When did it change?

[ey****]

11 hours ago, CopperKnob said:

The fact that there are a lot of kink educators who are also sex workers is probably a surprise to some not only this, but how many sex workers have influenced/shaped BDSM, making it more accessible and championing it.

yep - absolutely.  

they're a vital part of the entire eco system whatever anyone's own kink preferences are

[Ta****]

Boohoohoo, times are changing. And I am incredibly grateful. Forums 20 years ago were incredibly sexist. Consent was less understood. And I'm not part of those groups, but in general people were more openly racist, homo- and transphobic. Still are, offended by pronouns, mad if called out on fetishizing race.
I've been around for over 20 years. Never was masochistic nor sadistic, never dominant nor submissive. But also not vanilla. I'm primal and I still have to deal with guys trying to talk me into DS, telling me what I really mean is I'm a slave, I just have not find the right master...And I really hate the lingo as if slavery and masters were not too real, not too long ago, and still in place like in Dubai. Really something to romanticise. Really words everybody loves to use.

[jo****]

5 hours ago, sensualDom34 said:

The lifestyle has become fucked all the "subs" are just looking for "Dom's" that will serve and please them. All of a sudden it's all about the subs it's disgusting.

That seems very counterintuitive to me. The sub is always supposed to be in charge. They are always supposed to be able to be the one that has the limits. A true dominant is a caregiver in a lot of ways. They help their sub be their best and they respect their limits.

[Sc****]

5 hours ago, johanna19752 said:

That seems very counterintuitive to me. The sub is always supposed to be in charge. They are always supposed to be able to be the one that has the limits. A true dominant is a caregiver in a lot of ways. They help their sub be their best and they respect their limits.

That's a very modern posture you're talking about, a very new take on this lifestyle. The type that ties in with the safe, sane, consensual (SSC) ideology. Those that don't care for that and are more in the risk-aware consensual (RAC) category often hold very different views.

What you wrote ties in with what I said earlier about modern "doms." There's a misconception that SSC-type thinking is a universally accepted philosophy. It's definitely not, but it gets the most airtime because the influx of people into this world are mostly in that fuzzy-cuff contingency (FCC) category.

Another outcome of this is that it's marginalized those that are not aligned with those views. And now there's constant infighting and kink-shaming within the lifestyle..

You mentioned DD/lg earlier. Even that is on a spectrum. On the nice side is OTK spanks and gasps of 'oh Daddy'.

I'll refrain from describing the other end of the DD/lg spectrum because I'd likely get banned. It's dark. But it's just as much as a part of it as the nicer side. Guess what though? Those that are on the "extreme" end of things basically have to keep a low profile now, otherwise they get piled-on by the FCC people.

So we've added words. We've openly accepted a mass influx of people who are more vanilla than not.

What we're not doing a great job at is describing anything; we've just adopted labels to slap on ourselves, like corporate brands or logos. It's verbosity masquerading as understanding.

For example, you can say "oh, I'm a little." Okay, but what kind? There's tags you can use to describe what activities you might be into within that kink category, but there isn't a series of terms that travels along the DD/lg spectrum that gives clear definition to the variety of degrees of behavior that exist. The same can be said for probably most fetishes.

Even the words fetish and kink have lost their meaning and get used interchangeably.

Okay, I got off on a language tangent, but it's because words matter. It's why you believe what you believe, and the same reason why you mistakenly think there's a homogeneity in this world. It's not your fault though, it's the volume of the messaging.

We're watching BDSM get whitewashed in real-time.

So yeah, a lot of people who have been around a while get a little perturbed by it. Sure, in part it's an old-timer get off my lawn attitude, but it's also in part taking issue with the recklessness of the newcomers who would rather invent new words than take in a little history and actually understand the world in which they are engaging.

I'm not accusing you specifically of this by the way, I don't know you or what your thinking is in that regard, other that what you've written in your posts. This problem started a long time ago. And it spans most areas of life, as well.

I wrap up with saying this: master/slave, Gorean, edgeplay, and the many other things I won't list here are all just as much a part of the party as anything else. There are legitimate sadists and masochists out there. What they get involved would freak most "new" people out. And now they're having to hide to some degree, being too "extreme" for the BDSM mainstream.

tldr; So, if I were to over-generalize just to make the point clear, the nouveau-kinky invaded/coopted our safe space with their "conservative" standards and mores, greatly confusing the landscape, all while driving others into hiding who don't meet their criteria for acceptance. And, all while patting each other on the back about how open and inclusive they are. The irony.

[Sc****]

6 hours ago, TaliX said:

Boohoohoo, times are changing. And I am incredibly grateful. Forums 20 years ago were incredibly sexist. Consent was less understood. And I'm not part of those groups, but in general people were more openly racist, homo- and transphobic. Still are, offended by pronouns, mad if called out on fetishizing race.
I've been around for over 20 years. Never was masochistic nor sadistic, never dominant nor submissive. But also not vanilla. I'm primal and I still have to deal with guys trying to talk me into DS, telling me what I really mean is I'm a slave, I just have not find the right master...And I really hate the lingo as if slavery and masters were not too real, not too long ago, and still in place like in Dubai. Really something to romanticise. Really words everybody loves to use.

Forums 20 years ago had only very specific types of people on them, not representative of the general population, so it's not surprising you bumped into that in those enclaves. Predominantly white, male, technologically proficient. It was the "old boys" club. Going on 4chan or whatever the latest iteration of what that is and it's like traveling though time to what you've described.

But so what? There's always going to be people somewhere that don't believe what you believe, right? The issue at the moment is the moral superiority people are clobbering each other over the head with in that regard.

It's all moral posturing that serves no purpose. Cool,  you "hate" the lingo because the same words are used elsewhere with much more devastating meaning. Thanks for letting us know you're a good person

You know who else hates those words, master/slave, in that context? Everyone else that isn't a bastard of a human being. That doesn't mean using them conceptually to describe a fantasy-based arrangement is "problematic." They're fitting terms for the dynamic. No sane person is romanticizing real-world slavery. That's just something for you to type out to demonstrate to us that you're morally superior to others and to fulfill whatever psychological need you are trying to meet by doing so.

I hate to have to play hardliner about this point, but you're the second person to enter this thread who wants to conflate idiosyncratic sexual behaviors with actual horrors that exist in the world. They are not the same, even if we use the same words between them. Context matters.

[ey****]

6 hours ago, johanna19752 said:

That seems very counterintuitive to me. The sub is always supposed to be in charge. They are always supposed to be able to be the one that has the limits. A true dominant is a caregiver in a lot of ways.

So, no. Not quite.

This gets peddled a lot - and there's bits very true.   Yes of course the sub has limits.   Can safeword etc etc. But so can the Dominant.  There are also key elements to being Dominant which does make them the ones (ultimately) "in charge" 

Think of it like a "collaborative workplace" your boss may care for your wellbeing, set out a career path, help you improve, listen to your suggestion and take them on board, be cool, not be unhappy if you decline overtime etc - but are still, ultimately, in charge. 

[Ta****]

4 hours ago, ScalpelPrecision said:

Forums 20 years ago had only very specific types of people on them, not representative of the general population, so it's not surprising you bumped into that in those enclaves. Predominantly white, male, technologically proficient. It was the "old boys" club. Going on 4chan or whatever the latest iteration of what that is and it's like traveling though time to what you've described.

But so what? There's always going to be people somewhere that don't believe what you believe, right? The issue at the moment is the moral superiority people are clobbering each other over the head with in that regard.

It's all moral posturing that serves no purpose. Cool,  you "hate" the lingo because the same words are used elsewhere with much more devastating meaning. Thanks for letting us know you're a good person

You know who else hates those words, master/slave, in that context? Everyone else that isn't a bastard of a human being. That doesn't mean using them conceptually to describe a fantasy-based arrangement is "problematic." They're fitting terms for the dynamic. No sane person is romanticizing real-world slavery. That's just something for you to type out to demonstrate to us that you're morally superior to others and to fulfill whatever psychological need you are trying to meet by doing so.

I hate to have to play hardliner about this point, but you're the second person to enter this thread who wants to conflate idiosyncratic sexual behaviors with actual horrors that exist in the world. They are not the same, even if we use the same words between them. Context matters.

I get a lot of what you are saying. My rant about the words slave and master was because of the declaration people should only use four words, and two of them are not everyone's fav. I don't care how people decide to call each other - but demanding to reduce the words to be used is nothing but Orwellian, and completely misses the variety of BDSM.

[Sc****]

15 hours ago, TaliX said:

I get a lot of what you are saying. My rant about the words slave and master was because of the declaration people should only use four words, and two of them are not everyone's fav. I don't care how people decide to call each other - but demanding to reduce the words to be used is nothing but Orwellian, and completely misses the variety of BDSM.
 

I am pleasantly surprised by your reply here, and I appreciate the poise you've adopted since your first post. This is much more succinct, elegant even. 

I agree that the M/s terminology is a problem for some people. Others aren't bothered. And of course, everyone should be able to use whatever it is that they want to use, even if it makes other uncomfortable.

I'll accept that the arguments I've made across my posts does have an element of a "call for reduction" to it, albeit a little more multidimensional. However, they are rooted in a desire for distillation; some loss of volume but with a resultant purity that would emerge in the process.

There is/was a need for an expansion of language in this realm. Regarding the "big umbrella" of the before times was to illustrate that we all managed to still sort things out without lugging around a rosetta stone to decipher where we stood with things, what we enjoyed, etc.

That there are better ways to express that now is great. But I'd argue (well, I did already haha) that it has a hefty price tag attached to it. Since you've invoked Orwell in regards to the chilling effect that newspeak had, I'll do the same. Diluting the language with a mass quantity of meaningless terms can have the same effect. Maybe even more so,? If people aren't fully familiar with what words they are "supposed" to use, they often mum up to evade causing offense/backlash/etc. Not inherently bad, unless they are effectively being silenced because of it.

The other issue I have is that he labels are hallow and people have a tendency to hide behind them and use them as their identity. This detracts from actual genuine connection. It dehumanizes as well (the bad kind, not the kinky kind). You mentioned pronouns I believe. Good example. I use people's names instead, and a generic "their". People aren't pronouns. And really, that's often used to just browbeat others who annoys us somehow.

Labels, identities, can create distance between ourselves and others.

[Ta****]

16 hours ago, ScalpelPrecision said:

I am pleasantly surprised by your reply here, and I appreciate the poise you've adopted since your first post. This is much more succinct, elegant even. 

I agree that the M/s terminology is a problem for some people. Others aren't bothered. And of course, everyone should be able to use whatever it is that they want to use, even if it makes other uncomfortable.

I'll accept that the arguments I've made across my posts does have an element of a "call for reduction" to it, albeit a little more multidimensional. However, they are rooted in a desire for distillation; some loss of volume but with a resultant purity that would emerge in the process.

There is/was a need for an expansion of language in this realm. Regarding the "big umbrella" of the before times was to illustrate that we all managed to still sort things out without lugging around a rosetta stone to decipher where we stood with things, what we enjoyed, etc.

That there are better ways to express that now is great. But I'd argue (well, I did already haha) that it has a hefty price tag attached to it. Since you've invoked Orwell in regards to the chilling effect that newspeak had, I'll do the same. Diluting the language with a mass quantity of meaningless terms can have the same effect. Maybe even more so,? If people aren't fully familiar with what words they are "supposed" to use, they often mum up to evade causing offense/backlash/etc. Not inherently bad, unless they are effectively being silenced because of it.

The other issue I have is that he labels are hallow and people have a tendency to hide behind them and use them as their identity. This detracts from actual genuine connection. It dehumanizes as well (the bad kind, not the kinky kind). You mentioned pronouns I believe. Good example. I use people's names instead, and a generic "their". People aren't pronouns. And really, that's often used to just browbeat others who annoys us somehow.

Labels, identities, can create distance between ourselves and others.

Thank you for your chilvalrous words; I hope they are not just meant to butter me up^^.
Because we are equals. I've been active in German BDSM forums for over 20 years while reading along in the English ones. May also add I've written stories and essays about BDSM dating.
And I've always been critical about "the" BDSM community (as if it ever were one for everyone) and trends.
So I don't care much about PRICK and all the other new terms. SSC and RACK were also used by a bunch of people not really concerned about informing themselves thoroughly about safety or all risks. I doubt this will change under new labels.
But what I sincerely care about is giving newbies access to information so they can take care of themselves.
Because there always were, and still are reckless people out there and ***rs. Not that this exclusively a problem of the BDSM scene. But certain lifestyles can be the perfect ground for predators.Of whom many will plaster consent and other buzzwords over their whole profile.
I want forums to be places where problematic aspects are discussed. Where perspectives are challenged.
Which will often be difficult. Now it may be it's too many people being overly concerned and judgemental.
I remember people being as judgemental, sometimes over-concerned but often under-concerned.
This is just people in forums. They will always adopt a group-think. They will always ostracise. The loudest voices and opinions won't be the wisest.