(Note: This article is part of a series of notes BDSM in practice )
Many people who practice BDSM (or even just imagine living it) use a clear definition of roles .
A role is a label, a definition that a declaration of intent. Some call themselves (and are defined) Master, master, sir, Mistress, Master, Lord, dominant, slave, slave, slave, submissive, subservient, rugs, poodle, penitents, boarders, switches, fetisch, leather, etc.. ... just to mention some of the most common but there are roles (and used) many others.
What exactly is a role rather than another is intuitively clear that it is difficult to define with sufficient precision. As always in BDSM the only two things that really count, in my opinion, are on one side what each person wants what every other single person feels more authentically his own, namely the "thing" that allows it to be considered deeply satisfied a. If the difference between a Master or Mistress or Master or Pardon the one hand, compared to a slave, slave, slave, submissive / a hand is very clear and obvious distinction between what is a Master or Mistress and a distinction between a and a master Domanín becomes just a matter of feeling and personal expression. There has been endless discussions and arguments on these issues (and many more will be made) because every person has a way of looking at it and (almost) every point of view is legitimate. I say that not all role definitions are legitimate because in BDSM devono sempre valere la consensualità e la sicurezza mentre le definizioni di alcune persone (ed i loro conseguenti atteggiamenti pratici) tendono ad escludere a priori consensualità e sicurezza e questo non è accettabile.
La realtà dei fatti è che, secondo me, non esistono definizioni assolute ed universali dei i ruoli ma contemporaneamente le definizioni che ogni persona da e vuole dare ad un ruolo sono la "legge" che regola e deve regolare questo argomento, ma solo fino a quando vengono rispettate consensualità e sicurezza.
Ci sono anche persone che praticano il BDSM ma rifiutano per se stessi ogni ruolo ed etichetta, sentendo che questi "titoli" servano solo come facile hold for those who do not know anything about BDSM and really is not very interested in understanding what it is. These people believe that, in any case, is neither a role nor a way to make the substance of a person even if the practice BDSM. In other words they believe that the essence of a person is something much more complex and multifaceted than just a label stuck to the comfort of those not so interested in understanding. I think exactly like this and reject any role or title for myself and if someone describes me as a role I choose to ignore it, but obviously this is my choice that comes from my personal tastes and judgments.
A role can be useful, especially for people who are starting or for people who want to "play" a BDSM scene with other people who still do not know. Sums up a role in broad terms what you can expect that person to do (or should do) and what that person will never do (and that we would never do) and in some situations this is an advantage for everyone.
Before a BDSM scene is important to make clear to all participants in the role that each person wants to play. The role of course is not all that needs to be clarified but there are many other details (some of which will be processed in my next articles, see list in the main ) but in this context to clarify the role rapprenta a starting point to begin to know.
Even in the knowledge that come from a distance via the internet (on sites, chat, e-mail, SMS or even telefonicamene) is important to clarify the role that each person wants to have. In these situations it is important to clarify many other things, the first of which I think is if you have or do not intend to go even to the "real life". I think there is nothing wrong with having relations at a distance, relationships that can also never go in terms of real encounters, but which are felt and lived deeply and honestly. The distance relationships are certainly not less than one report "live" ma sono sicuramente molto differenti dal "metterci la faccia" di persona per avere degli incontri veri. Quello che viene detto con una punta di disprezzo "il virtuale" per me è una cosa rispettabilissima ma solo a patto che sia proprio quello che tutti i partecipanti desiderano e cercano (e che soprattutto non esca MAI dalla consensualità e dalla sicurezza).
Un pericolo reale dei ruoli è che, a mio parere e specie nelle relazioni a distanza, il ruolo può diventare troppo importante per tutte le persone coinvolte. Le persone si trovano a dovere comportasi sempre in un certo modo ed a dover dire (o non dire) solo certe cose e questo porta facilmente ad un coinvolgimento cosi profondo che passa i limiti del sano nel senso della mental and emotional stability. In other words, especially in a relationship at a distance, it is all too easy to get carried away by the "role" and lose sight of common sense and the considerations which I expressed in the article on ' SSC.
0 comments:
Post a Comment