Talk:Dominance and submission/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Paraphilia?

BDSM is NOT a paraphilia or a group of paraphilias. The author should consult the DSM or a degreed professional psychology educator to get accurate information. Paraphilia describes a certain range of very specific conditions. While it may be included within the spectrum of BDSM it is neither a specific or general characteristic of all BDSM and its participants in general. Master Martin, Kansas City

BDSM as a term is not referenced in the DSM, it is colloquial. However - bondage, sadism, masochism, humiliation and many other aspects of BDSM are defined in the DSM-IV-TR under sections 302.83 and 302.84 as paraphilias. As such, it is acurate to refer to BDSM as a "group of paraphilias".

It is also commonly defined that BDSM refers to Bondage, dicipline, domination, submission, sadism and masochism, and as such it accurate to describe D/s as "considered part of the BDSM group of paraphilias".

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=BDSM

While it may be possible to conduct a D/s relationship without entering into the clinical definition of a paraphilia, (as discussed in the article) it is still correct to say that D/s is widely "considered part of the BDSM group of paraphilias", in both the clinical and popular environments.

It should be noted that a reference to behaviors as being paraphilias does not imply their being pathological or requiring of treatment, just that they conform to a certain identifiable pattern. --Outlander 15:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Reworking

I've done a bit of reworking, trying to clean up the article, based on comments etc.

The introduction was long, and included a long section which can basically be summarized as "BDSM relationship styles", Ive moved that to its own section, cleaned up the intro a little, and added an overview to D/s.

I've also moved the "consent" stuff to its own article Consent (BDSM) (needs its own article, being so significant and having siverse issues, legal etc). Can someone precis the current text in this article to remove unnecessary duplication while leaving what's needed "bare bones"? Thanks

Last, doesn't a lot of this artuicle belong in BDSM generally, rather than specifically under D/s only? Wrong article? "More background can be found in the article on BDSM"? Or worth duplicating? FT2 04:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok that's the "Pro" now where's the "Con?"

Reading this article it would seem that D/s (and perhaps even BDSM) is a perfectly healthy, normal lifestyle. Is it too politically incorrect to ask that there be a section regarding criticisms of D/s or how to recover from a D/s relationship gone bad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.198.65 (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

There is discussion of this in the "Safety" section. If you feel more is needed, let me know what issues you feel need to be addressed, without turning this into a "how to" article. Personally, I don't think there are ANY lifestyles that are perfectly healthy, they all have their tribulations - --Outlander 18:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I guess I am suggesting the article is not neutral regarding D/s. It seems framed in terms favorable to the lifestyle, and the risks mentioned in the safety section are presented on par with tennis elbow and shin splints for athletes. There is little content in the article that would suggest or give voice to the idea that anyone considers D/s itself an inherently unhealthy modality for relationships. (The introductory passage does state it's a "paraphilia" but this is not elaborated upon.) In many other topics found on Wikipedia there is a "controversies" or "arguments against" section which represents those viewpoints. But the totality of external references here are pro-D/s are advocacy resources. At the very least it would be nice to see some indication of how many people practice D/s (5%? 75%?), to put it in context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.198.65 (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any anti-D/s factions, perhaps you could elucidate. Most of the anti-SM groups ignore D/s. Even most churches don't have a problem with strict D/s, as long as it's done within a heterosexual marriage. As for statistics for how many people practice this, it's nearly impossible to count as people don't generally make this sort of thing public. It's also hard to determine what is a "strict household" and what is a "D/s household" . Perhaps Kinsey got some numbers, I don't know if he interviewed people on the topic. I'll have to look. --Outlander 15:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

................................. New Poster:

To respond to "BDSM refers to Bondage, dicipline, domination, submission, sadism and masochism, and as such it accurate to describe D/s as "considered part of the BDSM group of paraphilias"."

You are mistaken. Despite the opinion of a few, while mainstrean BDSM does happen to contain the letters DS, it does not contain D/s. Do a history on The term D/s. It was not in use at all at the time that the term BDSM was coined and popularized, which occured in the circulation of papers advertising those which sought for play partners in the 1970's and sought to describe a list of frequently interelated playstyles. Prior to the term "BDSM" It began on both the East Coast (NY) and West Coast (CA) with the individual terms B&D and S&M which were later consolidated into BDSM , meaning Bondage and Discipline and/or Sadism and Machosism.

Moreover, the term D/s is not D & S. The letters cannot stand individually. The D is capitalized but the /s is in the primary position as a denominator, thus the elements of the term are unified into one in an interdependent and symbiotic relationship. D/s is a descriptive term defining the willingness of the partners to engage in a acknowleged and strategic and definitive redistribution of power during the course of the interaction, at varying levels, times and intensity depending on each couples preferences.

The term was coined in the 1980's but in reality the dynamic was used both within and outside of the BDSM communities throughout history. The most common recorded application being within the realm of religion, where one or the other partner is encouraged to yeild or "submit themselves" to the preferences of ones partner. Perhaps it goes back even futher, animals including human ones have a core instinct to dominate or submit, run, or attack.

Also, why should there be "two" D/s's... one BDSM D/s and one "non BDSM" D/s, when the dynamic is one simple dynamic at the core, a disclosure that one partner will be submitting to the preferences of the other to some degree?

The fact that some BDSM play partners use a D/s dynamic does not alter the crux of the dynamic. The discussion of D/s should reveal it as simply "applicable to" BDSM "And many other popular lifestyles and situations" and "an integral element to some BDSM relationships". Thus it would make more sense to either Include is as a sub discussion of BDSM without it's own page, or better yet, give it it's own heading without BDSM and then link to BDSM from it's description/ content.

To consider an acknowledged D/s framework in a relationship equal to a "paraphilia" is to be unaware of the definition of either D/s or "paraphilia". Even applying the term to BDSM should be done with greater discrimination -- one should not fail to mention that many professionals, M.D.s and Ph.Ds disagree with such as sweeping catagorization of mainstream BDSM. and for good reason. With the advent of the internet it is now becomming more apparent that many activities are far more the norm than once supposed.

Also some endeavors once thought to be "paraphilia" are actually seen as healthy active fantasy outlets by professional contemporaries, when undertaken by healthy consenting adults. For example. the dictionary term "humiliation" is NOT the same as the term as applied by mainstream BDSMers. It differs greatly in it's intent, effect, application execution and result. It is actually thus "play" humiliation" or "Staged Humiliation Scenes". Making my girlfriend eat gummyworms from a plate on the floor whilst I "taunt" her, or calling her my "nasty little nymph" while lovemaking for example. (I don't do those terrible things, chill out).

Shine the Light 4ever

~ Lord Sage, Builder of the Inner Cathedral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.205.62 (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

My, what an impressive honorific.
As for the acronym BDSM, I refer you to the Wikipedia article BDSM and the relevant references.
As for the term D&S, it is short for Domination and submission, a popular term. I just ran a Google search and came up with 2,270,000 hits, so it is clearly not unheard of. Please note that, as stated in the article, not everyone adheres to the internet capitalization convention.
As for the "two" D/s's, there are clearly situations where a D/s relationship occurs outside of BDSM, such as in the military or in religious orders. The dynamic there can be clearly different than in a BDSM-based D/s.
As for the "BDSM group of paraphilias", the DSM and most professionals define them as such. One should remember that even the DSM-IV acknowledges that a paraphilia is not necessarily pathological, and can be a "healthy active fantasy outlet" if it does not cause undo distress. Please refer to the DSM-IV-TR under sections 302.83 and 302.84 --Outlander 21:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
While the DSM is definitely a useful reference point let us also recall that it's an arguable and oft-argued standard. Most importantly, they are definitions of distinctions noted within contexts that land folks in therapy. I mention this because of the sheer volume of people I have known who have taken various aspects of BDSM, D/s and M/s as means to compensate issues that would otherwise have them bottoming to a therp. :P
I often think of BDSM (in the largest, most inclusive sense) as an identifiable culture with it's own particular set of ethics revolving around trust, consent and limits, with a partular emphasis on mentioning unmentionables so that one does not accidentally do the unspeakable.
The problem with defining BDSM practice and culture in relation to paraphelias is that there is an implication (to those who are neither psycholgists nor players nor lifestylers) that the behaviours themselves are inherntly "sick," when far more often, the opposite is true, that having such desires and remaining outside of a context that allows their ethical exploration and exprssion is that leads to unfortunate life experiences. --Firewheel 17:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC) (aka Bob King)

Sade

Hey--no mention of Sade in the history section? Seems like a pretty big hole! He's an important guy for all this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houarno (talk • contribs) 15:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

No, he is not. Sade was a sad(e)ist, not a fan of D/s :P Perhaps historie d'o is a bit more accurate, but I doubt it :P Redk 00:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

I'd consider this to be an NPOV-challenged article. Most of the article presents D/s relatively positively, and only obliquely mentions the notion of D/s as pathological (especially for subs, but also for doms). I have no doubt that it is a positive lifestyle for most, but that is by no means a universal situation. I'm writing as someone who has a rather embryonic intellectual interest in the lifestyle, and not as someone who is directly involved in it, so it would be difficult for me to expand this idea in the article, but I'd like to see what those people who have experience with D/s have to say about it, and if there is research that delves into the question, what that has suggested, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlib77 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

People have said similar things about Polyamory. The point is that if there is notable criticism (i.e., published sources or organisations - not some Wiki editors who think it has problems), then that should be included. E.g., with homosexuality, we have a whole article covering attitudes towards it (Societal attitudes towards homosexuality). The issue with polyamory and d/s is that they are less well known, and there is less notable criticism.
What sort of things do you think we should say? Also, I disagree that lack of criticism automatically makes something not NPOV, unless there is material which is saying that it's perfectly natural and wonderful and so on - are there parts you think take this form? Mdwh 11:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"Submissives generally outnumber Dominants"

My experiences tells me that this is not true at all. There are almost exactly as many submissives as there are doms, and it is evenly distributed at the two genders. I could point to an old thread at a forum (the BDSM-forum at helgon.net, you need an account to get access) where they asked the users about their preferenses in D/s. The result was very close to 50% on each gender. However, this does not feel like a really waterproof evidence :/ Anyways, just walk into a club and see for yourself :P - - - *eats panncakes with icecream* Redk 00:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so no one has said anything else about this for 20 days now, so I change it then :P ;D Redk 20:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


"Anyways, just walk into a club and see for yourself " is hardy a precise research tool. Crowds vary from club to club, city to city, night to night. There is also marked disparity between gay and het clubs. In addition only a small percentage of the scene visits clubs in the first place, with subs often reticent to go without an escort of some type. Plus, how does one tell who is a Dom and who is a sub just by walking around a club? Count collars? I think this edit should be classified under "no original research" --Outlander 14:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Not that I'm going to argue that Redk's research methods are up to Wikipedia standards, but... "no original research", huh? I could say the same for the apparently unsourced mention in the article about which outnumbers which and in what genders! Unless there is a verifiable source for this, it really shouldn't stay. It bothers me that this has apparently been here for over a year, with no one questioning it OR sourcing it! :\ 4.238.17.86 16:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Not if i ahve much to say but i wanted to throw my few cents in.Theres no possible way to count them for the fact it can change.A dom to a sub or sub to dom.So to say there 50/50 might be a good and generalization. Maxmanatarms 19:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This subject is too large and too vast to be put in in to such a condensed passage.

BDSM, D/s, D/D, and many of the other ways of the D/s community can not be condensed in to a few small pages. I have been in the lifestyles of D/s and BDSM a long time, and it is a lifestyle. Not only sexual positions or Tops and bottoms as you describe. It is a way of life, like a banker, a movie star, a hooker and so on.... Each one of these for mentioned ideas that you represent here has it own entity not dependent on each other. BDSM is seperate form D/s. Gor is seperate from D/s, and so on, but some are used with the others and to sit here an write only a few paragraphs with major infractions and myths, and non-truths is demeaning to us within the lifestyle, as the definitions are incorrect. And D/s has roots or many centuries, no one knows exactly how old it is, as it is even seen and mentioned in the bible. The ways, the ideas and the concepts. Not to mention there are old leather and new leather styles that have major differences. Which you do not cover at all. I have recently started a Old Leather forum if you would like to research the real truths I will add a link later. It is a forum that is willing to help others learn. Ask questions and give facts, references and so on. We also permit New leather styles there but my facts are always based on old leather.

When people look at the outside of the lifestyle and not look from the inside there are many misconceptions that are formed as I have seen in your articals here about D/s and BDSM lifestyles. I will give you an example of this: Lets say that a baby can speak fluently. Ask the baby about how it is in childhood? And then ask him the quesiton of how would be in Motherhood. The baby would be able to answer the questions well and explain how childhood is but when it comes to Motherhood, it has no expirence and can not effective give you a correct description of Motherhood. I see that some of you are PhDs and so on, but you are making statements from only the observational prespective, missing the true heart and definitions of the Lifestyles because there is no hands on experiences. These lifestyles take years of developement that observation can not provide. These are life long growing relationships. Not momentary sexual positions. Sex is not the basis of D/s nor most of the other lifestyles. Even though BDSM is highly sexual or sexaul postioned, it is not that. It is about coming closer to BLISS, and the expirences with bliss. Not mentioned at all within your artical.

All I ask is that before you post articals, like this, do some research as we are having problems of our own, within our own lifestyles and beliefs, resulting as fakes, wannabies, noobs, and so on. This kind of action is destroying the real essence of D/s and BDSM Lifestyles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poniebouy (talk • contribs) 06:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Firstly if there are things missing, feel free to contribute (though remember to avoid original research).
The very first sentence of this article talks about it as a "lifestyle", and much of the article talks about D/s relationships, and not merely sexual positions, so I do not see what you mean here.
D/s is a subset of BDSM, as stated, and Gor isn't mentioned at all here.
As for History, the article talks about things centuries ago, and says that we can't really tell, so I am not sure what you mean here?
Lastly, I suspect that many of those contributing, myself included, are "in the lifestyle", so it isn't a case of "outsiders" trying to demean you. Can you post specific examples of things you disagree with? Mdwh 22:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Domination and submission (also known as D&s, Ds or D/s) is a set of psychosexual behaviors, customs and rituals relating to the giving and accepting of dominance of one individual over another in an erotic or lifestyle context. It is part of the BDSM group of paraphilias." In your opening statement there are 2 major mistakes and your own rebuttal ":D/s is a subset of BDSM, as stated, and Gor isn't mentioned at all here."

D/s can have no psychosexual behaviors at all. D/s is Dominance/submission, A lifestyle where your every day dealings of even public activities are Dominated or submitted by another. Does not have to have any kink (BDSM) sexual behaviors in it at all. D/s can be just like 100 years ago before woman's right movements, where the man of the house had Dominance over the house. He gave the orders and the control over the whole house. Everyone in the house took his decision and that was the final but they have their choice to, either to stay or go. And it is not sexually orientated. It is the power exchange between the members of the household. And the acceptance of one controlling Dominate.

D/s has submission which is given to the Dominant. The submission has all kinds of limits from the submissives own beliefs. It is the submissive that has the power in this relationship not the Dominate, which many people believe. The power comes from the submission of one of the individuals. The power is the limits set within the relationship. The Dominate only has control within those limits. (ie. non sexual D/s example) The control of the houses income. If I have a submissive person under me and their limit is that I can not have a poly relationship, I can not have one. D/s is about the growth of love, honor, respect, trust, communication, loyalty, and a few others. It is the expansion of these qualities in the relationship at a deeper levels then that of a marriage. D/s is the growth of these qualities in every day life. In D/s, sex is a tool that can be used to help form, teach, enforce, expand, and grow with these qualities at a deeper level. Keep in mind that in D/s one of the main qualities of the Dominate is that they are a teacher. Sex does not have to be used. Sex is a tool used to enforce the qualities of the relationship. Tools are sometimes used but not in all cases. Just like a hand screwdriver or a power drill, they can do the same thing when screwing in a screw, but you have the choice in using what tool. D/s is a life long commitment. When you live in the D/s lifestyle, you can not leave it. I am going to try to give a better known name of a D/s relationship, I have used in the past, "a Healthy Co-dependent Relationship" to include all aspects of both parties complete lives, not a destrutive one, like many co-dependent relationships are. A Dominate or submissive can not accept nilla relationships. There are things missing in your life if you do. A big empty hole deeper then that of a nilla relationship becuase the level of the qualities I meantioned are deeper.

A collaring is a sacred ritual in D/s that is supposed to be life long commitment. It is the complete submission of a person's heart, mind, body and soul. A 24/7 type of commitment, more then a marriage. A marriage is only the companionship of two people in love, and the dedication of that. It is not even close to the Collar explaination of your giving in comparison of marriage. But to get back to your opening statement "psychosexual behaviors" it is not always in D/s. And D/s is not part of BDSM, The Dominance of BDSM is different. BDSM Dominance is only of a session or a situational. That kind of Dominance refers to Tops and bottoms, not D/s.

"Tops and its compliment bottom are two terms coined in the last two decades to designate the 'agent' and 'patient' roles respectively in an SM scene while avoiding the loadedness of the existing terms like master-slave; they can be used just in relation to the scene itself and don't imply anything about the participants' regular practice, though they are also used to describe people who typically take one role or the other. Also may not imply role-played domination and submission but just who does what to whom. Confusingly some people associate them with anal intercourse, but it should be remembered that some tops like to get f**ked too. A person who alternates both roles, either from scene to scene or within a scene, is known as a switch or switch-hitter." ref http://public.diversity.org.uk/deviant/frames.htm

This is where many people can get confused, the terms and titles of Master and submissive are and can be used in both D/s and BDSM but they are not the same, If you notice in BDSM they are role-played not lived as a lifestyle, completely different. D/s is not part of BDSM they are two seperate entities. One different then the other. Some activities are seen in the other and visa versa. It is not a subset of BDSM, as stated. Dominance is only role played and not lived in BDSM.

"life·style /ˈlaɪfˌstaɪl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lahyf-stahyl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group." Ref. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lifestyle BDSM Domination is only sessional or situational. D/s is a lifestyle. In BDSM when the scene is over the Domination usally stops. What our coin is if it is Bedroom Domination it is BDSM, if it is outside the bedroom then it is D/s. BDSM role plays D/s, they Do not live it. So in your opening statement there are two major errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poniebouy (talk • contribs) 01:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay I think I see part of the problem here - yes, of course "dominance and submission" can occur in non-sexual situations, but the scope of this article is about dominance and submission in the context of BDSM. Note that the article name is "Domination and submission (BDSM)". It's true that Domination and submission redirect here, but if someone were to replace it with an article on dominance and submission in more general terms then fine, but until then it might as well redirect here. In fact, at one time there was a more general article - see [1] - but it was got rid; feel free to bring it up for discussion if you disagree. So to summarise, this is an article about D/s relationships which as a part of human sexuality, and which are considered a subset of BDSM (by the definition of "BDSM").
Also remember that psychosexual and sexuality cover far more than actual sex (i.e., sexual intercourse) itself.
I'm not sure what the rest of your statements are referring to - e.g., are there parts in the article talking about collars that you disagree with?
D/s (in the context of this article) is by definition a subset of BDSM, because BDSM stands for "Bondage, discipline, domination and submission, sadism and masochism". D/s can be simply people roleplaying in individual scenes, to a lifestyle that goes on 24/7, but the usage of BDSM covers both of these. So I think when you say the difference between BDSM and D/s, you mean the difference between roleplaying in a scene, and taking on roles in a relationship as a "lifestyle". Yes, I agree it is important to distinguish them - is there somewhere in the article they are confused?
"BDSM Domination is only sessional or situational. D/s is a lifestyle." But many people who identify as practicing BDSM do D/s as a lifestyle (also, numerous BDSM forums and groups cover D/s as a lifestyle); saying that BDSM is "only sessional or situational", or to claim that it is only roleplayed not "lived" in BDSM, is a matter of opinion. In many cases, the domination does not stop when a scene ends. Now, if there are some sources that people practice lifestyle D/s, but do not consider it to be a form of BDSM, then that could be included. Mdwh 02:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to add - I'm not totally disagreeing with you in that I have known some people who practice D/s but do not identify it as "BDSM", for various reasons, and perhaps it would be mentioning that. But I disagree with creating some big division between D/s and BDSM just because of a few opinions, when there are a large number of people who do use the term "BDSM" to encompass D/s lifestyles. Also, discussion of whether BDSM includes D/s might better be brought up on Talk:BDSM. Mdwh 02:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok I see I have to clarify this more.

Bond"age: (?), n. [LL. bondagium. See Bond, a.] 1. The state of being bound; condition of being under restraint; restraint of personal liberty by compulsion; involuntary servitude; slavery; captivity. ref: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=13470&lastnode_id=12760 T To me this looks alot like a fetish even though the definition doesn't have it.

Dominance: We have concluded that in the above statements that it is a Role Play situational session in inside of BDSM play and in many cases the Dominance Role Play is stopped after the session is over. In that case it is Role Play. It is the Dominations of a Top over a bottom in role play. Not a Dominate and a submissive. Those are adjectives of a persona. Many people lost touch that it is an adjective not a noun. Fetish of role playing a Top or bottom.

Sadism: a paraphilia of the sacrificial/expiatory type in which sexuoerotic arousal and facilitation or attainment of orgasm are responsive to and contingent on [and dependent upon] being the authority who variously imposes abuse, torture, punishment, discipline, humiliation, obedience, and servitude (named after the Marquis de Sade, 1740-1814, French author and sadist). The reciprocal paraphilic condition is masochism. ref: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Sadism

Masochism: a paraphilia of the sacrificial/expiatory type in which sexuoerotic arousal and facilitation or attainment of orgasm are responsive to and contingent on being the recipient of abuse, torture, punishment, discipline, humiliation, obedience, and servitude, variously mixed (named after Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, 1836-1895, Austrian author and masochist). The reciprocal paraphilic condition is sadism. ref: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Masochism

OR

Sadomasochism: (sā'dō-mās'ə-kĭz'əm, sād'ō-) n. The combination of sadism and masochism, in particular the deriving of pleasure, especially sexual gratification, from inflicting or submitting to physical or emotional abuse. ref: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sadomasochism

These are the words that make up the acronym of BDSM

And not to mention: you can have sadism without masochism and visa versa. Or even more you can have bondage without everything else in the acronym.

So then is Bondage a lifestyle? Not under the definition of a lifestyle, but under the idea of this artical it tells me that too. I think it would be rather fun seeing people going to work with gags and so on. People being caged at work. That is what this artical tells me that BDSM has to have D/s and D/s has to have BDSM. I just asked you the same question about bondage. So, Bondage is now a lifestyle too.

lifestyle: the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group. ref:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lifestyle

D/s ways can be a lifestyle where BDSM fits more in to a fetish as the definitions of many of the words within the acronym are fetishes. I am sure you don't go to work with cuffs and collars around your ankles, wrists and neck nor your mate. In BDSM, it is not finacially bound or even discussed. If you continue Domination outside of the bedroom in making the household decisions it is a lifestyle of D/s it isnt a lifestyle of BDSM, BDSM Dominance is roleplayed. There is a seperation of the two. Like I said before you can have D/s as a lifestyle without the BDSM aspects of it. There are many people that have nilla sex but have Domination outside the bedroom. But most people only refer to them as a male chauvinist pigs. My father is of the old traditions. A christian, God loving soul. But he made the decisions in the house. His law ruled. I know my parents were not BDSM, they were Dominate/submissive people.

To conclude from these definitions D/s lifestyle is a lifestyle, BDSM is a fetish not a lifestyle. That is why I mentioned Gor. Gor is a role play situation based on one man's science fiction novels. Gorean ways can be brought in to a lifestyle where the aspects entitle everyday situational living. Though many aspects are illegal in many countries. It has structure of society, financial, the actions of both people in and out of the home, every detail of your life would be lived as Gor. That is not so with BDSM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poniebouy (talk • contribs) 09:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And furthermore, I have posted with references of my definitions, and I have not seen one reference of your definition other then your own affiliated webpages. Where are you getting this misinformation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poniebouy (talk • contribs) 15:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

More food for thought: ref:http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=BDSM

Modern practice (an overview) BDSM is practiced differently by every person who participates. There are, however, certain recognized commonalities.

The DOM, or dominant, assumes control and responsibility of the scene. A Master is someone who exclusively assumes this Dominant role. One typographic convention in the community is that the name of the DOM, or Master, is entirely capitalized, to dinstinguish this person from the sub. The sub, or submissive, grants the DOM control and responsibility. A slave is someone who exclusively assumes the submissive role. One typographic convention in the community is that the name of the sub, or slave, is entirely written in lower case, to distinguish this person from the DOM. In the negotiation, which occurs before and outside of the scene, the sub and the DOM discuss what they expect from the scene and their personal boundaries. Sometimes the DOM and the sub will discuss specific desires for the beginning, middle, and end of the scene. The safeword is often defined in the negotiation. The scene is when the BDSM takes place, where the negotiation plays out. This is what most people think of when they hear the term BDSM. The safeword is the safety catch for the scene. If either participant feels that the scene is getting out of hand or too much for him/her to handle, by speaking the safeword, he/she signals to the other that they wish the scene and its fantasy to stop immediately. It signals that they want to take back control and responsibility for themselves. Notably, any verbal communication other than the safeword can be considered part of the scene.

They talk about scenes when associated with BDSM. Even though they are using D/s it is really Top and bottom. It is not a lifestyle. The terms dominate and submissive has been taken out of text as I have claimed before. Dominate and submissive terms have been coined in to the volcabulary of BDSM without the adjective of role play. That is what you are doing here too. In BDSM it is a role play of the Dominate and submissive lifestyle. The correct term of the Dominate is a Top, and the correct term of the submissive is bottom is BDSM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poniebouy (talk • contribs) 16:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hence you can say all submissives are bottoms, but not all bottoms are submissives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poniebouy (talk • contribs) 16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

My whole point to this debate is that this is a highly searchable web reference page, the information should be correct and not based on opinions. There is a place for opinions when you state it is an opinion not a fact. I have stated facts. And from the opinions I have seen with your statements, there is a seperation of old leather (guard) to new leather (guard). And more or less New Leather is based on opinions not fact. And you have not even covered old leather or new leather seperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poniebouy (talk • contribs) 16:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Dominance and submission, as a subset of BDSM, can be just roleplay, but it can be a lifestyle too. BDSM is not a "fetish" (a fetish is an attraction towards an object or body part), rather it is term covering a range of sexual behaviours. As the Wikipedia article states, "BDSM is any of a number of related patterns of human sexual behavior" - that includes everything from a quick scene to living a lifestyle.
"Like I said before you can have D/s as a lifestyle without the BDSM aspects of it." - Yes, but like I said, this article is about Dominance and submission in the context of BDSM. Nonetheless, many people who practice BDSM remain in the roles all the time, so it can reasonably be considered a lifestyle, and certainly isn't roleplaying.
"the information should be correct and not based on opinions." But it's your opinion that all the people who practice D/s lifestyle and call it BDSM are wrong; it is also opinion to tell BDSMers that they are merely roleplaying (even if they remain in the roles all the time), whilst non-BDSMers are living a lifestyle.
I'm still not sure what you are saying - can you describe to me what sort of lifestyle you think (a) should be included in this article, and (b) is not a form of BDSM? Mdwh 23:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I do enjoy a good debate, especially when I am passionate about it. But I can see this is going no where because, I have provided the facts and the means to research my facts, and it is given to you in factual context. No opinions where used on my behalf. Where yours are and you have not provided any facts other then your own. My concern is that having this artical based on opinions is an incorrect way of describing what D/S and BDSM are. DBSM is not a lifestyle, D/s is. Remember Masochism is named after Leopold von Sacher-Masoch and it is refered to as a paraphilia. Just like everything else in BDSM. It is a paraphilia. It is not a lifestyle. And BDSM started out as SM and added BD to it in later years, not BD/s. In this case it is a role play situation. Not a lifestyle. And you can have a lifestyle of D/s and incorperate BDSM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poniebouy (talk • contribs) 06:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You have provided no sources to show that BDSM does not include lifestyles (that masochism isn't a lifestyle is irrelevant, the point is that d/s can be a lifestyle, and d/s is a subset of BDSM by definition). However the term BDSM formed, it now includes D/s, as stated in the BDSM article. It is POV to say that those practicing BDSM can only ever be "roleplaying". If a couple live 24/7 as a dominant and submissive, where they remain and follow these roles all the time, is your point that they are not practicing a lifestyle, or are you saying this is not a part of BDSM?
So I do not agree with removing all references to BDSM in this article (or all references to d/s from BDSM). Perhaps take it up on Talk:BDSM if you want more opinions?
If there are any other things you think are wrong in this article, you will have to point out specifically. Mdwh 12:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You missed the point, and I will be brief, B = bondage a paraphilia, D = Dominance, Not D/s lisfestyle, is Role Play of a Dom or sub Refer to definition of Top and bottom. S=Sadism is a paraphilia, and M=Masochism a paraphilia. You have not proven any Different. Your artical is incorrect. You have no sources. I do. D/s is a lifestyle, look at definition of lifestyle. All the information is here. Where are your references other then your own? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poniebouy (talk • contribs) 02:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am saying if anything BDSM could be a subset of D/s Lifestyle not D/s Lifestyle a subset of BDSM. And you could live D/s with or without BDSM. D/s is a lifestyle, which can include BDSM. And when in BDSM you can role play Gor, D/s, D/d or any dominate lifestyle, or role play none and still be in BDSM. All the info is here backed by fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poniebouy (talk • contribs) 02:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have missed the point here The D in BDSM does not stand for D/s lifestyle. It stands for Dominance, meaning the role play of Gor, D/s, D/d or any dominate lifestyle in the form of Tops and bottoms. There is a Difference. D/s is a lifestyle, D is a role play of Gor, D/s, D/d or any dominate lifestyle.

Where are your references other then your own? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poniebouy (talk • contribs) 05:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Mdwh - In answer to your question, I believe what Poniebouy is saying is that D/s is a lifestyle, that it isn't a sub-set of BDSM because BDSM is not a lifestyle. After reading the resources that he has provided, I have to agree with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poniebouy (talk • contribs) 05:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

applelicious 06:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, this is probably better taken up on Talk:BDSM, as it is there that asserts that D/s is included in BDSM, and also talks about BDSM as a lifestyle.
The problem that there is a continuum from simple roleplaying, through to people living 24/7, with a whole range of possibilities in between, so I'm not sure how we can draw a division (and drawing a division would be OR unless there are sources). Trying to label some people as "lifestylers" and others as "merely roleplaying" seems rather difficult and potentially POV.
BDSM is often not a lifestyle, but which sources say that BDSM is never a lifestyle? Of the links given above, the eveything2 one actually says that BDSM refers to relationships as well as sexual practicies, and the only one I can see disagrees with me (the diversity.org.uk one) is hardly a reliable reference - there are plenty of websites which talk about the "BDSM lifestyle" to counter that, and also have a read of: [2], [3]. The wording on this article seems to have come from here - yes, Poniebouy is welcome to question that source, but we need more than someone's random webpage which only has a very brief entry of BDSM to counter that.
Having said that, I have made an edit which seems to be the main problem here, and one that I agree with - BDSM is not always a paraphilia, and it may be misleading to describe it as always psychosexual.
However, I disagree with separating "lifestyle" from "erotic" for reasons I gave above, I also disagree with changing the BDSM article to remove references to D/s or it being a lifestyle. Mdwh 16:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I have heard this line of reasoning before on two different BDSM discussion lists, both prompted by the same individual: "D/s is a lifestyle, BDSM is not; D/s is not BDSM, BDSM is merely roleplay and fetish, and thus inferior to D/s." Despite his long-winded protestations and absolutist insistence, he could not get others on the list to agree with his position. More importantly, when challenged to provide evidence to back his claim, he could not; he merely repeated the same dogma he had before. I do not know if this is the same individual, but I see the same line of extreme "either/or" reasoning here.
The fact is that members of the BDSM community regard D/s to be an aspect of BDSM. The consensus is that it comprises the psychological component, whereas bondage, discipline and sadomasochism represent different physical components.
Regarding the false dichotomy of "roleplay versus lifestyle": We roleplay in everyday life, and in so doing express different aspects of our respective personalities. BDSM provides a context for expressing different aspects of human eroticism through roleplay, and in so doing those involved in said roleplay express deeper aspects of their personalities.
To argue that D/s should be separate from BDSM would be erroneous on two grounds. First, it would go against common usage, which views D/s as a component of BDSM, even if significantly distinct from BDSM's other components. Second, it would be like saying that we ought to separate cowboys from ranching because ranching is "just a job" while being a cowboy is "a lifestyle", even when other cowboys consider such a dichotomy to be overly extreme.

Desmond Ravenstone (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The title vs. conventional usage: Dominance & submission

The title of this article is given as "Domination and submission (BDSM)" In the conventions of the BDSM community, however, it is "Dominance and submission"; just look at the references online to the related acronyms D/s, D/S and D&S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.244.133.106 (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is very true, our community uses "dominance" instead of "domination" in print, on the Web and in discussions. I hope that Wikipedia will consider changing the article title to reflect this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DesmondRavenstone (talk • contribs) 14:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

At the least, I don't think the (BDSM) is necessary, since Domination and submission just redirects to here anyway (I think at one time it was some kind of disambiguation page). But I think you are probably right in that "dominance" seems more common in a BDSM context. I've proposed the move. Mdwh (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree that dominance and submission should be the article name. Perhaps with a hatnote to Blue Oyster Cult's Secret Treaties, an album with a track by the name Dominance and Submission. Andrewa (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Article has been moved (not by me) from Domination and submission (BDSM) to Dominance and submission (BDSM), which I think does reflect the consensus here. But that leaves the question of the disambiguation (BDSM). Is there any need for this? I think not. Andrewa (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm one who firmly disagrees with the principle that a common mistake is no longer a mistake. Next we'll be saying that referring to "a dominate" is correct and should be included as a valid term? I see enough people make that mistake. "Dominance" in this context is confusing to people who assume the trait has something to do with power exchange. Seems like correct information has been corrupted by popular vote among a small number of people (presumably not including the original contributor, who was, in my opinion, correct)? The term "Domination and submission" should be reinstated. Niktizek (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference number 5

Steve Pavlina is widely recognized as one of the most successful personal development bloggers on the Internet,

Really? Is this the new Wikipedia? Anybody with a blog is considered credible for use here?

Reference number 4 is to a research study from a department in a university published in a peer review journal. Do we still respect the difference between these things? Jackhammer111 (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Inline citations needed

I have placed the More footnotes template at the top of the article. There is a sizable references section, but almost no inline citations, making it difficult to verify the article's information. john factorial (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This was written 22 months ago. Nobody seems to think it matters and frankly, I'm seeing it more and more on Wikipedia and it's harming it's credibility. To adhere to my impression of how Wikipedia is supposed to work most all of this article would go out the door. I'm making no judgement on the topic, but when I come here looking for information about it I expect some credibility. Most all of this belongs on someones own web page about the topic where they are free to give their impressions about the topic. Wikipedia is not supposed to be mere opinion. When someone writes something here are not other editors supposed to come along and call unsourced material original research and delete it? Jackhammer111 (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Analogues from the animal world

I suggest some links or reference to analogues from the animal world be added to this page, perhaps Animal sexual behaviour#Coercive sex. Of course every time I make edits they get immediately undone, so someone else will have to do the honors. Jidanni (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

wholesale deletions

I believe there SHOULD be a wiki page on this topic.

It should not, however, be an opionion piece.

Without more inline citations large portions of this site will have to go.

The insufficient inline citation tag has been here for 2 years and I don't see that anyone has done anything to improve the page. I think some large deletions might get the attention of people that want information on this topic to be here. I brought it up again here a month ago and nothing has been done.

I have the impression that some of the more experienced editors here many not want their handles associated with the topic. It's not something I'm the least bit concerned about so I'll be back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackhammer111 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am taking up the task of cleaning up this site. I have corrected the first link as well as refined the wording on the definition. I will continue to work on this project as time permits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exquisite Baron (talk • contribs) 15:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

D/s outside of BDSM

While I appreciate that there may be D/s relationships that exist outside of the BDSM world, the topic of this article is "Domination & submission (BDSM)" and it should stay true to that theme.

If someone wants to do an article on non-BDSM D/s, I encourage them to do so and link it from this article, but please don't attempt to re-write the article into something it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outlanderssc (talk • contribs) 15:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, though the sentence "There also exist D/s relationships outside of the BDSM community, or where the dominance and submission is not sexual or erotic in nature, which are not referenced here." leaves me wondering what sort of relationships these are? If there isn't an article to link to, at least giving an example might help? One possible example may be Domestic discipline - although it's unclear to me how such relationships actually differ from "BDSM" D/s relationships, other than the fact they call it by a different name? (Note that I also raised this point on the talk page of Domestic discipline.) Mdwh 20:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I imagine that most D/s relationships exist totally outside the BDSM community, and the people concerned are totally unaware of the terms 'BDSM' or 'D/s'. My wife and I have a very 'mild' D/s relationship (by consent...her idea) and I know other people who have similar relationships, not as part of a fetish, but just because of their natural characters. None of them are even remotely connected to the BDSM community. 86.131.235.94 (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Ref: The comment above about "If someone wants to do an article on non-BDSM D/s" I believe that I am in a position to at least create a stub about 'Vanilla' D/s (or 'a rather traditional marriage' as I think of it). (Go back through the talk page history to my rather rambling comment under my logged-in name of 'ChrisRed' (18 Sep 2009) to see what I mean) Let me think about it for a bit. Does anybody have any ideas of what it should be called, and what should be in the stub. The page will also be totally worthless without the female viewpoint, as it will just become another of those horrible Wikipedia pages that looks like it was written by dirty schoolboys. If I create a stub, it will consist mainly of 'weasel words' - just my own opinion. I would make a bloody good 'agony aunt' on the subject, but as for writing an encyclopedic article...I don't know. So please send ideas and input/personal experience etc. to my 'ChrisRed' user page, and we'll chat about it there 86.131.235.94 (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at Sexual Passivity. It's new, and needs help very badly. Zazaban (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Non-BDSM D/s would not be D/s, so it shouldn't include the BDSM term "D/s" in my opinion. D/s is a term coined specifically for the BDSM community in reference to the BDSM relationship or lifestyle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exquisite Baron (talk • contribs) 15:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere in the title of this article does it say "BDSM". It reads "Dominance and Submission" and not "BDSM Domminance and Submission". So my vote is to include all forms of D/s. For example, age play. Age play is not BDSM D/s, nor is Vanilla D/s. But Mommy/baby boy and Daddy/baby girl relationships are very much D/s. In fact, they are more D/s than BDSM D/s, because no sadism or abuse is necessary to maintain the relationship. Dominance is complete and submission is complete; there are no conflicts, like in sloppy neurotic psychologically unhealthy BDSM relationships. The reason age play is not included in this article is because the BDSM community despises diapers and taking care of the sub (which they see as reverse serving), as much as the ABDL community despises black leather and sadistic torture (which the abdl community sees as abusive parenting). By leaving Age Play D/s out of this article, and focusing exclusively on BDSM D/s, the article is not NPOV. 71.226.11.248 (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

While I admit that age play can be a form of D/s, your logic is faulty. 1\ The BDSM community does not despise diapers. There are a number of players who appreciate them because they allow for a bondage subject to remain in a position for an extended period of time without bathroom breaks. 2\ Taking care of a sub ("reverse serving") is a critical part of a successful scene. It is the Master's responsibility to ensure the slave's comfort and safety throughout a scene, and you have overlooked the (admittedly unsourced) topic of Service top. Professional Masters (pro doms/dommes) also are expected to perform this kind of service. 3\ If parent/baby relationships are so D/s, shouldn't the parent command the baby to change his/her own diaper? If the parent does it, that's a form of reverse service as well. 4\ I cannot believe that there are never any conflicts, and the insinuation that BDSM relationships are "sloppy neurotic psychologically unhealthy" is rather insulting. 5\ I would wager that there are also ABDL community members who are not averse to black leather, and some may well incorporate various forms of abuse in their scenes. HalJor (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 20 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus. Don't see general agreement in this discussion to rename this page as proposed. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their args and try again in a few months to garner consensus for a better title if one exists. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  11:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Dominance and submission → Dominance and submission (sexual fetish) – Dominance and submission" is a core topic of ethology in general, and this page is mistitled under Wikipedia:Primary topic. It should be dominance and submission (human sexuality) or dominance and submission (sexual fetish), or something similar. The main topic appears to be discussed under dominance hierarchy (and there apparently primarily for human behavior). I expected to find an ethological article under this title, discussing postures in dogs and primates and the like. Choosing this title to discuss the notable, but very specific and eccentric, topic of the fetish behavior in human sexuality in particular seems very far-fetched. --dab (𒁳) 10:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 02:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the dominance and submission page should be made a disambiguation page. Web searching suggests that the sexual meaning of the term does seem to be very much the most common use of the term between this and the ethology meaning, and there's already quite a big hatnote section at the top of this article, all of which would become other disambig targets. Either way, this is a fairly significant move, with lots of redirects and other page references to be cleaned up. -- The Anome (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Dbachmann, Anthony Appleyard, and Polly Tunnel: OK. I've taken a look, and most of the links to this page are either via redirects or from Template:BDSM. And then I had a sudden realization: this page is currently, incorrectly, titled Dominance and submission, not Domination and submission, which is the generally accepted term for this activity. I therefore suggest that this page be moved to Domination and submission, with the disambiguation page to be at the title Dominance and submission, with appropriate hatnotes on relevant article to complete the job. Dominance and submission (BDSM) should then link to Domination and submission. Does that seem reasonable? -- The Anome (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I wonder whether WP:CONSISTENCY means that we should also move Male dominance (BDSM) to Male domination? - Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
"Male dominance" isn't ambiguous, but it's not clear whether "male domination" means "domination of a male" or "domination by a male". 128.135.203.6 (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Male dominance is a WP disambiguation page which leads to five different meanings of male dominance. Does male domination not have the accepted usage of "domination by a man"? The conventional usage of female domination (which redirects to dominatrix) is "domination by a woman". - Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: This would reverse the move 02:38, 25 January 2008‎ GTBacchus (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (38 bytes) (+38)‎ . . (moved Dominance and submission (BDSM) to Dominance and submission over redirect: per move request; see talk page). The edit summery refers to #The title vs. conventional usage: Dominance & submission above, in which discussion I was involved of course. Andrewa (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't believe that dominance hierarchy is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the exact search term dominance and submission. In fact, this article receives the vast majority of page views,[4] and it's also a perfectly viable encyclopedia topic with considerable long-term significance and educational value. A search for "dominance and submission" on JSTOR appears to turn up far more topics on sexual dominance and submission than anything else.[5]--Cúchullain t/c 21:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dominance_and_submission/Archive_1&oldid=1151601950"