Some questions (18)

In terms of M/f events my suggestion would be a three room structure, with the outer room for everyone, the next room for defined couples/groups who had already agreed to play among themselves - the rule here being watching only allowed between sets, and an inner room for fully shared subs, and fully vetted gentlemen. The idea would be that singles could congregate in the first room, and if they wanted to pair off, move into the second room together Existing couples could stay in the second room, (and show off their tricks), or pick up additional members in the first room if they wanted to play more, or help newcomers, and those who wanted more could go straight through and play freely in the third room. The other thing that might be useful would a taxi system like some dances - a few people willing to Dom or sub for newbies for defined times.

What do people think - could we make this work?

Cheers Siglorel

See worlds on worlds compose one universe, observe how system into system runs

First of all, not all of us are doing nothing about the lack of M/f specific events. For more on that subject and my own take on what benefits there might be in this sort of thing: http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/302611/

And, of course, there is the femsub club...

I think one of the key point any event need to address is indeed the "Who plays with whom?" question... Most femsubs (especially the single ones) are not generally interested in randomly subbing to men they don't know or care about, no matter how genuine, gentlemanly and otherwise Dominant they might be.

Besides, we do already have play clubs for these kind of interactions...

The political angles in the OP was not something I had thought about before. I am not convinced it explains much with regards to the lack of MD organisation or M/f events. As I said in earlier discussions, I think the issue is more about femsubs. In that respect, I don't think that the BDSM world differs from the vanilla world - the imbalance between the sexes is there...

With regards to defining notions of what Male Doms 'ought' to be, I think it's been regularly discussed and it's not easily defined. The Roman virtues are a bit too much of a fruit salad to my taste. How can one be exhibiting 'mildness' and 'gentleness' if one is also busy exhibiting 'perseverance' and 'discipline'? The truth is that 'it depends on the situation' - Which is no help when it comes to defining general principles.

If anything, the single one I like is 'manliness' but it's a dodge because it consists in trying to answer the question 'what would a "real man" do?' in any given situation. And that's just begging the question - what is a 'real man'? Answer: One who exhibit the trait of manliness. Go back to square one...

In general, I think the general concept of "gentleman + tough guy" works i.e. it's not about being an abusive asshole who devalue or wanna treat women badly but it's about 'masculinity', virility, manliness (again), that kind of jazz... To a degree, it's deliberately adopting some of the 1950s mentality... The difference being consent...

And while you have Men's studies and such (in reaction to feminism, often), I don't think there is that much for us in it. If you're a man and you're being beaten at home, it's not funny and society should care but I think that's enough to suspect you're not Dominant...

There is no right and wrong when it comes to sex ; only informed consent...

Edited 15 Jul 11, 12:14 PM by Gilles_de_Rais

I don't really see any value in trying to define a platonic ideal of male dominance. As touched on in the previous discussion - this isn't some secret society where one needs to advance to the 20th level of Mastery before being allowed the pick of the most ripe submissives. Surely there's far more value in educating people in how to find their own style of dominance and how to be effective at the goals they choose to pursue?

"Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace." - Oscar Wilde

I hadn't paid attention to that. Good point...

I don't think we're near saturation point yet, though...

But it's true that things are moving, which is good.

Well, me neither but the OP asked the question... And I didn't realise it was 1 yr old...

... says someone with a painting of the sale of a houri to a harem as his profile pic...

Hmmm... Is that not in effect asking the same question? What are the different styles of Dominance and are they innate or learned behaviours that anyone can imitate?

There is no right and wrong when it comes to sex ; only informed consent...

So it was from that view (that you were starting a conversation about whether there was such a thing as an ideal dominant) that I was replying and saying that I didn't think it was helpful, that surely people would want to follow their own paths etc., and that what the community could better do is share knowledge that helps a chap in striking out his own path. Does that make more sense now?

I've always read the picture as being about delivery of a new purchase rather than the moment of sale, myself

"Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace." - Oscar Wilde

I simply note that someone wrote "The Italian painter Giulio Rosati (1857-1917), who specialized in academic Orientalism, presented a typical Orientalist fantasy in his painting aptly titled “Inspection of New Arrivals”. A white slave woman who is offered on sale is being inspected by the Turkish Sultan, for whom her red shawl is removed by the Arab slave trader, while two other slave white women are also depicted as the new arrivals that can be used as white slave servants, odalisques and concubines. The two black men on both ends of the makeshift curtain made of Turkish carpets or Persian tapestry, and a servant of the Sultan walking back complete the picture".

If Malbon was simply complaining about some MDs being assholes and giving the rest of us a bad name, fair enough. I am not sure I'd use the Roman virtues as the litmus test all the same but I get the point.

Your reply makes total sense. OTOH, I never really thought that Dominance required that much knowledge. Some stuff / specific forms of play (higher level bondage, fire, needles, knives etc) certainly require knowledge. But otherwise? I think it's mostly down to what work for you & the sub...

There is no right and wrong when it comes to sex ; only informed consent...

I was thinking in terms of general training and behaviour modification type discussions. This is a different topic, really, but my philosophy is that I assume each Dom has in their mind an idea of how they want their relationship to be structured and how they want their sub to behave, etc. These ideas may be more or less precise depending on the individual Doms experience and views, but they're probably always there.

Therefore, the knowledge, to my mind, isn't about the SM stuff of bondage and knives, but more about "how can I most effectively train my sub to exhibit the behaviours I wish her to exhibit".

"Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace." - Oscar Wilde