364 lines
15 KiB
Plaintext
364 lines
15 KiB
Plaintext
This is an edited transcript of SPOTLIGHT ON D&S, Sunday, May 27th
|
|
|
|
(Editors note: being the power-crazed dominants that we are, we exerted
|
|
our editorial prerogative and reworded a couple of our comments to more
|
|
accurately reflect what we were talking about than our garbled syntax
|
|
conveyed at the time. So, for those of you who can't remember us sounding
|
|
so eloquent--think of it as deus ex machina. Aside from the usual
|
|
editorial/grammatical corrections, the comments/questions of the members
|
|
are unchanged.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOPIC: WHAT IS LIFESTYLE D&S?
|
|
|
|
A round-robin discussion by the members of
|
|
Variations II
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,Lowell) <bowing as JR enters...>
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) Welcome one and all to SPOTLIGHT ON D&S!!!!
|
|
|
|
(12,Tami (tv)) Kissing JR's high heeled boots
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) <if Tami can keep her tongue off the footwear
|
|
we'd like to begin this discussion...
|
|
|
|
(12,Tami (tv)) I'll try
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) on LIFESTYLE VS. NO STYLE! <grin> Tonight we
|
|
hope to either resolve the issue of what the hell lifestyle is and whether
|
|
it's worth living and what bedroom d&s is (and wouldn't you rather watch
|
|
tv?) (NO-NOT YOU, TAMI!) We think it's fair to say that JR would probably
|
|
love to get this show on the road? ga
|
|
|
|
(12,JR) That's debatable too <smile>.
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) First, the usual caveat: THIS IS A FORMAL
|
|
CO!!!!! FORMAL CO RULES APPLY! Type ? if you have a question and ! if you
|
|
have a comment. The moderator will call on you in turn. (If you need info
|
|
on the rules, please check LIB12 for a full list). Also, please conclude
|
|
your question/comment with "ga" (for "go ahead") so we know you're done!
|
|
Now, JR, would you care to give us your point of view on lifestyle vs.
|
|
bedroom d&s?
|
|
|
|
(12,JR) A&W and everyone, I'm going to make a startling announcement. You
|
|
all have succeeded in wearing down my line of division between the two to
|
|
the point that we are now discussing a rather blurred spectrum. Never-
|
|
theless, I continue to retain my preference for what is considered
|
|
non-lifestyle - as opposed to what has been explained to me as being
|
|
lifestyle. In other words, I have no wish to "own" anyone, except
|
|
sexually. How's that for starters? ga
|
|
|
|
(12,john h.) ?
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) That's great, JR. John, you have a question?
|
|
|
|
(12,Tami (tv)) ?
|
|
|
|
(12,Frank) !
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12,john h.) May i do a bit of "soul baring" before I ask?
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) Go right ahead, John. ga
|
|
|
|
(12,john h.) Well, i have just started exploring my interest in D&S and
|
|
i've enjoyed greatly a couple of encounters with a pro...great times but i
|
|
want a more permanent and close relationship with a Mistress. i want to
|
|
feel "owned" but not in the way i think everyone here means it. i don't
|
|
want to be chained by day and tortured by night every day. i want to enjoy
|
|
shopping with my mistress and bringing her coffee in the morning etc. As
|
|
well as the fun sexual aspects of training. So, i guess my question is: Am
|
|
i looking for a lifestyle or non-lifestyle relationship ? Or can that
|
|
really be answered ?
|
|
|
|
(12,Caspar) !
|
|
|
|
(12,Frank) !!
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) Caspar or Frank--either of you wish to answer
|
|
John directly? If so, we'll put Tami's question on hold. ga
|
|
|
|
(12,Frank) Yes
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) Ok, Frank --please go ahead. ga
|
|
|
|
(12,Frank) Well in the first place, I don't believe anyone here has the
|
|
kind of 'lifestyle' that john was describing. To most of us 'lifestyle'
|
|
means that one person is 'in charge'...
|
|
|
|
(12,john h.) !
|
|
|
|
(12,Frank) on a steady basis outside the bedroom but that both still have
|
|
their own lives and certainly that there is love and sharing. ga
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) John, were you responding to Frank's comment? ga
|
|
|
|
(12,john h.) Thanks Frank, i was exaggerating and i think i like your
|
|
definition and that's what i'm looking for. Something ongoing that fills
|
|
both persons needs as much as possible. i have come to think that I need
|
|
to be of service to someone to be happy. ga.
|
|
|
|
(12,Lowell) !
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) Ok, thanks, John & Frank. Tami, you have a
|
|
question? Ah--Tami has decamped. Caspar, you had a comment? ga
|
|
|
|
(12,Caspar) oh, that's me.
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) Sure is, C. <grin> ga
|
|
|
|
(12,Caspar) I was just thinking that it gets a little ridiculous to waste
|
|
a lot of effort defining "lifestyle", when what we're really talking about
|
|
is specific issues regarding choice of the sub. How much freedom does the
|
|
sub have to make life choices? I mean, only in very limited relationships
|
|
is SEX limited to the bedroom, right? What about if my lady wants to take
|
|
a new job and I don't want her to? Should I tell her she can't take it?
|
|
That would be an extreme few of us would probably be willing to accept,
|
|
right? ga
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) Good points, Caspar. Frank, you had a comment
|
|
earlier... still wish to make it? ga
|
|
|
|
(12,Frank) I guess. I don't see any of the active lifestylers here...
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
(12,john h.) !
|
|
|
|
(12,Frank) So I was going to pick up JRs gauntlet (yes I know about you
|
|
root beer folk) but you're on another axis.
|
|
|
|
(12,Tom T.) ?
|
|
|
|
(12,Frank) Anyway...I don't see the problem with two people deciding that
|
|
one should be in charge--even to to point that Caspar brought up, though
|
|
certainly any responsible dom would think long and hard before making such
|
|
a choice ga
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) Thanks, Frank. Lowell, you had a comment? ga
|
|
|
|
(12,Lowell) Yes...
|
|
|
|
(12,Michele R. (tv)) !
|
|
|
|
(12,Lowell) I understand what John was talking about and in some ways feel
|
|
the same need...
|
|
|
|
(12,Bob K.) !
|
|
|
|
(12,Lowell) I also find JR's owning, or being owned, sexually very
|
|
appealing and can agree with one person being in charge on a long term
|
|
basis--but the real problem would be having someone get involved in say,
|
|
business decisions. There must be a balance, a common understanding
|
|
somewhere, where two people can have a true D/s relationship without
|
|
taking away from each other's wellbeing. I also think we're all basically
|
|
talking about the same thing and that the word "bedroom" was what confused
|
|
everyone. ga
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) Thanks, Lowell. Tom T., you had a question? ga
|
|
|
|
(12,Tom T.) Angelique: Is there any reversal of roles in these
|
|
relationships or could that be a criterion for distinction between
|
|
lifestyle and bedroom? ga
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) Role reversal (or switching) isn't what distinguishes "lifestyle" from
|
|
"bedroom" from lifestyle. The distinction we see lies in that "bedroom"
|
|
d&s generally means that the power exchange and mutually agreed-upon roles
|
|
are short-term and basically limited to sexual activities--the partners'
|
|
agreement appears to be that d&s is primarily for sexual pleasure.
|
|
|
|
Lifestylers generally enact the power dynamic on a full-time basis--and
|
|
accept roles as full expressions of their personality. For folks who do
|
|
not switch, that means remaining consistently within a specific power
|
|
dynamic; for switches, it means that partners may exchange roles
|
|
periodically. ga
|
|
|
|
(12,Kay B.) ?
|
|
|
|
(12,JR) !
|
|
|
|
(12,Tom T.) ?
|
|
|
|
(12,Frank) !
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) Michele, You had a comment? ga
|
|
|
|
(12,Michele R. (tv)) It seems to me that many of you are too close to the
|
|
forest to see the trees. At least 2 times tonite, lowell and A&W, the word
|
|
"term" was used: while certainly the degree of control enters into it, the
|
|
primary difference between lifestyle and bedroom centers around "term"--
|
|
whether term means a long-term relationship versus a one nite stand; or just
|
|
in the bedroom versus every hour of the day. ga
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) Interesting observation, Michele. Bob K., you
|
|
had a comment? ga
|
|
|
|
(12,Bob K.) yes, thanks
|
|
|
|
(12,Lowell) !
|
|
|
|
(12,Bob K.) i have been a sub for almost 20 years and i cannot remember a
|
|
time when i ever made demands on my doms. i never told them how far i
|
|
could go, or how long the engagement was for. it was never thought that i
|
|
could. ga.
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) Thanks, Bob. Kay, you had a question? ga
|
|
|
|
(12,Kay B.) yes, A&W, would you define 'full-time' power exchange? ga
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) Kay--we'd be happy to define what a full time
|
|
power exchange is *for us*-- it's if that's what you're asking? ga
|
|
|
|
(12,Kay B.) yes, what is your definition? ga
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) Well--with the warning that this is our
|
|
subjective reality....The power exchange continues throughout the day and
|
|
enters every aspect of our lives. For example, the submissive always
|
|
consults with the dominant and/or asks permission on important issues (or
|
|
minor issues if there's been prior agreement that permission is required)
|
|
it *does not* mean that the submissive has no free will or is required to
|
|
remain in bondage or perform services to the dominant constantly. It
|
|
*does* mean...
|
|
|
|
(12,john h.) !
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) that the dominant has the power to intervene at
|
|
will whenever s/he wishes to intervene (again--the wise dom knows when to
|
|
step back and let the sub make his/her own decisions and choices).
|
|
|
|
As moderators, we'll go to the next person, and that's JR, with a comment?
|
|
ga
|
|
|
|
(12,Kay B.) !
|
|
|
|
(12,Tom T.) ??
|
|
|
|
(12,JR) A&W, correct me if I'm wrong, but in discerning the fact that you
|
|
are both basically Tops, that indicates to me that you must switch.
|
|
Nevertheless, you stated earlier that your idea of "full-time" is "fully
|
|
expressive" of the relationship. That indicates a limitation - that it is
|
|
the only expression. That may be an extreme view, but it is reasonable if
|
|
D/s permeates all aspects of a lifestyle relationship. Thus, there is no
|
|
"non-D/s" aspect. Am I correct in assuming that, and in assuming that
|
|
there is no dividing line, or rather - there is no limitation to the Dom's
|
|
power in any aspect? ga
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) JR, you raised several questions, so we'll
|
|
try to answer each in order. First: we meant that lifestyle roles express
|
|
the personality of the individuals involved (perhaps saying "fully" was
|
|
hyperbolic).
|
|
|
|
For someone like MRD inter alia, who feels dominant and dominant only, and
|
|
enjoys controlling all areas of his life, it makes sense that he has
|
|
selected as his life partner a woman who feels submissive and submissive
|
|
only, and enjoys being told what to do. Will and I had both dominant and
|
|
submissive fantasies. So, our relationship gives each of us opportunities
|
|
to express/explore both sides--sometimes controlling, sometimes being
|
|
controlled.
|
|
|
|
Second, D&S permeates all aspects of our relationship. Obviously, unlike
|
|
our dear friends MRD & denis, our satisfaction in d&s isn't pegged to
|
|
fixed roles but to the emotional and psychological gratification we feel
|
|
in the exchange of power on a constant basis....
|
|
|
|
(12,JR) !?
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) Third, by D&S we don't mean sexual acts...
|
|
|
|
(12,spanked tommy) hello
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) nor (necessarily) explicit expressions of d or s.
|
|
D&s to us is the gratification and freedom of someone always being in
|
|
control in this household, even if the power shifts.
|
|
|
|
Finally, the powers of any dominant are always limited. If there were
|
|
absolutely no limits there'd be no difference between a dominant and a
|
|
tyrant. A good dominant is "limited" by human concerns--caring for the
|
|
submissive is a prime example--and that limit is one which any sane top
|
|
imposes upon her/himself. Compassion and love for your submissive don't
|
|
detract from a lifestyle relationship--on the contrary! Many people opt
|
|
for lifestyle because that's where they feel most fulfilled. ga
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) Frank, you had a comment? ga
|
|
|
|
(12,Frank) I was choking on the term 'fully expressive' but was _somewhat_
|
|
alleviated by subsequent explanation. ga
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) Ok, Frank--so shoot us for our rhetoric-on-the
|
|
-fly. <grin> Lowell--you wished to comment? ga
|
|
|
|
(12,Lowell) Yes...
|
|
|
|
(12,JR) !
|
|
|
|
(12,Lowell) W&A, I can think of numerous so called 'vanilla' relationships
|
|
that fit your above definition of 'lifestyle' without our special bedroom
|
|
activities, i.e., good old RR always called Nancy prior to okaying a new
|
|
cabinet secretary. Power exchange has to be something more than one person
|
|
dominating, in the non D/s sense, another and I think in many ways we do
|
|
come right back to the bedroom, where the primary difference between our
|
|
expression and their's occurs; where a disobedient sub risks physical
|
|
punishment or denial of sexual fulfillment. I don't see why the activities
|
|
in the 'bedroom' don't in some ways control the rest of the relationship,
|
|
whether agreed on or not. ga
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) Thanks, Lowell--a quick response: if the whole
|
|
relationship is set up according to power exchange, there's no set border
|
|
between the bedroom and the living room. We doubt Ronnie got spanked by
|
|
Nancy when he appointed James Watt, though god knows, he should've. <grin>
|
|
John H., you had a comment or two? ga
|
|
|
|
(12,john h.) yep. i guess i just want to say that now i understand
|
|
better. i guess it's just that no one ever logs on and says what a joy it
|
|
was to serve their top breakfast in bed on Sunday morning or to feed them
|
|
grapes as they relax (grinning at JR). We only seem to cover the sexual
|
|
aspects of things. Now i see there's more. All i have to do now is find
|
|
that lifestyle relationship. At least now i know what i'm looking for.
|
|
|
|
In addition, Lowell, perhaps that's what makes us different--every
|
|
relationship has its power struggles, we just admit ours, and give
|
|
consent, thus making both participants happier in their honesty. (OK sure
|
|
we go farther since Tops usually make the sub ask permission...but thats
|
|
honesty !!) ga
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) John, good observations. Although members do
|
|
talk in general terms on the message board about "loving" d&s and the
|
|
merits and responsibilities of a full-time d&s relationship, it's true
|
|
that we don't talk about what an average day is like. Possibly because
|
|
it's about as interesting as anyone's day. <grin>.
|
|
|
|
One thing we'd like to know, John, is how you formed the opinion that
|
|
lifestyle d&s meant being tied up all day and tortured all night (or some
|
|
variant thereon). ga
|
|
|
|
(12,john h.) Well, that was an exaggeration, but all literary exposure and
|
|
things here were either overtly or slightly covertly sexual in nature.
|
|
Now, i enjoy sexual excitement, but i hold an intelligent woman who wants
|
|
to Top me in high enough regard to know she's interested in more than a
|
|
purely sexual relationship. i was hoping that lifestyle meant more and i
|
|
see that it does. ga
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) Thanks for the clarification, John. Now, if
|
|
anyone has a concluding question or comment, please speak up!
|
|
|
|
<waiting>
|
|
|
|
<tapping feet>
|
|
|
|
No? Ok, you ingrates! if you're going to be that way about it, we'll just
|
|
END the CO by announcing.......................
|
|
|
|
FORMAL CO IS NOW OVER! (how original!)
|
|
|
|
(12,Frank) You should have tapped your riding crop, folks.
|
|
|
|
(:: Angelique & Will ::) Thanks to one and all! This was an extremely
|
|
lively and intelligent debate. We doubt this resolved anything, but maybe
|
|
we're all finally sick enough of the topic that we can dispense with
|
|
further messages! <grin>
|
|
|
|
We love you all! and wish you a good night!
|