i mean, even on this forum, which is chock-full of alternative lifestyle enthusiasts, i'm not really sure i can think of one that's lasted longer than a year. maybe choco and cass, though it strikes me that they're not really at the same structure in their relationship that they were. maybe i'm wrong though.
FWIW, I've been with my girlfriend for a little over a year now. That's not to say it's always sunshine and rainbow unicorn lollipop blowjobs, but we're making it work.
Now, it would be nice if I could find another girlfriend. :P
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
but if you're looking for someone to erotically cut you or dress up in tiger suits or dominate you in-this-way-but-not-that-way or whatever, there just aren't that many cultural institutions or guideposts to get you on your way.
It doesn't help that the behavior is largely frowned on, and there'd be a lot of harassment. Hell, some group has been actively pushing to get CSI off the air because sometimes they've had BDSM characters on the show. And y'know, instead of changing the channel, they have to protect people from that. Or whatever.
People not understanding sub/dom relationships is one thing. "Oh I don't get it." But - especially with the internet being what it is - there's enough people that shout about it to make it some huge stigma. And speaking of the internet, that's probably the best bet people have for finding appropriate partners in it.
well, the internet is good at making everything easier to find, kink or no.
my point is that there's a reason for cultural standards. when most straight non-fetishists enter into romantic arrangements, there are certain expectations that both partners bring to the relationship. granted, there are a number of different sorts of arrangements since the sexual revolution and feminist movements, but there are common expectations and some implicit guidance and reinforcement from social groups.
these things are helpful for the establishment and longevity of romantic relationships is what i am saying.
Irond Will on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
my point is that there's a reason for cultural standards. when most straight non-fetishists enter into romantic arrangements, there are certain expectations that both partners bring to the relationship. granted, there are a number of different sorts of arrangements since the sexual revolution and feminist movements, but there are common expectations and some implicit guidance and reinforcement from social groups.
these things are helpful for the establishment and longevity of romantic relationships is what i am saying.
Can you name those common expectations and standards with straight-forward, explicit language? I'm curious to hear them.
Edit - And it's not a matter of me disagreeing with you, but I want to see if some of those things actually happen in a DS relationship.
That is the only point at which power-talk makes sense. Once both parties consent? Nothing which transpires after the consent diminishes the power of either. No act to which any person freely consents diminishes that person's power.
If you think that someone who is tied up and restrained, or someone who is about to be subjected to sexual behaviors that they have not necessarily had any input on, has as much power as they entered the room with then your definition of power is faulty and needs revising.
The bold part does not follow from what I said.
Any act to which a person freely consents does not diminish that person's power. This is the relation between power and consent.
I believe that DS relationships are the most equitable and responsible relationships currently possible. (If someone else can show me a relationship where things are crafted from scratch that isn't DS, I'd be quite interested to see it.)
I believe that DS relationships are the most equitable and responsible relationships currently possible. (If someone else can show me a relationship where things are crafted from scratch that isn't DS, I'd be quite interested to see it.)
Sub/dom relationships aren't happier or more well off than any other kind of relationship structure. That part of the argument is silly.
So, the two people primarily arguing in favor of the DS relationship in this thread disagree with the thesis of the OP.
Any chance that Arivia is going to participate in the thread and defend her thesis?
Well, it doesn't make the thesis wrong. Afterall, what mostly matters in terms of what works best and what doesn't work is our own individual experiences.
Edit - Er, I mean the thesis that it's for everyone is wrong, but the opinion that it works best for Arivia perhaps isn't wrong.
I believe that DS relationships are the most equitable and responsible relationships currently possible. (If someone else can show me a relationship where things are crafted from scratch that isn't DS, I'd be quite interested to see it.)
Sub/dom relationships aren't happier or more well off than any other kind of relationship structure. That part of the argument is silly.
So, the two people primarily arguing in favor of the DS relationship in this thread disagree with the thesis of the OP.
Any chance that Arivia is going to participate in the thread and defend her thesis?
Well, it doesn't make the thesis wrong. Afterall, what mostly matters in terms of what works best and what doesn't work is our own individual experiences.
Edit - Er, I mean the thesis that it's for everyone is wrong, but the opinion that it works best for Arivia perhaps isn't wrong.
That's why I edited my post. Thesis wrong. Individual application to one's own life, that might be truth.
Alrighty.
Except then we have to assess the reasons for which a particular person maintains that relationship type X is the best for them, and discern whether or not they have made a mistake.
My suspicion is that the whole focus is upon equality, and responsibility? There's ultimately nothing special about a DS relationship with regard to any of those.
If my experience with poly is any indication, I have to suspect a certain amount of confirmation bias. This is one of my frequent complaints. If a monogamous relationship fails because somebody cheats, we usually blame the cheater's moral failings. If a polyamorous relationship fails because somebody gets jealous, we often say, "See, polyamory doesn't really work." I can imagine a similar thing happening when kinky people complain about their sex lives.
could be part of it.
granted, i don't run in alternative circles anymore, but i don't know of a single long-term "alternative arrangement" relationship among any friends or acquaintances (i don't count homosexuality as an "alternative arrangement" though).
i mean, even on this forum, which is chock-full of alternative lifestyle enthusiasts, i'm not really sure i can think of one that's lasted longer than a year. maybe choco and cass, though it strikes me that they're not really at the same structure in their relationship that they were. maybe i'm wrong though.
We're currently open in theory, but not really in practice.
We had a third partner for over a year, it ended because she had to move to take care of an ill family member. We'd do it again, if the circumstances were right.
Just clarifying if we're going to be used as an example.
Dread Pirate Arbuthnot on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Except then we have to assess the reasons for which a particular person maintains that relationship type X is the best for them, and discern whether or not they have made a mistake.
Isn't that sticking your nose in somebody's business where it doesn't belong? You're aware that opinions don't need logical grounding, it could be a matter of just liking it. Even if it's a phase.
You kinda seem aggressive on sub/dom relationships _J_. :?
Except then we have to assess the reasons for which a particular person maintains that relationship type X is the best for them, and discern whether or not they have made a mistake.
Isn't that sticking your nose in somebody's business where it doesn't belong? You're aware that opinions don't need logical grounding, it could be a matter of just liking it. Even if it's a phase.
You kinda seem aggressive on sub/dom relationships _J_. :?
I get kind of aggressive whenever someone takes "I like X" to be somehow indicative of there being a super-magical power to X.
If the OP was just "I like being tied up"? Ok, cool. But since the OP claims that "DS relationships are the most equitable and responsible relationships possible, ever"? There is something going on which is more than "I like this."
All of the people in this thread arguing in favor of DS relationships acknowledge that there is no reason to think DS relationships, in and of themselves, more equal or responsible than any other kind of relationship. So, I want to know why anyone would think that there is a super-magical quality to a DS relationship since, as far as anyone in the thread can tell, there is no evidence, at all, to suggest that all DS relationships are super-special in this way or that any DS relationship is, in itself, super-special in this way.
Except then we have to assess the reasons for which a particular person maintains that relationship type X is the best for them, and discern whether or not they have made a mistake.
Isn't that sticking your nose in somebody's business where it doesn't belong? You're aware that opinions don't need logical grounding, it could be a matter of just liking it. Even if it's a phase.
You kinda seem aggressive on sub/dom relationships _J_. :?
_J_ is aggressive about arguments, in general.
Winky on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited June 2010
So we wait for the OP to return.
When you said what you did above, it kinda sounded like an attempt to turn this into a H/A thread or something - saying we have to determine if someone's lifestyle is a mistake or not, when they haven't asked for it, is kinda rude.
Yeah, I think the midst of fatigue and fervor, I may have played up the advantages of DS relationships more than is reasonable.
I, personally, have trouble with communication. I don't feel comfortable telling people how I feel. It feels like an imposition. For me, being in a situation where sharing my feelings and expections is a "rule" is incredibly empowering. But looking back, I can see why that really is more of a personal preference. Everyone communicates on the level that works best for them in the way that works best for them.
I find that my experience with kink has developed my communication and introspection skills as well as put me more in touch with my sexuality and my attractiveness. So it has been advantageous.
But I would never say that it is the only path to develop these things or that people who don't practice kink are categorically worse in these areas than people who do.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I find that my experience with kink has developed my communication and introspection skills as well as put me more in touch with my sexuality and my attractiveness. So it has been advantageous.
But I would never say that it is the only path to develop these things or that people who don't practice kink are categorically worse in these areas than people who do.
I don't even have a kink and I agree with this post.
I find that my experience with kink has developed my communication and introspection skills as well as put me more in touch with my sexuality and my attractiveness. So it has been advantageous.
But I would never say that it is the only path to develop these things or that people who don't practice kink are categorically worse in these areas than people who do.
I don't even have a kink and I agree with this post.
I find that my experience with kink has developed my communication and introspection skills as well as put me more in touch with my sexuality and my attractiveness. So it has been advantageous.
But I would never say that it is the only path to develop these things or that people who don't practice kink are categorically worse in these areas than people who do.
I don't even have a kink and I agree with this post.
Especially the second part.
you have a fetish for (relatively) tall people
Arch has a fetish for microbiology. He likes to do the horizontal gene transfer.
Oh man that's like the tenth time I've used that joke here and it still cracks me up every time
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I find that my experience with kink has developed my communication and introspection skills as well as put me more in touch with my sexuality and my attractiveness. So it has been advantageous.
But I would never say that it is the only path to develop these things or that people who don't practice kink are categorically worse in these areas than people who do.
I don't even have a kink and I agree with this post.
Especially the second part.
you have a fetish for (relatively) tall people
only inasmuch as I want to befriend them, not have sexual relations with them
3) I don't think people necessarily come to be D or S or whatever purely in the state of nature. They are no less influenced by culture and so forth than any of us. That said I also don't think that being influenced by culture, by norms, whatever is automatically bad but it makes me wary of claims that BDSM partners have only come to that through, like, rigorous self-examination.
DS as it's typically practiced is deeply steeped in some common cultural and historical aesthetics: gothic fashion, Edwardian fashion, occasionally a medieval Japanese aesthetic. It's definitely, for lack of a better way of putting it, an expression of a melange of cultural influences.
This is a good point! I'd've thought of the architecture as a matter of personal choice, but not as packages with possibly their own baggage so to speak.
okay so what about relationships that are secrets? like an affair or whatever?
the two individuals are basically doing everything to make it seem like they're not adhering to any of the patterns or behaviours in the OP. Where does that fall?
Could you not see an affair as having its own cultural and personal baggage? "Don't talk to me when I'm with my wife," clandestine phone-calls and one-hour hotel rooms? (Oddly overlapping with prostitution and general promiscuity. Whee Victorianism!)
Why _J_'s point may become relevant is because the fantasy power dynamic you establish may ultimately have nothing to do with the real power dynamic that develops in your relationship. In which case, your clear-cut, pre-determined relationship contract is not nearly as useful as you thought.
Should you change or rewrite the contract in such an event?
I'm not going to copy Suica's post here, but it's really good and makes me think! If, considering the assumptions in the OP, is there anything wrong with (consensually, thoughtfully) internalizing cultural packages to craft a relationship? I personally like the D/S relationship because it lays it all out on the table, but there's nothing saying that has to be the only model as long as we think about it.
@Irond Will: realize the OP says nothing about happiness at all. And there's plenty of things we should maybe negotiate in real life instead of assuming. (Take feminist discourses which firmly state gender instead of leaving it to be signified.)
I believe that DS relationships are the most equitable and responsible relationships currently possible. (If someone else can show me a relationship where things are crafted from scratch that isn't DS, I'd be quite interested to see it.)
Well, it doesn't make the thesis wrong. Afterall, what mostly matters in terms of what works best and what doesn't work is our own individual experiences.
Edit - Er, I mean the thesis that it's for everyone is wrong, but the opinion that it works best for Arivia perhaps isn't wrong.
Well my original conclusion was predicated on the idea that putting thought into it was a good idea and that D/S relationships did the best job of crafting critical thought. Through, what I think now might actually be signs for signs' sake, the very thing I was attacking. :?
That said, this thread has done a good job of expanding that - Feral showed off how we can bring other packages in as part of the discourse and NOT submit them to interrogation, while Suica did a good job of explaining how we could bring critical thought into relationships that don't assume D/S setups.
Now we have some new questions to think about!
So I'd ask:
1) Can we conclude that critical, consensual thought is a good thing in a relationship?
2) Should this thought be shared among the very underpinnings of this relationship?
3) Is it possible for this thought to include readings and adaptations of critical properties, or should a relationship come from a blank slate?
Arivia on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
That is the only point at which power-talk makes sense. Once both parties consent? Nothing which transpires after the consent diminishes the power of either. No act to which any person freely consents diminishes that person's power.
If you think that someone who is tied up and restrained, or someone who is about to be subjected to sexual behaviors that they have not necessarily had any input on, has as much power as they entered the room with then your definition of power is faulty and needs revising.
The bold part does not follow from what I said.
You have yet to explain how agreeing to be bound changes the fact that one is bound in that particular moment. Until you come to grips with the not-very-difficult notion that consent is not a binary state, as Feral painstakingly explained to you like three pages ago, there's really no point in hashing this out further.
Jacobkosh on
0
Options
AriviaI Like A ChallengeEarth-1Registered Userregular
1) Individual, critical thought is good.
2) Non-DS relationships do not involve critical thought.
3) DS relationships do involve critical thought.
J, you're terrible at reading. Critical thought is good, most relationships don't involve critical thought, I believe BDSM relationships do (at least to a degree not usually seen elsewhere.)
-a relationship exists in a cultural context. Especially in kinship systems, it's really unrealistic to imagine two people just falling together without ANY sociocultural basis or repercussion. So, a relationship's signifiers can be cultural and not personal (the establishment and passing of a dowry, for example.)
So, if ANY relationship exists in a cultural context why is a DS relationship not subject to that which a non-DS relationship is subject in terms of the presence or absense of individual thought?
Likely because D/S relationships break from the cultural mode. It's a nod to Levi-Strauss more than anything else and I probably shouldn't have included it.
(I cut out a lot of stuff in here that was either J failing at reading or ascribing to me absolutisms that weren't in what I wrote.)
So, since a DS relationship is a relationship, how is it "created from scratch" i.e. not existing within a cultural context?
Good question, especially in light of Feral drafting D/S relationships in gothic or edwardian terms. Can a relationship exist without cultural context?
Isn't the very statement, "Hey, let's start a DS relationship." itself beholden to a wealth of societal norms and expectations?
Can we refute those by thinking about them critically?
1) Polyamorous relationships are an impossibility.
go ahead, put something actually to that
Arivia on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited June 2010
I'm sorry, I have to ask; what exactly do you mean when you say "critical thought"? The two words alone mean something but in the context you use them it confuses me.
Yeah, what Henroid said. I mean to me what I would define as critical thought would be extremely important for any kind of healthy relationship. To me that's like saying the sky is blue.
I'm not understanding how D/S relationships are in any way special in incorperating critical thought into a relationship.
HappylilElf on
0
Options
Mercutio87So build that wall and build it strong causeWe'll be there before too longRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
I take issue with the OP's original assumption that D/s relationships are the "most equitable and responsible relationships currently possible." D/s relationships are different. That's it. As to if they lead to a happier, healthier relationship, I think that depends entirely on the people in the relationship. As I've said on alternative relationships vs any other kind of relationship before, there is no best or right way...just whatever works best for the people involved in that particular relationship, which will be unique to any relationship. But hey, that's been resolved like four pages ago, so moving on.
I will note that in BDSM contexts, there is a tendency for people to act as if their relationships and handling of them is somehow unique or above the norm. Though I think that quality of "we do X better than everyone else" tends to arise in *any* alternative subculture.
That said this is one of the most involved discussions of D/s I've ever seen. Which is pretty nifty.
As for the OP's new questions:
1. Not sure what you mean by that. I think critical, open communication is good in any relationship. As well as thinking hard about what you want out of a relationship. But I think everyone does that to some degree.
2 and 3. I don't really think so. Again I point back to the "whatever works best for the relationship." Everyone's different.
Man my relationship is built from the ground up and rooted in appraisal that goes beyond just sort of futzing around and doing what tradition expects.
I think most people's relationships are more complex than you give them credit for. Just because D/S attracts more people who have sat down and had a conversation about why they're together and what the rules are doesn't mean that "normal" relationships don't frequently involve that sort of discussion.
Hell, if anything I think the lack of distinct roles makes for a more fertile basis for discussion.
Also your questions are horrible silly goosery. You're not giving a socratic seminar, just talk. All the questions do is make what you're saying more vague.
I thought basically what Will said, but didn't post. Got dogpiled once for saying the same things.
I see here what I see too much from proponents of anything 'alternative'.
That is, the idea that 'normal' people are just mindless drones.
People in 'conventional' relationships think about their relationships. You do know, that, right?
Or will you just define 'conventional' as 'unexamined' and No True Scotsman any supposedly conventional but complex relationship as somehow unconventional?
And, like Will, I've never met anyone who's been in a long-term (20yr+) BDSM relationship.
That is the only point at which power-talk makes sense. Once both parties consent? Nothing which transpires after the consent diminishes the power of either. No act to which any person freely consents diminishes that person's power.
If you think that someone who is tied up and restrained, or someone who is about to be subjected to sexual behaviors that they have not necessarily had any input on, has as much power as they entered the room with then your definition of power is faulty and needs revising.
The bold part does not follow from what I said.
You have yet to explain how agreeing to be bound changes the fact that one is bound in that particular moment. Until you come to grips with the not-very-difficult notion that consent is not a binary state, as Feral painstakingly explained to you like three pages ago, there's really no point in hashing this out further.
Consent is a binary state if one understands it as consent to a particular act and all causal repercussions of that act. So, one does not consent to "spank" but rather consents to "spank + all which causally follows". It would be nonsense to suggest that consent must, actually, be particular instances of consent to every particular activity / repercussion, ever.
_J_ on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I thought basically what Will said, but didn't post. Got dogpiled once for saying the same things.
I see here what I see too much from proponents of anything 'alternative'.
That is, the idea that 'normal' people are just mindless drones.
People in 'conventional' relationships think about their relationships. You do know, that, right?
Or will you just define 'conventional' as 'unexamined' and No True Scotsman any supposedly conventional but complex relationship as somehow unconventional?
And, like Will, I've never met anyone who's been in a long-term (20yr+) BDSM relationship.
Whenever a traditional relationship ends, no one goes "See? The traditional relationship model is flawed?"
Relationships should be judged on their own merits.
Dread Pirate Arbuthnot on
0
Options
AriviaI Like A ChallengeEarth-1Registered Userregular
I'm sorry, I have to ask; what exactly do you mean when you say "critical thought"? The two words alone mean something but in the context you use them it confuses me.
Thought, not just about what is going on but the why and how of it. To provide a rather facile example appropriate to this thread, not just "welp we broke up because you forgot our anniversary again" but the methods in which we construct relationships and to a degree perpetrate them. Question ourselves, our assumptions, and our unconscious actions - and the ultimate meaning of those, what they say about us as people, our culture, and our existance - not just taking them all at face value.
Arivia on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I personally like the D/S relationship because it lays it all out on the table
The point I would make is that you need to make a distinction between
1) The D/S relationship lays everything out on the table.
2) The particular D/S relationships in which I have been involved laid everything out on the table.
3) The particular D/S relationships in which I have been involved laid everything out on the table, unlike any non-D/S relationships in which I have been involved.
1) Individual, critical thought is good.
2) Non-DS relationships do not involve critical thought.
3) DS relationships do involve critical thought.
J, you're terrible at reading. Critical thought is good, most relationships don't involve critical thought, I believe BDSM relationships do (at least to a degree not usually seen elsewhere.)
You added qualifiers in this post which did not occur in your OP. You cannot state that I am terrible at reading as a result of my not adding qualifiers which did not exist in your OP.
Likely because D/S relationships break from the cultural mode.
In what sense? Much of your OP and the subsequent sentiment sounds like that one line from the Simpsons episode wherein Bart gets an earring. Lisa comments, "How rebelious...in a conformist sort of way."
I do not grant any special power to a D/S relationship simply because the majority of persons do not participate in them. D/S relationships have their own norms, definitions, understandings, and cultural baggage.
So, since a DS relationship is a relationship, how is it "created from scratch" i.e. not existing within a cultural context?
Good question, especially in light of Feral drafting D/S relationships in gothic or edwardian terms. Can a relationship exist without cultural context?
No relationship which exists in culture can lack a cultural context, by definition.
Isn't the very statement, "Hey, let's start a DS relationship." itself beholden to a wealth of societal norms and expectations?
Can we refute those by thinking about them critically?
Only if critical thought, itself, is somehow estranged from society and its norms. I am happy to do this by way of an understanding of thought qua rationalism wherein thought is itself a process estranged from any context.
But unless you are a secret Spinozist I doubt that you'd want to engage with that mode of understanding thought. My guess is that you would argue that thought arises out of, is defined by, and is only sensible with regard to, a society.
1) Polyamorous relationships are an impossibility.
go ahead, put something actually to that
Polyamory is ( poly [many] amor [love]) It is, by definition, "Many love" or "having many loves." But this is impossible given that love is a relationship which can only occur between two persons and be had with only one other person.
Player A can only [love] Player B.
It is impossible for Player A to [love] Player B and [love] Player C at the same time, in the same way.
So, let's say that Player A's love quantity is 50.
1) Player A loves Player B.
In this situation, the quantity of love from Player A to Player B is 50.
2) Player A loves Player B and loves Player C.
In this situation, the quantity of love from Player A to Player B must be less than 50. At best, the love would be 25 to Player B and 25 to Player C.
However, deprivation of love is not love. So, love can only occur in its fullest quantity. Which means that it can only occur between the lover and the beloved.
It is quantitatively impossible to love multiple persons.
_J_ on
0
Options
AriviaI Like A ChallengeEarth-1Registered Userregular
Man my relationship is built from the ground up and rooted in appraisal that goes beyond just sort of futzing around and doing what tradition expects.
Awesome!
I think most people's relationships are more complex than you give them credit for. Just because D/S attracts more people who have sat down and had a conversation about why they're together and what the rules are doesn't mean that "normal" relationships don't frequently involve that sort of discussion.
Hell, if anything I think the lack of distinct roles makes for a more fertile basis for discussion.
Very possibly. Suica did a good job of showing me that I was giving some relationships too little thought with regards to their approaches towards enculturation.
I see here what I see too much from proponents of anything 'alternative'.
That is, the idea that 'normal' people are just mindless drones.
People in 'conventional' relationships think about their relationships. You do know, that, right?
Or will you just define 'conventional' as 'unexamined' and No True Scotsman any supposedly conventional but complex relationship as somehow unconventional?
And, like Will, I've never met anyone who's been in a long-term (20yr+) BDSM relationship.
Woah, chill, posh. This is ultimately a thought that's been rolling around in my head; not trying to break down your door and tell you you're stupid because you don't use dog collars daily.
No, I don't want to True Scotsman anything. Pay attention to what I'm saying - I've accepted that my original premise is wrong, and I'm now looking towards how we can work more thought into any relationship, D/S or otherwise.
I'm sorry, I have to ask; what exactly do you mean when you say "critical thought"? The two words alone mean something but in the context you use them it confuses me.
Thought, not just about what is going on but the why and how of it. To provide a rather facile example appropriate to this thread, not just "welp we broke up because you forgot our anniversary again" but the methods in which we construct relationships and to a degree perpetrate them. Question ourselves, our assumptions, and our unconscious actions - and the ultimate meaning of those, what they say about us as people, our culture, and our existance - not just taking them all at face value.
So, critical thought is thought with regard to:
1) Description of event (the cat is on the mat)
2) Causal narrative (how the cat came to be on the mat)
3) Intentionality / telos narrative (why the cat came to be on the mat)
- What is an unconscious action?
- How can an unconscious action be known?
I'm sorry, I have to ask; what exactly do you mean when you say "critical thought"? The two words alone mean something but in the context you use them it confuses me.
Thought, not just about what is going on but the why and how of it. To provide a rather facile example appropriate to this thread, not just "welp we broke up because you forgot our anniversary again" but the methods in which we construct relationships and to a degree perpetrate them. Question ourselves, our assumptions, and our unconscious actions - and the ultimate meaning of those, what they say about us as people, our culture, and our existance - not just taking them all at face value.
Ok, that's what I figured. Yeah, to me that's pretty much a requirement for anything resembling a healthy relationship but I've never been in a D/S relationship and have no desire ever to be.
What does what you just wrote have to do with D/S relationships?
*edit* @_J_ I'm only guessing but I think they're maybe equating "unconcious actions" to "actions that have unintended and undesireable consequences"?
I've accepted that my original premise is wrong, and I'm now looking towards how we can work more thought into any relationship, D/S or otherwise.
I would like to know why you think thought behooves a relationship and what level of thought is ideal.
Zero Thought: Problem.
100% Thought: Problem.
I take 100% thought to be problematic given that you seem to think DS relationships fine, and these only function with an absense of thought in that a D/S relationship will utilize scenes of fantasy and play, which is thoughtless or, at least, not 100% thought. It would be impossible to both be in a state of 100% thought (100% cognition and realization of the True manner in which things are) and pretend to be a pirate for the sake of a sexual fantasy, for example.
There has to be an in-between which you consider ideal.
Posts
FWIW, I've been with my girlfriend for a little over a year now. That's not to say it's always sunshine and rainbow unicorn lollipop blowjobs, but we're making it work.
Now, it would be nice if I could find another girlfriend. :P
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
well, the internet is good at making everything easier to find, kink or no.
my point is that there's a reason for cultural standards. when most straight non-fetishists enter into romantic arrangements, there are certain expectations that both partners bring to the relationship. granted, there are a number of different sorts of arrangements since the sexual revolution and feminist movements, but there are common expectations and some implicit guidance and reinforcement from social groups.
these things are helpful for the establishment and longevity of romantic relationships is what i am saying.
Can you name those common expectations and standards with straight-forward, explicit language? I'm curious to hear them.
Edit - And it's not a matter of me disagreeing with you, but I want to see if some of those things actually happen in a DS relationship.
The bold part does not follow from what I said.
Any act to which a person freely consents does not diminish that person's power. This is the relation between power and consent.
So, the two people primarily arguing in favor of the DS relationship in this thread disagree with the thesis of the OP.
Any chance that Arivia is going to participate in the thread and defend her thesis?
Well, it doesn't make the thesis wrong. Afterall, what mostly matters in terms of what works best and what doesn't work is our own individual experiences.
Edit - Er, I mean the thesis that it's for everyone is wrong, but the opinion that it works best for Arivia perhaps isn't wrong.
Sounds like a universal claim. Of all possible relationships, a DS relationship is the most equitable and responsible.
Alrighty.
Except then we have to assess the reasons for which a particular person maintains that relationship type X is the best for them, and discern whether or not they have made a mistake.
My suspicion is that the whole focus is upon equality, and responsibility? There's ultimately nothing special about a DS relationship with regard to any of those.
We're currently open in theory, but not really in practice.
We had a third partner for over a year, it ended because she had to move to take care of an ill family member. We'd do it again, if the circumstances were right.
Just clarifying if we're going to be used as an example.
Isn't that sticking your nose in somebody's business where it doesn't belong? You're aware that opinions don't need logical grounding, it could be a matter of just liking it. Even if it's a phase.
You kinda seem aggressive on sub/dom relationships _J_. :?
I get kind of aggressive whenever someone takes "I like X" to be somehow indicative of there being a super-magical power to X.
If the OP was just "I like being tied up"? Ok, cool. But since the OP claims that "DS relationships are the most equitable and responsible relationships possible, ever"? There is something going on which is more than "I like this."
All of the people in this thread arguing in favor of DS relationships acknowledge that there is no reason to think DS relationships, in and of themselves, more equal or responsible than any other kind of relationship. So, I want to know why anyone would think that there is a super-magical quality to a DS relationship since, as far as anyone in the thread can tell, there is no evidence, at all, to suggest that all DS relationships are super-special in this way or that any DS relationship is, in itself, super-special in this way.
_J_ is aggressive about arguments, in general.
When you said what you did above, it kinda sounded like an attempt to turn this into a H/A thread or something - saying we have to determine if someone's lifestyle is a mistake or not, when they haven't asked for it, is kinda rude.
I, personally, have trouble with communication. I don't feel comfortable telling people how I feel. It feels like an imposition. For me, being in a situation where sharing my feelings and expections is a "rule" is incredibly empowering. But looking back, I can see why that really is more of a personal preference. Everyone communicates on the level that works best for them in the way that works best for them.
But I would never say that it is the only path to develop these things or that people who don't practice kink are categorically worse in these areas than people who do.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I don't even have a kink and I agree with this post.
Especially the second part.
you have a fetish for (relatively) tall people
Arch has a fetish for microbiology. He likes to do the horizontal gene transfer.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
only inasmuch as I want to befriend them, not have sexual relations with them
i prefer my sexual partners to be small.
also feral's short joke was better
This is a good point! I'd've thought of the architecture as a matter of personal choice, but not as packages with possibly their own baggage so to speak.
Could you not see an affair as having its own cultural and personal baggage? "Don't talk to me when I'm with my wife," clandestine phone-calls and one-hour hotel rooms? (Oddly overlapping with prostitution and general promiscuity. Whee Victorianism!)
Should you change or rewrite the contract in such an event?
I'm not going to copy Suica's post here, but it's really good and makes me think! If, considering the assumptions in the OP, is there anything wrong with (consensually, thoughtfully) internalizing cultural packages to craft a relationship? I personally like the D/S relationship because it lays it all out on the table, but there's nothing saying that has to be the only model as long as we think about it.
@Irond Will: realize the OP says nothing about happiness at all. And there's plenty of things we should maybe negotiate in real life instead of assuming. (Take feminist discourses which firmly state gender instead of leaving it to be signified.)
Well my original conclusion was predicated on the idea that putting thought into it was a good idea and that D/S relationships did the best job of crafting critical thought. Through, what I think now might actually be signs for signs' sake, the very thing I was attacking. :?
That said, this thread has done a good job of expanding that - Feral showed off how we can bring other packages in as part of the discourse and NOT submit them to interrogation, while Suica did a good job of explaining how we could bring critical thought into relationships that don't assume D/S setups.
Now we have some new questions to think about!
So I'd ask:
1) Can we conclude that critical, consensual thought is a good thing in a relationship?
2) Should this thought be shared among the very underpinnings of this relationship?
3) Is it possible for this thought to include readings and adaptations of critical properties, or should a relationship come from a blank slate?
You have yet to explain how agreeing to be bound changes the fact that one is bound in that particular moment. Until you come to grips with the not-very-difficult notion that consent is not a binary state, as Feral painstakingly explained to you like three pages ago, there's really no point in hashing this out further.
J, you're terrible at reading. Critical thought is good, most relationships don't involve critical thought, I believe BDSM relationships do (at least to a degree not usually seen elsewhere.)
Likely because D/S relationships break from the cultural mode. It's a nod to Levi-Strauss more than anything else and I probably shouldn't have included it.
(I cut out a lot of stuff in here that was either J failing at reading or ascribing to me absolutisms that weren't in what I wrote.)
Good question, especially in light of Feral drafting D/S relationships in gothic or edwardian terms. Can a relationship exist without cultural context?
Can we refute those by thinking about them critically?
go ahead, put something actually to that
I'm not understanding how D/S relationships are in any way special in incorperating critical thought into a relationship.
I will note that in BDSM contexts, there is a tendency for people to act as if their relationships and handling of them is somehow unique or above the norm. Though I think that quality of "we do X better than everyone else" tends to arise in *any* alternative subculture.
That said this is one of the most involved discussions of D/s I've ever seen. Which is pretty nifty.
As for the OP's new questions:
1. Not sure what you mean by that. I think critical, open communication is good in any relationship. As well as thinking hard about what you want out of a relationship. But I think everyone does that to some degree.
2 and 3. I don't really think so. Again I point back to the "whatever works best for the relationship." Everyone's different.
I think most people's relationships are more complex than you give them credit for. Just because D/S attracts more people who have sat down and had a conversation about why they're together and what the rules are doesn't mean that "normal" relationships don't frequently involve that sort of discussion.
Hell, if anything I think the lack of distinct roles makes for a more fertile basis for discussion.
Also your questions are horrible silly goosery. You're not giving a socratic seminar, just talk. All the questions do is make what you're saying more vague.
I see here what I see too much from proponents of anything 'alternative'.
That is, the idea that 'normal' people are just mindless drones.
People in 'conventional' relationships think about their relationships. You do know, that, right?
Or will you just define 'conventional' as 'unexamined' and No True Scotsman any supposedly conventional but complex relationship as somehow unconventional?
And, like Will, I've never met anyone who's been in a long-term (20yr+) BDSM relationship.
Consent is a binary state if one understands it as consent to a particular act and all causal repercussions of that act. So, one does not consent to "spank" but rather consents to "spank + all which causally follows". It would be nonsense to suggest that consent must, actually, be particular instances of consent to every particular activity / repercussion, ever.
I've only met one couple to get to / surpass 20 years for a relationship - my grandparents. Your statement means nothing as far as I'm concerned. :P
Things that you've no experience of are meaningless?
Whenever a traditional relationship ends, no one goes "See? The traditional relationship model is flawed?"
Relationships should be judged on their own merits.
Thought, not just about what is going on but the why and how of it. To provide a rather facile example appropriate to this thread, not just "welp we broke up because you forgot our anniversary again" but the methods in which we construct relationships and to a degree perpetrate them. Question ourselves, our assumptions, and our unconscious actions - and the ultimate meaning of those, what they say about us as people, our culture, and our existance - not just taking them all at face value.
No, saying that BDSM relationships aren't capable of reaching that milestone is silly because most other relationships don't either.
The point I would make is that you need to make a distinction between
1) The D/S relationship lays everything out on the table.
2) The particular D/S relationships in which I have been involved laid everything out on the table.
3) The particular D/S relationships in which I have been involved laid everything out on the table, unlike any non-D/S relationships in which I have been involved.
You added qualifiers in this post which did not occur in your OP. You cannot state that I am terrible at reading as a result of my not adding qualifiers which did not exist in your OP.
In what sense? Much of your OP and the subsequent sentiment sounds like that one line from the Simpsons episode wherein Bart gets an earring. Lisa comments, "How rebelious...in a conformist sort of way."
I do not grant any special power to a D/S relationship simply because the majority of persons do not participate in them. D/S relationships have their own norms, definitions, understandings, and cultural baggage.
I'd go back and read what you wrote. Note the lack of "some" and "most" and rather "all" and "every".
No relationship which exists in culture can lack a cultural context, by definition.
Only if critical thought, itself, is somehow estranged from society and its norms. I am happy to do this by way of an understanding of thought qua rationalism wherein thought is itself a process estranged from any context.
But unless you are a secret Spinozist I doubt that you'd want to engage with that mode of understanding thought. My guess is that you would argue that thought arises out of, is defined by, and is only sensible with regard to, a society.
Polyamory is ( poly [many] amor [love]) It is, by definition, "Many love" or "having many loves." But this is impossible given that love is a relationship which can only occur between two persons and be had with only one other person.
Player A can only [love] Player B.
It is impossible for Player A to [love] Player B and [love] Player C at the same time, in the same way.
This is a kind of Malthusian argument. One has a finite quantity of Love.
So, let's say that Player A's love quantity is 50.
1) Player A loves Player B.
In this situation, the quantity of love from Player A to Player B is 50.
2) Player A loves Player B and loves Player C.
In this situation, the quantity of love from Player A to Player B must be less than 50. At best, the love would be 25 to Player B and 25 to Player C.
However, deprivation of love is not love. So, love can only occur in its fullest quantity. Which means that it can only occur between the lover and the beloved.
It is quantitatively impossible to love multiple persons.
Awesome!
Very possibly. Suica did a good job of showing me that I was giving some relationships too little thought with regards to their approaches towards enculturation.
Woah, chill, posh. This is ultimately a thought that's been rolling around in my head; not trying to break down your door and tell you you're stupid because you don't use dog collars daily.
No, I don't want to True Scotsman anything. Pay attention to what I'm saying - I've accepted that my original premise is wrong, and I'm now looking towards how we can work more thought into any relationship, D/S or otherwise.
So, critical thought is thought with regard to:
1) Description of event (the cat is on the mat)
2) Causal narrative (how the cat came to be on the mat)
3) Intentionality / telos narrative (why the cat came to be on the mat)
- What is an unconscious action?
- How can an unconscious action be known?
Ok, that's what I figured. Yeah, to me that's pretty much a requirement for anything resembling a healthy relationship but I've never been in a D/S relationship and have no desire ever to be.
What does what you just wrote have to do with D/S relationships?
*edit* @_J_ I'm only guessing but I think they're maybe equating "unconcious actions" to "actions that have unintended and undesireable consequences"?
I would like to know why you think thought behooves a relationship and what level of thought is ideal.
Zero Thought: Problem.
100% Thought: Problem.
I take 100% thought to be problematic given that you seem to think DS relationships fine, and these only function with an absense of thought in that a D/S relationship will utilize scenes of fantasy and play, which is thoughtless or, at least, not 100% thought. It would be impossible to both be in a state of 100% thought (100% cognition and realization of the True manner in which things are) and pretend to be a pirate for the sake of a sexual fantasy, for example.
There has to be an in-between which you consider ideal.
What is it?
Could be. Or actions the reason for which is unknown.