play and relationships

A recent post here on play resulted in a number of responses and an interesting discussion.

It stimulated Misty to write her own post about it which you can read here. In turn that has generated a fascinating discussion about the nature, role and importance of play in relationships. Do pop over to read it and perhaps join in.

labels

There are so many labels in BDSM and so many interpretations of each. Just that one for a start. There are people who will give different words for the letters B,D,S or M.

Where does one start with the rest? D/s, Dd, M/s; submissives, slaves and dominants; Daddies and babygirls; sadists and masochists...

I'm sure we could compile a huge list. Perhaps that just shows the huge variety in what we do. In fact many call it "This thing that we do". Perhaps that is a recognition of the huge diversity in what we do but also the fact that there are common threads. Perhaps it says that there is more that unites us than divides us in all of our differences.

I worry sometimes though that people can get too hung up on a particular label and what it means to adhere to that concept. I like things to be inclusive rather than exclusive. I don't like to feel that I'm not quite part of a particular scene or group because my profile doesn't fit with a particular definition. I think it may be that I just don't like being labelled. Not just in this world but across my life.

But can labels be positive? Do they bring a sense of community? Does it help with identity, self image and self esteem? Or can labels exclude as well as include? Is this how cliques form and criticisms of outsiders becomes justified?

Personally I tend to avoid identifying myself with particular labels but I recognise how helpful it can be to help others understand.

What about you? Do you like to adhere to a particular label? Does it help identify you as a person and give you strength in this world? Or can they be a negative thing?

play

My last post smoke and mirrors, inspired by a comment from Anonymous, stimulated a very interesting discussion.

Anonymous also wrote here

My rumination on this topic comes from the term 'play' for intimate time spent between dom and sub, or master and slave, etc. It seems far too cavalier a term for something so intense and intimate.

That too hit home and got me thinking. We bandy about the term "play" about activities that as Anonymous writes are so "intense and intimate". Perhaps it chimes with discussions about the appropriateness of the word "fantasy" in comments on my previous post. However the word "play" is used commonly and is a useful word to describe much of what we do.

Is it too important, central to the dynamic, essential to a relationship, to be called just "play"?

smoke and mirrors

My inspiration for today's post comes from a comment by Anonymous to an earlier post here.            

I am not convinced that living this life, this 24/7 D/s 'lifestyle', is possible at all. It's all fantasy, and keeping that in mind is key. If indeed it's all about compromise and negotiation, then it's all smoke and mirrors and so be it. Yay for smoke and mirrors. We come together for mutual satisfaction - whether sexual or otherwise - but maintaining personhood is crucial. If marriage lasts forever, when does the 'playing' end due to age, infirmity, children, etc ?

There are many who claim to live the lifestyle 24/7. However as anonymous writes. Is this not just smoke and mirrors? Isn't it really fantasy however much one is really involved in an intense D/s relationship. For instance one may like to describe oneself as being a slave or being owned. But ultimately one can walk away from it all - otherwise I would be very concerned.

Anonymous contends that maintaining "personhood" is essential. Is she not right in this? Can one really completely give up ones personality or rights as a person? Is that something anyone with a moral compass could agree with?

I would love to hear readers views on this.