Posted by A. on March 25, 2005 at 15:18 [12.210.221.132]
In Reply to: Re: AB misconceptions posted by L.E. on March 24, 2005 at 20:48
L.E.,
I welcome symbiosis to correct me if I'm wrong, but I infer that he uses "SM" in the older sense (to refer to all M/s, D/s, S&M, and B&D), and thus, roughtly synonomous with BDSM. I've seen the term used this way by publications that have written on the evolution of that (those, arguably) particular scene(s).
As to Daddy/girl inherently impyling D/s, I'm afraid I must differ, as well. I have read accounts of people (and been involved in such situations) where the power in the D/(lg orAB) dynamic rests FIRMLY with the LG or AB. In fact, I've seen personal ads of ageplayers of all sorts seeking submissive Daddies, and have encountered many LGs and ABs who are more interested in having a partner to submit (albeit implicitly, not explicitly) to their desires to be ageplay parented. Further, I would suggest that the roles in Daddy/girl play are much more complex than the stripped down ideal of D/s. Though obviously there is a D/s component to many D/lg couples play (along with the B&D/spanking component and the ever-controversial and oft-maligned diaper/potty-training/panty-accident component), that Daddy/girl is not simply a "flavor" of D/s, but something much more complex, broad, and personal.
Naturally, it is not my intent to slam the idea of D/s (as it is a major interest of mine), but I felt the point needed made.
with my regards,
A.
who's thrilled to have people to discuss this stuff with
Email: austinitorno-spam@no-spamgmail.com