RE: BDSM Definitions?

RE: BDSM Definitions? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

ScooterTrash -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 5:46:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OhReallyNow quote: But when speaking with someone openly, wouldn't it be handy to have a name for what it is? Without a descriptive term, it seems like it would be rather awkward to explain any relationship this slave tells everyone that she lives a 24/7 Master/slave relationship. Yet, she has been asked how that can be if she and Master do not live in the same house. Some would argue that what we have is only that of a Dominant/submissive relationship; yet, this slave would argue it for the simple reason that she HAS given up all control to Master. It matters not whether we live in the same house or not; what matters is the mindset between Master and his property. why would this slave need a more descriptive term to define her relationship? She supposes that she could instead call it a 'sometime 24/7 Master/slave relationship' but that would only raise more questions as to what would define 'sometime' I won't go into a personal confrontation of terms, suffice to say the OPs definitions and mine coincide. Nor will I personally single you out as that is just nonproductive. But I think with your own words you elequently describe the delimma of not having a set in stone definition to go off of. To me, no dynamic is clarified solely by the mindset..it is the physical relationship as well.

twicehappy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 5:57:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lashra I agree with all of those.[:)] I don't see why people get so caught up in labels you would think they were merit badges or something. Thank you. For the purpose of this post it is important, for the purpose behind starting this post it is even more so. On other threads a few folks have been discussing why bdsm is not more mainstream, why it is so misunderstood by vanilla society and the various things that would have to occur to bring it to the forefront much as the gay and lesbian movement once did and continues to do. It was concurred that two of the biggest issues were that we would all have to be able agree, at least by a majority on something, well on anything for a start and that we needed to be able to give recognizable (within reason, allowing that there are many subgroups) definitions to some of our terminology. This is an attempt to do so, at lest to see if it is possible at any rate. quote: ORIGINAL: NINASHARP Question? Sadist / Masochist one who enjoys inflicting / receiving pain, is that sexually speaking only? For the purpose of these definitions we shall agree on pain of any type.

WyrdRich -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 6:04:42 PM)
Add me to the list who think the switch definition is dismissive of the possibilities. How about, Switch: one who is able to create a synthesis of both sides of power exchange.

juliaoceania -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 6:45:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I also think that all slaves are submissives, but not all submissives embrace being a slave. Not all slave are submissives (assuming you were using this as a noun), totally different dynamics. I might agree that all slaves may be submissive however. quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Our dynamic is what it is, it really doesn't matter how others view it, it matters how we view it. But when speaking with someone openly, wouldn't it be handy to have a name for what it is? Without a descriptive term, it seems like it would be rather awkward to explain any relationship. I do not mind being called a submissive, I mind being called a slave. The type of power exchange I desire is 24-7-365 collared and owned, under the definition purposed here that makes me want to eventually become a slave... I do not term it like this. I do not know why others have to label me a slave. If they like the term, fine by me, I don't. I could see the difficulty if I was a domme labeling myself a slave that this might cause confusion, but I am an "s" type that wants to be referred to as a submissive in my relationship, and that is how my Dom wants to refer to me too. Many grown people understand the term submissive in my interactions with vanillas that I have told about myself... which I have a few vanilla friends that know I am a submissive... I do not need them to understand the many distinctions no one can seem to define between slave and submissive... submissive is fine by me to label myself. I stick by my contention, we all get labeled in life, it is the labels we take on for ourselves that matter and no one else's. No one knows me like I know me, why should I take on their labels and not embrace my own? That is just my individual opinion which will really have no bearing on how people label or do not label me for the most part... and I am ok with that... they own their views, I own mine

ownedgirlie -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 7:07:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash To me, no dynamic is clarified solely by the mindset..it is the physical relationship as well. For the sake of argument, what of a married couple that must live apart? For example, in a family I know, the husband's company transferred him to the UK. Because his line of work is scarce, he went. Rather than uprooting both of his children from their home, their school, their grandparents and other relatives, his wife continues to live in the States with the kids, and they visit him one week out of each month. Would this mean their marriage is no longer clarified as a marriage? A CEO I worked for had a similar situation, only his wife and 4 kids were in Southern California, while his job was in Northern California. He was in the Bay Area 4 days out of the week, and home Fri-Sun. How would that marriage be clarified, by the definitions listed above? My cousin's husband is a merchant marine, out to sea 3 months at a time. Obviously there is no physical interaction, and hardly even voice interaction as well. The examples above, in my opinion, show how a dynamic can absolutely be a full time, 24/7 one, whether the parties are in the same residence or not. Or, is there a set value of number of days together per week/month/year that would then define what is 24/7 for the masses? What of a slave whose Master has absolute authority over all she does - her finances, her job, her family activity, her daily schedule, etc.? Yet she does not live with him? She is watched while at home, even as she sleeps. Is she still considered something other than a 24/7 slave, by your definition? Not trying to be argumentative, but stating that in my definitions, complete authority can occur in non-traditional settings. I may have misunderstood your post, however. If the emphasis is on the word solely, then that would mean simply that some form of physicality must exist, rather than a requirement somehow being that they must live under the same roof.

NINASHARP -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 7:17:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: twicehappy quote: ORIGINAL: NINASHARP Question? Sadist / Masochist one who enjoys inflicting / receiving pain, is that sexually speaking only? For the purpose of these definitions we shall agree on pain of any type. Then yes I agree with all of your definitions.

LadyHugs -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 7:20:26 PM)
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen; Labels. Interesting things about labels. Labels identify what the brand is, the contents of the package, the breakdown of the contents of the packaged item. Some labels identify the weight, the description, the nutrition value and all those pounds that might find you called calories. Some labels come with instructions on how to use. Some labels come with warnings how not to use. Some labels explain how to put together or take apart. Some labels give how much weight they can carry or not. Some labels warn that they have the possibility to 'shock.' Some labels tell where it came from or where they were packaged. Some have old designs and some have such beautiful labels you do your best to avoid tearing them up. Some labels tell where they are coming from or return them back to the sender if nobody is there to receive it. Some labels send you somewhere. Some labels say when. Some labels give you a code, much like a road map of what route you took. Some labels say you're First class. Some say you're second class or worse, third class. Some say your glass or fragile. Some say don't bend. Some say hand process or hand stamp. Some labels tell others who you are, in some crowded convention. Some labels tell others where you'll be. Some labels tell you where to sit or where not to. Labels identify the variety of foods on the buffet table. Interesting Ranch and Blue Cheese dressing looks so similar. Labels identify, labels inform, labels help make a choice. One thing labels can never do--and that is explain the contents of a human entirely. Respectfully submitted for consideration, Lady Hugs

NINASHARP -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 7:34:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHugs Dear Ladies and Gentlemen; Labels. Interesting things about labels. Labels identify what the brand is, the contents of the package, the breakdown of the contents of the packaged item. Some labels identify the weight, the description, the nutrition value and all those pounds that might find you called calories. Some labels come with instructions on how to use. Some labels come with warnings how not to use. Some labels explain how to put together or take apart. Some labels give how much weight they can carry or not. Some labels warn that they have the possibility to 'shock.' Some labels tell where it came from or where they were packaged. Some have old designs and some have such beautiful labels you do your best to avoid tearing them up. Some labels tell where they are coming from or return them back to the sender if nobody is there to receive it. Some labels send you somewhere. Some labels say when. Some labels give you a code, much like a road map of what route you took. Some labels say you're First class. Some say you're second class or worse, third class. Some say your glass or fragile. Some say don't bend. Some say hand process or hand stamp. Some labels tell others who you are, in some crowded convention. Some labels tell others where you'll be. Some labels tell you where to sit or where not to. Labels identify the variety of foods on the buffet table. Interesting Ranch and Blue Cheese dressing looks so similar. Labels identify, labels inform, labels help make a choice. One thing labels can never do--and that is explain the contents of a human entirely. Respectfully submitted for consideration, Lady Hugs Sorry for the hijack, Twicehappy, Lady Hugs, have you ever considered writing a book on these subjects? Also, if you have any material out there already, I would love to know where I could obtain a copy of your works. Thanks, Nina

thisishis -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 7:44:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: twicehappy After a week or so i will add up the ones that are similar and see how it came out then post the ones who were the most repeated or agreed with. If your vote is "labels or definitions are what they mean to you " this will be counted as a non vote. This is an experiment to see what the general consensus is. Ahh, a 'my WIITWD/kink/relationship-dynamic is more popular than your WIITWD/kink/relationship-dynamic type of experiment/vote. That oughtt to make those whose definitions fall into the minority groups feel err... nice.[&:] i've already gathered that i'm not of the majority here nor elsewhere as far as this topic, and am fine with it. Even so, thank you , twicehappy. Intuition tells me that this should turn into an interesting discussion. *posted prior to reading anything other than the OP .... And as i guessed, the thread is interesting. It's so interesting that i will not offer my personal opinion of the definitions.... to do so would only serve to find me in disagreement with how others define their relationships. i don't see anything good resulting from that. [:)] i'll beg off.

SadistCpl4fslv -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 8:13:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich Add me to the list who think the switch definition is dismissive of the possibilities. How about, Switch: one who is able to create a synthesis of both sides of power exchange. Speaking as one who's wife is a switch, I find this subgroup to be the most misunderstood and maligned in the lifestyle at large. I have heard many, both online and in real, say that switches are really just confused. However, IMHO switches are the most complex personalities of us and far less cut and dried to their approach and philosophy to the lifestyle. Personally, I believe that the switch is one that has developed both personality traits of Dominance and submissiveness through many factors and experiences to the point that they are comfortable in both roles. But, also think there are many shadings to this and that often it has to do with mood swings (and I don't use that term in a derrogatory fasion) Using my wife, birishina/Birishina as an example. For a long time she tried to operate as a submissive because that is what she thought she was suppose to be. After several failed and disasterous attempts in real, and two years of real conflict between the two of us, we both came to the realization that she really does have a Dominant personality with exceptions. The fact is she prefers and feels most comfortable being submissive to men, yet she has on occasion Dominated males subs and quite well at that. On the other side of it she prefers and feels most comfortable Dominating women, but on rare occasion as been submissive to Dommes and those relationships did not last long. And much of it does depend on her mood swings but generally speaking she is submissive to men and Dominant to women. I would beg to venture that there are so many variations to this for other switches and that is what makes them so complex to understand. But, I also personally think that is what makes them so interesting and attractive in their own right. RSC

CreoleCook -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 8:25:48 PM)
I guess I'm a non vote, for I disagree with every definition. example: you speak of a slave giving over complete control, but nothing of a master/mistress having complete control... creole

BlkTallFullfig -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 8:27:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: twicehappy Top; one who controls the scene for play only. Bottom; one who submits during the scene only Sadist; one who enjoys inflicting pain Masochist; one who enjoys receiving pain Dom/Domme; the one who dominates, the one who is in control of, is responsible for, gives orders and direction to the sub/slave. This is something they are, a personality type, not just something they do only in the bedroom. A Dom/Domme is what they are whether or not they currently own a sub or slave. Master/Mistress, is one who is dom/domme and currently owns a submissive or a slave. It is a title bestowed on them by virtue of such ownership. It also goes much deeper than the Dom/Domme relationship on the spiritual, emotional and physical levels in regards to the depths of the power exchange and the responsibilities involved. Switch; one who can either top or bottom during play or a scene. Submissive; one who yields power or control to the dominant on a limited basis both during day to day life and during scening or playing. Or one whose nature is submissive, one may be a submissive whether or not they currently are submitting to a dominant, it is what they naturally are. Slave; one who yields control of all aspects of their existence to the dominant within the limits agreed upon prior to being collared (these are generally agreed upon moral limits, not to be confused with" I get it my way or I leave or Sam type behaviors). One who is considered to be owned by another as their sole property. One whose submission to their owner/s is total, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in and out of any scenes or play.. Yes I am in agreement with these definitions. I like labels because I like communication as clear as possible, and I like to have a basis for what it is I'm trying to convey. As has been said, they are just ideas to start from. Once someone chooses a label or description, than I can decide if our descriptions match, and whether we seek a similar dynamic. I don't really care about the difference between slaves and submissives, but I do get a little more excited when someone approaches as a slave and our definitions of his level of submission match. M

catize -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 8:38:06 PM)
I have no idea why this topic is so important to those in your household, but I accept that it IS important to you. With that in mind, I will set aside my usual arguement and will concede it may be within the realm of possibility to come to a consensus here on CM. But what then? Do you truly believe it will affect those who don't agree, that they will change the definitions which they use for themselves? If you find at the end of your timeframe that there is a majority who agrees with you, how does that impact other BDSM sites, or any given person's local munch group or play group, or the larger BDSM events that take place across the nation? Hypothetically, within one week most here on the forum have agreed to all terms and definitions. But 6 months from now, hundreds of new members have joined and they have their own way of doing things, their own thoughts on BDSM and how they live it. My own concept of where I fit within the definitions you give are rather fluid. Generally I consider myself a submissive masochist; some days I consider myself only a masochist and just feel lucky that Master likes to cause me pain. I am not flaming you or your Owners, I just don't know that setting things in stone will accomplish much in the larger scheme of things.

charismagirrl -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 9:01:23 PM)
i personally like the definitions of the OP but also beleive it would take and eternity (okay maybe not that long) to have them be accepted across the board. When i met my Daddy i asked him what it was that he was looking for and also asked him to clarify the terms as they pertained to him. In the past i'd been called a slave and was collared, but i realize now, that i am actually a slave, that what i was in the past was...a bottom, a SAMmy,& a submissive but i really wasn't a slave at that point. Had there been better definitions maybe i would've known that.

Sinergy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 9:07:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash But when speaking with someone openly, wouldn't it be handy to have a name for what it is? Without a descriptive term, it seems like it would be rather awkward to explain any relationship. Hello A/all, I apologize if you feel awkward explaining what you do in the lifestyle. I am not sure I can recommend any way you can overcome this, but I do wish you well. While your comment is a nice ideal, I cannot help but think you want precise definitions to deal with your own feelings of awkwardness in explaining it to other people. In my experience in the Real World it seldom happens. People tend to take a standard definition (say C (the speed of light)) and start to monkey with it to work in their own dynamic. For example, is that the speed of light in a vacuum? through water? through a gravitational field? So what ends up happening is the two people have to COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER and figure out what their individual definitions are and come up with a common agreed upon definition that works within the context they are talking about. Scientists do it. Why cant we? Forcing me to define my Dominance by somebody else's yardstick is problematic. What if the most Dominant thing I can possibly conceive of involves spearfishing with my submissive in Fiji? Am I likely to encounter another Dominant with a similar bent. No. Does this mean my definition is wrong? No. It simply means that I choose to define my existence in this lifestyle a certain way. So in my opinion, people have to sit down and figure out what definition works for both of them within the context they are talking about. In my experience, limited though it might be, the people who most insistent on clarified, codified, nailed down, types of definitions tend to be the most insecure in their own interactions in the lifestyle. To me, they seem inordinately concerned with whether I consider them a True Dominant or True submissive or True Republican or whatever, leaving me to wonder why the hell they care what I think. Universal infinitive definitions have not ever worked for any group of people who have attempted it in history (feel free to disagree, but please cite SPECIFIC EXAMPLES) and I personally do not think this is likely to change. But that is just me, and I could be wrong. Sinergy

Rule -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 9:22:01 PM)
Dom/Domme; the one who dominates, the one who is in control of, is responsible for, gives orders and direction to a sub. This is something they are, a personality type, not just something they do only in the bedroom. A Dom/Domme is what they are whether or not they currently own a sub or slave. Master/Mistress, is one who dominates, the one who is in control of, is responsible for, gives orders and direction to a slave. This is something they are, a personality type, not just something they do only in the bedroom. A Master/Mistress is what they are whether or not they currently own a sub or slave. Switch: one who can switch between dominant and submissive aspects of their personality. Actually I think that where masters and slaves are concerned the situation is more complex than this, as a distinction is necessary between a natural slave and a consensual power exchange slave and correspondingly between a natural master and a power exchange master. Then there also are non-consensual power exchange slaves. I am still studying on these distinctions.

OhReallyNow -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 11:04:43 PM)
quote: *Should they ask me specifically for my opinion? I would tell them the same thing I tell everyone that asks... and believe me, not many ask. A slave is owned property* so, you would tell them that a slave is owned property. Ok. Now, define 'owned property' please; in addition to that please explain how YOUR definition of 'owned property' is better that the none that the newcomer has come to on their own. quote: *the branch off of that would be "with a slave mentality" or "with the desire to be a slave".* *how can this be though? by your own words, a slave would have it's own definition;....now you are forced to define 'slave mentality'.* quote: If there had been in place a generally accepted commonly used definition of the terms that we use regularly in this lifestyle in place when the newcomer came on to the scene... would this have been an issue? this slave believes it would be an issue, yes. Simply for the fact that the newcomer has done all the reading he/she can, has talked to others, listened to others and comes to the conclusion on their own, based upon 'the general definitions set forth' that they are 'this way' ( be it a submissive or slave ), and yet, here is one telling them that they are not that because it does not fit in with what the general consensus believes to be 'true' quote: *I would tell them to re-think that with the information they now have available to them.* *and what happens when they come to the same conclusion that they had originally come to? What then? Do you label them as outcasts because they still refuse to conform to YOUR idea of what should be?* quote: To me, no dynamic is clarified solely by the mindset..it is the physical relationship as well. *this slave disagrees 100%* *it is a combination of the two together that make not only the dynamic, but also the relationship.* Master and this slave do not live together, yet he knows every minute of this slave's life, down to what time she puts her unmentionable to bed. He knows what this slave fixed for dinner; if he disagrees with what she is planning, he tells her and she fixed something else...whether he is here to enjoy it with us or not. He has access to my bank accounts, though he does not live with us or us with him. He is on this slave's insurance, and she on his. When this slave offered herself, she did so totally and completly. 24/7 this slave's thoughts are on what would please Master and best how to go about that. One does not need to have 24/7 physical contact to have such a dynamic. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash To me, no dynamic is clarified solely by the mindset..it is the physical relationship as well. For the sake of argument, what of a married couple that must live apart? For example, in a family I know, the husband's company transferred him to the UK. Because his line of work is scarce, he went. Rather than uprooting both of his children from their home, their school, their grandparents and other relatives, his wife continues to live in the States with the kids, and they visit him one week out of each month. Would this mean their marriage is no longer clarified as a marriage? A CEO I worked for had a similar situation, only his wife and 4 kids were in Southern California, while his job was in Northern California. He was in the Bay Area 4 days out of the week, and home Fri-Sun. How would that marriage be clarified, by the definitions listed above? My cousin's husband is a merchant marine, out to sea 3 months at a time. Obviously there is no physical interaction, and hardly even voice interaction as well. The examples above, in my opinion, show how a dynamic can absolutely be a full time, 24/7 one, whether the parties are in the same residence or not. Or, is there a set value of number of days together per week/month/year that would then define what is 24/7 for the masses? What of a slave whose Master has absolute authority over all she does - her finances, her job, her family activity, her daily schedule, etc.? Yet she does not live with him? She is watched while at home, even as she sleeps. Is she still considered something other than a 24/7 slave, by your definition? Not trying to be argumentative, but stating that in my definitions, complete authority can occur in non-traditional settings. I may have misunderstood your post, however. If the emphasis is on the word solely, then that would mean simply that some form of physicality must exist, rather than a requirement somehow being that they must live under the same roof. *thankyou Ma'am, you said it much more better than this slave could* quote: Hello A/all, I apologize if you feel awkward explaining what you do in the lifestyle. I am not sure I can recommend any way you can overcome this, but I do wish you well. While your comment is a nice ideal, I cannot help but think you want precise definitions to deal with your own feelings of awkwardness in explaining it to other people. In my experience in the Real World it seldom happens. People tend to take a standard definition (say C (the speed of light)) and start to monkey with it to work in their own dynamic. For example, is that the speed of light in a vacuum? through water? through a gravitational field? So what ends up happening is the two people have to COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER and figure out what their individual definitions are and come up with a common agreed upon definition that works within the context they are talking about. Scientists do it. Why cant we? Forcing me to define my Dominance by somebody else's yardstick is problematic. What if the most Dominant thing I can possibly conceive of involves spearfishing with my submissive in Fiji? Am I likely to encounter another Dominant with a similar bent. No. Does this mean my definition is wrong? No. It simply means that I choose to define my existence in this lifestyle a certain way. So in my opinion, people have to sit down and figure out what definition works for both of them within the context they are talking about. In my experience, limited though it might be, the people who most insistent on clarified, codified, nailed down, types of definitions tend to be the most insecure in their own interactions in the lifestyle. To me, they seem inordinately concerned with whether I consider them a True Dominant or True submissive or True Republican or whatever, leaving me to wonder why the hell they care what I think. Universal infinitive definitions have not ever worked for any group of people who have attempted it in history (feel free to disagree, but please cite SPECIFIC EXAMPLES) and I personally do not think this is likely to change. But that is just me, and I could be wrong. Sinergy *this is the first time that this slave has every agreed 100% with what you have said Sir, thank you [:)]*

CrappyDom -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 11:18:43 PM)
Submissive -the person wielding the flogger who practices to become perfect at posing and pleasing the person who just lies there and recieves the sensation and who with almost no effort controls the scene. Dominant- The person who recieves the fawning attention of the submissive and is their complete focus. Through the use of the most subtle of control expresses needs and desires so seemlessly that the submissives thinks they thought of it first Vanilla - someone who is able to hold long term relationships and reasonable height to weight ratio. Often has a multitude of interests and a wide range of friends. Lifestyler - someone who clings to BDSM like a lifeline from a sea of dark emptyness slave - willing to do anything at anytime with no limits as long as they are the recipients of 95% of their owners attention and nobody actually makes them do any of the stuff they are willing to do at anytime Bedroom submissive - a woman who is in touch with who and what she is and has healthy boundaries she is able to express clearly and openly. DM - A person unable to find partners on their own due to a lack of basic social skills and in fact a lack of almost all skills except an uncanny ability to list every obscure fact about star trek or is an expert gamer BDSM group - a place where needy people can get together and cause drama with other people rather than simply with their own family Wannabe dom - an intelligent insightful person new to bdsm who either threatens the hell out of the existing tribal order or is a budding DM Bottom - someone with their head screwed on straight who loves sensation play, loves surrendering, loves having fun and doesn't need BDSM as more than what they find useful in it. The above quotes will offend some, make others laugh, and hopefull a couple of you think. I agree with some of it, some I think is or should be true, others were included just to shake things up. YMMV

BrutalAntipathy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 11:18:49 PM)
Thank you, twicehappy. These are the most sensible and consistent definitions I have seen so far. As for the nay-sayers, of which there are surprisingly few to date, I believe that any frame of reference is better than the anarchy of terminology that currently clutters the BDSM world.

BitaTruble -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/27/2006 2:24:44 AM)
Interesting thread. I'd suggest to the thread dwellers to go read Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" and then come back here and post again. tic & [;)] Celeste

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.0390625