This is an edited transcript of SPOTLIGHT ON D&S, Sunday, May 27th

 (Editors note: being the power-crazed dominants that we are, we exerted
 our editorial prerogative and reworded a couple of our comments to more
 accurately reflect what we were talking about than our garbled syntax
 conveyed at the time. So, for those of you who can't remember us sounding
 so eloquent--think of it as deus ex machina. Aside from the usual
 editorial/grammatical corrections, the comments/questions of the members
 are unchanged.)


                TOPIC:  WHAT IS LIFESTYLE D&S?

                A round-robin discussion by the members of
                        Variations II



 12,Lowell) <bowing as JR enters...>

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) Welcome one and all to SPOTLIGHT ON D&S!!!!

 (12,Tami (tv)) Kissing JR's high heeled boots

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) <if Tami can keep her tongue off the footwear
 we'd like to begin this discussion...

 (12,Tami (tv)) I'll try

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) on LIFESTYLE VS. NO STYLE! <grin> Tonight we
 hope to either resolve the issue of what the hell lifestyle is and whether
 it's worth living and what bedroom d&s is (and wouldn't you rather watch
 tv?) (NO-NOT YOU, TAMI!) We think it's fair to say that JR would probably
 love to get this show on the road? ga

 (12,JR) That's debatable too <smile>.

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) First, the usual caveat: THIS IS A FORMAL
 CO!!!!! FORMAL CO RULES APPLY! Type ? if you have a question and ! if you
 have a comment. The moderator will call on you in turn. (If you need info
 on the rules, please check LIB12 for a full list). Also, please conclude
 your question/comment with "ga" (for "go ahead") so we know you're done!
 Now, JR, would you care to give us your point of view on lifestyle vs.
 bedroom d&s?

 (12,JR) A&W and everyone, I'm going to make a startling announcement. You
 all have succeeded in wearing down my line of division between the two to
 the point that we are now discussing a rather blurred spectrum. Never-
 theless, I continue to retain my preference for what is considered
 non-lifestyle - as opposed to what has been explained to me as being
 lifestyle. In other words, I have no wish to "own" anyone, except
 sexually. How's that for starters? ga

(12,john h.) ?

(:: Angelique & Will ::) That's great, JR. John, you have a question?

(12,Tami (tv)) ?

(12,Frank) !


(12,john h.) May i do a bit of "soul baring" before I ask?

(:: Angelique & Will ::) Go right ahead, John. ga

 (12,john h.) Well, i have just started exploring my interest in D&S and
 i've enjoyed greatly a couple of encounters with a pro...great times but i
 want a more permanent and close relationship with a Mistress. i want to
 feel "owned" but not in the way i think everyone here means it. i don't
 want to be chained by day and tortured by night every day. i want to enjoy
 shopping with my mistress and bringing her coffee in the morning etc. As
 well as the fun sexual aspects of training. So, i guess my question is: Am
 i looking for a lifestyle or non-lifestyle relationship ? Or can that
 really be answered ?

 (12,Caspar) !

 (12,Frank) !!

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) Caspar or Frank--either of you wish to answer
 John directly? If so, we'll put Tami's question on hold. ga

 (12,Frank) Yes

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) Ok, Frank --please go ahead. ga

 (12,Frank) Well in the first place, I don't believe anyone here has the
 kind of 'lifestyle' that john was describing. To most of us 'lifestyle'
 means that one person is 'in charge'...

 (12,john h.) !

 (12,Frank) on a steady basis outside the bedroom but that both still have
 their own lives and certainly that there is love and sharing. ga

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) John, were you responding to Frank's comment? ga

 (12,john h.) Thanks Frank, i was exaggerating and i think i like your
 definition and that's what i'm looking for. Something ongoing that fills
 both persons needs as much as possible. i have come to think that I need
 to be of service to someone to be happy. ga.

 (12,Lowell) !

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) Ok, thanks, John & Frank. Tami, you have a
 question? Ah--Tami has decamped. Caspar, you had a comment? ga

 (12,Caspar) oh, that's me.

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) Sure is, C. <grin> ga

 (12,Caspar) I was just thinking that it gets a little ridiculous to waste
 a lot of effort defining "lifestyle", when what we're really talking about
 is specific issues regarding choice of the sub. How much freedom does the
 sub have to make life choices? I mean, only in very limited relationships
 is SEX limited to the bedroom, right? What about if my lady wants to take
 a new job and I don't want her to? Should I tell her she can't take it?
 That would be an extreme few of us would probably be willing to accept,
 right? ga

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) Good points, Caspar. Frank, you had a comment
 earlier... still wish to make it? ga

 (12,Frank) I guess. I don't see any of the active lifestylers here...

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 (12,john h.) !

 (12,Frank) So I was going to pick up JRs gauntlet (yes I know about you
 root beer folk) but you're on another axis.

 (12,Tom T.) ?

 (12,Frank) Anyway...I don't see the problem with two people deciding that
 one should be in charge--even to to point that Caspar brought up, though
 certainly any responsible dom would think long and hard before making such
 a choice ga

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) Thanks, Frank. Lowell, you had a comment? ga

 (12,Lowell) Yes...

 (12,Michele R. (tv)) !

 (12,Lowell) I understand what John was talking about and in some ways feel
 the same need...

 (12,Bob K.) !

 (12,Lowell) I also find JR's owning, or being owned, sexually very
 appealing and can agree with one person being in charge on a long term
 basis--but the real problem would be having someone get involved in say,
 business decisions. There must be a balance, a common understanding
 somewhere, where two people can have a true D/s relationship without
 taking away from each other's wellbeing. I also think we're all basically
 talking about the same thing and that the word "bedroom" was what confused
 everyone. ga

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) Thanks, Lowell. Tom T., you had a question? ga

 (12,Tom T.) Angelique: Is there any reversal of roles in these
 relationships or could that be a criterion for distinction between
 lifestyle and bedroom? ga

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) Role reversal (or switching) isn't what distinguishes "lifestyle" from
 "bedroom" from lifestyle. The distinction we see lies in that "bedroom"
 d&s generally means that the power exchange and mutually agreed-upon roles
 are short-term and basically limited to sexual activities--the partners'
 agreement appears to be that d&s is primarily for sexual pleasure.

 Lifestylers generally enact the power dynamic on a full-time basis--and
 accept roles as full expressions of their personality. For folks who do
 not switch, that means remaining consistently within a specific power
 dynamic; for switches, it means that partners may exchange roles
 periodically. ga

 (12,Kay B.) ?

 (12,JR) !

 (12,Tom T.) ?

 (12,Frank) !

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) Michele, You had a comment? ga

 (12,Michele R. (tv)) It seems to me that many of you are too close to the
 forest to see the trees. At least 2 times tonite, lowell and A&W, the word
 "term" was used: while certainly the degree of control enters into it, the
 primary difference between lifestyle and bedroom centers around "term"--
 whether term means a long-term relationship versus a one nite stand; or just
 in the bedroom versus every hour of the day. ga

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) Interesting observation, Michele. Bob K., you
 had a comment? ga

 (12,Bob K.) yes, thanks

 (12,Lowell) !

 (12,Bob K.) i have been a sub for almost 20 years and i cannot remember a
 time when i ever made demands on my doms. i never told them how far i
 could go, or how long the engagement was for. it was never thought that i
 could. ga.

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) Thanks, Bob. Kay, you had a question? ga

 (12,Kay B.) yes, A&W, would you define 'full-time' power exchange? ga

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) Kay--we'd be happy to define what a full time
 power exchange is *for us*-- it's if that's what you're asking? ga

 (12,Kay B.) yes, what is your definition? ga

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) Well--with the warning that this is our
 subjective reality....The power exchange continues throughout the day and
 enters every aspect of our lives. For example, the submissive always
 consults with the dominant and/or asks permission on important issues (or
 minor issues if there's been prior agreement that permission is required)
 it *does not* mean that the submissive has no free will or is required to
 remain in bondage or perform services to the dominant constantly. It
 *does* mean...

 (12,john h.) !

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) that the dominant has the power to intervene at
 will whenever s/he wishes to intervene (again--the wise dom knows when to
 step back and let the sub make his/her own decisions and choices).

 As moderators, we'll go to the next person, and that's JR, with a comment?
 ga

 (12,Kay B.) !

 (12,Tom T.) ??

 (12,JR) A&W, correct me if I'm wrong, but in discerning the fact that you
 are both basically Tops, that indicates to me that you must switch.
 Nevertheless, you stated earlier that your idea of "full-time" is "fully
 expressive" of the relationship. That indicates a limitation - that it is
 the only expression. That may be an extreme view, but it is reasonable if
 D/s permeates all aspects of a lifestyle relationship. Thus, there is no
 "non-D/s" aspect. Am I correct in assuming that, and in assuming that
 there is no dividing line, or rather - there is no limitation to the Dom's
 power in any aspect? ga

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) JR, you raised several questions, so we'll
 try to answer each in order. First: we meant that lifestyle roles express
 the personality of the individuals involved (perhaps saying "fully" was
 hyperbolic).

 For someone like MRD inter alia, who feels dominant and dominant only, and
 enjoys controlling all areas of his life, it makes sense that he has
 selected as his life partner a woman who feels submissive and submissive
 only, and enjoys being told what to do. Will and I had both dominant and
 submissive fantasies. So, our relationship gives each of us opportunities
 to express/explore both sides--sometimes controlling, sometimes being
 controlled.

 Second, D&S permeates all aspects of our relationship. Obviously, unlike
 our dear friends MRD & denis, our satisfaction in d&s isn't pegged to
 fixed roles but to the emotional and psychological gratification we feel
 in the exchange of power on a constant basis....

 (12,JR) !?

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) Third, by D&S we don't mean sexual acts...

 (12,spanked tommy) hello

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) nor (necessarily) explicit expressions of d or s.
 D&s to us is the gratification and freedom of someone always being in
 control in this household, even if the power shifts.

 Finally, the powers of any dominant are always limited. If there were
 absolutely no limits there'd be no difference between a dominant and a
 tyrant. A good dominant is "limited" by human concerns--caring for the
 submissive is a prime example--and that limit is one which any sane top
 imposes upon her/himself. Compassion and love for your submissive don't
 detract from a lifestyle relationship--on the contrary! Many people opt
 for lifestyle because that's where they feel most fulfilled. ga

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) Frank, you had a comment? ga

 (12,Frank) I was choking on the term 'fully expressive' but was _somewhat_
 alleviated by subsequent explanation. ga

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) Ok, Frank--so shoot us for our rhetoric-on-the
 -fly. <grin> Lowell--you wished to comment? ga

 (12,Lowell) Yes...

 (12,JR) !

 (12,Lowell) W&A, I can think of numerous so called 'vanilla' relationships
 that fit your above definition of 'lifestyle' without our special bedroom
 activities, i.e., good old RR always called Nancy prior to okaying a new
 cabinet secretary. Power exchange has to be something more than one person
 dominating, in the non D/s sense, another and I think in many ways we do
 come right back to the bedroom, where the primary difference between our
 expression and their's occurs; where a disobedient sub risks physical
 punishment or denial of sexual fulfillment. I don't see why the activities
 in the 'bedroom' don't in some ways control the rest of the relationship,
 whether agreed on or not. ga

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) Thanks, Lowell--a quick response: if the whole
 relationship is set up according to power exchange, there's no set border
 between the bedroom and the living room. We doubt Ronnie got spanked by
 Nancy when he appointed James Watt, though god knows, he should've. <grin>
 John H., you had a comment or two? ga

 (12,john h.) yep. i guess i just want to say that now i understand
 better. i guess it's just that no one ever logs on and says what a joy it
 was to serve their top breakfast in bed on Sunday morning or to feed them
 grapes as they relax (grinning at JR). We only seem to cover the sexual
 aspects of things. Now i see there's more. All i have to do now is find
 that lifestyle relationship. At least now i know what i'm looking for.

 In addition, Lowell, perhaps that's what makes us different--every
 relationship has its power struggles, we just admit ours, and give
 consent, thus making both participants happier in their honesty. (OK sure
 we go farther since Tops usually make the sub ask permission...but thats
 honesty !!) ga

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) John, good observations. Although members do
 talk in general terms on the message board about "loving" d&s and the
 merits and responsibilities of a full-time d&s relationship, it's true
 that we don't talk about what an average day is like. Possibly because
 it's about as interesting as anyone's day. <grin>.

 One thing we'd like to know, John, is how you formed the opinion that
 lifestyle d&s meant being tied up all day and tortured all night (or some
 variant thereon). ga

 (12,john h.) Well, that was an exaggeration, but all literary exposure and
 things here were either overtly or slightly covertly sexual in nature.
 Now, i enjoy sexual excitement, but i hold an intelligent woman who wants
 to Top me in high enough regard to know she's interested in more than a
 purely sexual relationship. i was hoping that lifestyle meant more and i
 see that it does. ga

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) Thanks for the clarification, John. Now, if
 anyone has a concluding question or comment, please speak up!

 <waiting>

 <tapping feet>

 No? Ok, you ingrates! if you're going to be that way about it, we'll just
 END the CO by announcing.......................

 FORMAL CO IS NOW OVER! (how original!)

 (12,Frank) You should have tapped your riding crop, folks.

 (:: Angelique & Will ::) Thanks to one and all! This was an extremely
 lively and intelligent debate. We doubt this resolved anything, but maybe
 we're all finally sick enough of the topic that we can dispense with
 further messages! <grin>

 We love you all! and wish you a good night!