake, or just a wannabe? Who knows, who cares, queue the song.

<tongue in cheek>Sometimes dogma is nice. I can see a great deal of peace and pleasure coming from relying on generally accepted formulas and methods. Provides comfortable, pre-set goals and boundaries--be good at this and this happens; don't cross this line; obey my dog. Nice stock procedure when we don't feel like being creative. Plus it makes us feel like we're in a secret club, where those who know the handshake are "in" and those who don't play by our rules we can call "out" and feel better about ourselves for being "in."

Only problems are when the people who are "out" refuse to feel bad about their shameful selves! That just throws the whole works out of alignment! </tongue in cheek>

I see examples of this, from the collaring/contracting formalities to the often-unspoken creed that a sadist doesn't REALLY like inflicting pain, just sensation for the enjoyment of their bottom. Every label, every formula, every concept that has not been individually addressed by each couple as they figure out what will meet their specific needs and what is unnecessary TO THEM, could be considered "mere dogma" in the way I described it above.

But for me, the rule I try to live by is "use what you want, abandon the rest."

The only doctrine I apply as a blanket:

Does this person want me to do this to them, or have they agreed at some point that whether *I* want to do it or not is the only relevance here?

That's what I need to get up and look in the mirror in the morning, at a minimum.

I also believe that an ongoing dialogue is a girl's best friend. The beast morphs, as well it should, it is a *relationship* after all.

Other people's weighing in on what a Top or bottom can or can't do beyond that is hysterical to me.

Netzach said,

(as to the essential moral principle of consensual sm, I guess)

//Does this person want me to do this to them,

or have they agreed at some point that whether *I* want to do it or not is the only relevance here? //

Essentially you're saying consent or blanket consent.

OK, on the first part, but are the person's own statements as to 'wants' defintive?
(When might a dom/me say, "You really want this caning to continue though youre yelling 'stop.' You'll thank me after.")

Second part. I'm not sure if you mean what Catalina seems to**, 'no sub-proposed restrictions' according to the sub's statement and blanket consent--NO sub-set limits or sub-proposed safewords. Or if you mean, as I sometimes say. "Do whatever, but not so as to make me need to go to the hospital." or ??

My own first principle, besides obtaining consent is "do no harm"; that enables me to look into the mirror.

[**Added: Catalina has posted to the effect that I have not adequately characterized her position. That clarifies matters, as regards subs in general. I believe she is on record as saying she does not set any limits on her master. That is what I was alluding to.]

FungiUg said:

Vixen, I'm sorry to hear you've been dumped on by these people. You're not alone. I've been told I'm not a "real Dom" (See the earlier conversation about "Real Dom/mes or submissives" I think it was called -- started by MissT anyway) whatever a "real Dom" is. Does that make me a fake, or just a wannabe? Who knows, who cares, queue the song.

Click to expand...

No it just makes you and individual. Agreement is not necessary for success.

Some folks love the use of the words "real" and "true". Everything is an absolute to these people. I personally think they are just trying to rain on your parade. Ignore them. There will always be critics.

I say fuck 'em if they can't get a clue .(let's not and say we did!)

Originally posted by vixenshe
My question is this: Are there dogmas in the BDSM world that you cling to and defend?

One size fits all or 'True' BDSM dogma is more likely to be questioned and/or rejected by me. Do I have my own set of principles, beliefs, or statement of ideas or opinion, considered to be true, by and for me? You betcha!

Do you believe there is BDSM dogma at all?

Yes, I think there is dogma to be found in most if not all organized groups.

Do you think that there is a right and wrong way to think and believe, concerning BDSM, or do you believe that much of the behaviours etc in BDSM are open to interpretation and to varied expression?

Are there only two options? No, what's right or wrong for me may not be right for the next person, and yes, of course BDSM is open to interpretation and varied expression.... but that is another principle, belief or statement, IOW, the dogma of 'less dogma'.

Pure said:

Second part. I'm not sure if you mean what Catalina seems to, 'no sub-proposed restrictions' according to the sub's statement and blanket consent--NO sub-set limits or sub-proposed safewords. Or if you mean, as I sometimes say. "Do whatever, but not so as to make me need to go to the hospital." or ??

My own first principle, besides obtaining consent is "do no harm"; that enables me to look into the mirror.

Click to expand...

Not sure this is a totally accurate summarisation of my stance on this. I gather it was drawn from my statements in the 'newbie/wannabe' thread where I stated I did not see someone as submissive if they preset the rules and limits and told their dominant how to do everything, basically topped from the bottom so to speak, and never had any intention of having their limits challenged, and more importantly chose as acceptable only the things they want. To me that is not submission, that is fulfilling their own needs only.

Further, in that thread when statements were misunderstood, I went into a more lengthy description of my statement and supported subs using checklists before and during a relationship, for their own safety, physically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually. As to no safewords, I am all for them, especially if you are a submissive. For us, we usually do not use them anymore as I am a slave, and I trust his knowledge of me and my body. On occasion if I have particular unseen problems, or I am attempting something which was previously a hard limit, the safeword is resurrected for that session.

As to the debate on dogma and who can do what....I don't particularly care what anyone chooses to do. I do believe there is unavoidable 'dogma' attached to any institution or belief pattern. For example, Catholicism since it has been mentioned. There are guidelines as to what is acceptable, but I have yet to meet anyone who holds to every last one of them but does not mean there are no Catholics...it is a matter of choice....but that does not mean I advocate a particular neighbourhood Catholic church should begin tossing all the rules out the door and having mass orgies during the Sunday service. There are set rules and recognised practices as a minimum and where or who decides if and when to rewrite them, and if so which areas to rewrite to change the historic aspects of the recognised institution? Same goes with BDSM...there are recognised practices that date historically...some use them all, some use a few...but if all are thrown out to be interpreted to other practices on the whims of individuals, the thread begins to unravel until in time the garment as we recognise today can become non existent.

As I have commented in length previously before about this, and stated I respect everyone's right to have their own opinion, and am finding the practice of word play tedious to say the least, I am not commenting on this thread after this clarification of my previous statements.

Catalina

Pure, my sense of when someone's blanket consent is given and when blanket consent holds is based on knowledge of that person, intuition about them, and the fact that I don't want to send them to the emergency room or the psych ward, to use one of my favorite turns of phrase.

I can't give hard data for this, it's just a hunch, but a hunch backed by enough observation that I have been ok with it. I can also tell when consent *has* been rescinded, while doing what I'm doing with someone I can read well, physically and emotionally.

I'm also a fan of safewords, never interpreted catalina's stance as completely against safewords or submissive input. I think that reaching a state of blanket consent it a process, and a long one, if it is to happen. Control is not something I've usually been able to move in, grab, and maintain, it's much more a slow taking, one chip at a time.