DrWakko wrote:
I have seen several profiles now with people wearing collars yet saying they are single and looking. To me a collar means that person is owned. I understand you can be collared and poly and looking for another partner, but these profiles don't mention they have other partners.
How does one tell the difference between a collar and a choker? I've seen locks, o rings on both collar and choker, so how does one tell the difference?
DW
I have been sort of avoiding this topic for awhile now, because its been done to death elsewhere, on the Cage, and usually gets very heated, and pretty much in all the ways it normally does, and often coming from the same people, including myself. I have a particular set of views about the topic in that I don't think anyone including the OP, has any right to try and dictate to anyone what a collar should mean to anyone else, how its used, what it means to them, if its a choker or not, is their business. I find it puzzling that an alternative lifestyle community, and its members should ever try to force some sort of an orthodoxy onto those practicing an alterative lifestyle.
I understand that many people had formative experiences with community groups/houses in their locale, and various people, and its good that these were as fun, enjoyable and meaningful to those who experienced them, but does that mean that those experiences, the rules, protocols, symbolism of things that had meaning to you, should to anyone else, whether in the physical world or online? Just because others do things differently or take different meanings from things, want to do something different does not devalue what you hold precious from back in the day or more recently.
As I read these threads I often see an attempt, often well meaning, personally invested, and sometimes with a very strong agenda, which I feel is somewhat toxic, to force an orthodoxy onto people, an attempt to homogenise meanings and lifestyle practices (not activity skills) to present a this is the way to live it ethos. Sure it works for you, you find comfort and meaning, happiness, purpose in it but not everyone will or should even. Often these discussions on collars resemble cis het religious orthodoxy, with collars being given the same meaning and symbolism as wedding rings. I find it bizarre that alternative lifestyle practitioners would want to do that, as a monolithic, church like thing, which often is how this reads - the one twue church of bdsm - which to my mind outside of safe activity skills information is not a good thing, after all bdsm is an alterative lifestyle practice not an monolithic orthodoxy.
Also often in these threads something else raises its head, the perpetrating of a mythology, which does not exist and never did the old guard. Its pretty obvious that those spreading this have not done their due diligence regarding the topic, because if they had they would not write what they write.
Before the 1960s, when alterative lifestyle pamphlets and papers began to appear, there was very little media to disseminate any info about anything bdsm or fetish. It was as underground as it could get and locked often to its locality. There was very few safe ways to share anything, the forces of law and order very active to crush anything that was outside the established cis het religious orthodoxy. If you look into the world of pornography and erotica, fetish imagery, even comic books, you will see how incredibly hard it was to do anything, so the idea there was any kind of unified thinking, or lifestyle practice back then is simply crazy, wrong, and very misleading.
The mythology of the motor cycle groups gets thrown up, and that they had very strict rules and protocols regarding collars etc and this is again incorrect. There was no unified anything among these groups, what they did was what they did in their club, among each other, and nowhere else, except maybe by accident, and the same goes for the bars at the time. Things were a lot less formal, or structured, so the narrative being pushed that these were the monolithic unified old guard, the originators of everything is simply not true, its a golden age mythology that looks great on paper, but its a figment of some peoples imagination. It is not me saying that by the way, but people who where around then, people like Guy Baldwin, who was active in the 60s. In saying that I am not seeking to rob pioneers of their importance in the history of bdsm, gay BDSM, not CIS Het BDSM, but to give some context.
Until the net came about, kink, whether gay or straight was pretty much restricted to locations, info in underground magazines, newspapers and books, with very limited media representation. It took a long time for things to open up, and its during the 80s and 90s when bdsm began to become more widely present, visible, meaningful, and structures and ideas disseminated, by people on the internet.
Modern ideas about bdsm evolved over time, coalescing from many disparate sources, but much comes from the loud voices in chat rooms back then, as it still does, long gone websites and reflected the ideas, and what worked for those people in their relationships, dynamics and such back then. BDSM is an ever evolving thing, its not static, ideas on consent, and activities have come along way as has inclusivity, though that is still a long way off from being perfect as BDSM is still mostly CIS Het, and white. Back in the day 60s Leather was almost exclusively male, and only over time did it evolve to be inclusive of women, the trans community, people of colour and CIS Het, straight people.
The reason for mentioning all this is to counter the idea of the golden age, universal, monolithic oneness that some try to push. It never existed and never will, but diversity of approach, ideas, inclusiveness, the net etc is a good thing, its not a bad thing. No one is threatening what works for you, what you cherish, what is meaningful to you. If you want to, and those involved with you want to view collars as wedding rings go to it, if certain lifestyle choices work for you that's great, but by the same idea of respect for that, what others like to do, enjoy, what works for them should also deserve equal respect, whether its in the physical or online.
Sadly though, as these threads often reveal, people are not open minded or respectful enough to allow the, your kinks not my kink and that's ok apply, just as your lifestyle choices are not my lifestyle choices and that's ok, and that includes collars, uses and meanings. I think its just a fact that people involved in bdsm are no more nice, or kind, open minded to each other than in the vanilla world.
The huge irony in all of this is, as I mentioned above, is that some people want to try and force an orthodoxy onto people in an alternative lifestyle which is the complete opposite of an orthodoxy. Maybe this is part of the human condition, kink or otherwise?