Talk:Dominance and submission

D/s outside of BDSM

While I appreciate that there my 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.

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)

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)

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?

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.

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

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)

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)

Sade

Hey--no mention of Sade in the history section? Seems like a pretty big hole! He's an important guy for all this.

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)

"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)

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.

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)

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.

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.

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?

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.