quote:

ORIGINAL: twicehappy

Instead of coming back with your varied an oft contradictory responses, why not, if you do not care for the definitions presented thus far, take the time to write out your definitions?

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
 
You bring up and important point. When in different classes we have had common words redefined in the context of what we were studying. For example, in biology a culture can refer to a sample of bacteria that one is growing, in anthropology it refers to a group of people living a certain lifeway, it can further be dissected in other anthropology classes by different professors. In fact no two textbooks I have used defined "culture" the same way. If you are communicating with a group of people about something such as this, we can come up with a working definition, but that is really only good for that interaction at that point in time.

quote:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrutalAntipathy

I get the feeling that people are intimidated by mutually agreed upon definitions, but I have trouble understanding why.
 
 We label, define, and compartmentalize by way of comprehension. It is not a way for one defined group to feel superior to another, but a way in which multiple people can comprehend what everyone else is talking about.
 
The whole " Let everyone write their own definition " idea is counterproductive. Definitions don't constrain, they clarify.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

 

quote:

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 the purpose is to get a consensus, then at best the those who think outside the box or are a lone voice will not be heard. At worst, mob mentality will form (think Tooey from The Fountainhead) and the dissenters will be stoned or something. ::laughs::

 

quote:

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.

 
It seems to me that such should be absolutely counted otherwise you skew the results. If the vast majority agree that labels are as individual as the people who wear them and that it is only through enhanced communication that you can define yourself anyway, then what we have in place (the dictionary) is already a very general basis with which to start. The rest is subtle flavoring based on individual taste buds.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros

Part of the cohesiveness of a community revolves around it's language, i.e., terms need to have meaning across the various subcultures that make up a community this large and diverse (and growing). In short, after reading through this thread again, it strikes me that we primarily have a language problem.

Words, and/or phrases are symbolic representations of concepts - these may change over time: "marriage" was originally a term used in metallurgy to describe the creation of alloys, i.e., two disseperate elements combined into a cohesive whole - in the current vernacular, it means a legal contract between to individuals for mutual advantage:  permanence , in the metallurgical sense, is implicit, but no longer explicitly included in the definition.

I've concluded that this thread, and similar ones, have at their core, a concern over the dilution of the language itself, making it difficult to communicate without lengthy explanations and qualifications, and blur the lines between what it is you do, and whatever it is that they might be doing.

It might be useful to simply start with a list of common terms that connote certain aspects of the practice of BDSM - nearly every term that is taxonomic in nature, rather than descriptive of a specific practice has such connotations, including D/s, Master, Slave, Top, Bottom, etc., and well as "lifestyle", "Old School", etc.

Some practices of course, imply a certain level of intensity, "single tails", etc.

I think it does no-one any good to blur these terms to the point that they lose their specific meanings, it only leads to confusion and irritation.

My two cents, but I think it's the language itself that's getting watered down, and it might be fun to just lay these terms out there from time to time, and see what develops, with a mind to maintaining the original meanings as closely as possible, and perhaps inventing new terms as apporopriate.

more hedonic implications, whereas SM has distinctly agonistic ones.

Beat me to it: http://www.collarchat.com/m_604021/tm.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

It seems to me that such should be absolutely counted otherwise you skew the results. If the vast majority agree that labels are as individual as the people who wear them and that it is only through enhanced communication that you can define yourself anyway, then what we have in place (the dictionary) is already a very general basis with which to start. The rest is subtle flavoring based on individual taste buds.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyHugs

Dear NINASHARP,
 
I do have written works, presentations given on a CD-Rom.  But, as far as "Labels" go; I do round table discussions occassionally, where this very thread discusses, e.g. labels, definitions and doormat submission. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: twicehappy

This statement is true, how do you describe something without a term to describe it?

If you are speaking of your foot you simply say foot and everybody knows what you mean.

Scooter was speaking generally; we are very secure in the terminology we use and extremely at ease giving a fuller definition of it to those who ask.
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: twicehappy

This statement is true, how do you describe something without a term to describe it?

If you are speaking of your foot you simply say foot and everybody knows what you mean.

Scooter was speaking generally; we are very secure in the terminology we use and extremely at ease giving a fuller definition of it to those who ask.
 

Hello A/all,

I apologize if what I wrote upset you.  So I will attempt to re-explain my meaning.

The problem with attempting to define things reminds me of the Zen parable about the 5 blind men describing an elephant.

Blind man #1 feels the tail and states emphatically "An elephant is like a snake."

Blind man #2 feels the leg and insists "No, an elephant is like a tree."

Blind man #3 feels the ear, considers blind men #1 and #2 idiots and states "You are both wrong, an elephant is like a drape."

Blind man #4 feels the tusk and yells "No!  An elephant is like a tree branch."

Blind man #5 feels the side of the elephant and screams "YOU ARE ALL INSANE!  AN ELEPHANT IS LIKE A WALL."

None of the blind men are technically wrong, but none of the blind men are technically right, either.  The problem has to do with the limitations in perception of the 5 blind men.

Apply that to this discussion.  Any term we are able to come up with will either be too broadly defined to be applicable.  Consider as an example us going up to the arctic, point at the white stuff on the ground and call it snow, and the local Inuit, who have 260 or so different words for snow, think we are ignorant nitwits.  What ends up happening is everybody stands around arguing about what the word "is" is and the president gets impeached.

Wait, wrong thread.  Sorry.

Or the term will be too narrowly defined and will marginalize and ostracize people from WIITWD.  You will have those who define the elephant as being like a wall screaming at or picking on or arguing with anybody who doesnt agree that an elephant is like a wall.

The point I was trying to make is that I personally feel that WIITWD is too complex a subject to shackle it with definitions.  Far as I am concerned, people can call things whatever they want and if it interests me to know what they mean by the word "foot," I will ask them.  Then they point at the oblong shaped object at the end of their leg and say "I am using the word foot to describe that thing."

Just me, could be wrong, but there you go.

Sinergy

edited for clarity

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrutalAntipathy

If the zoo keeper tells his assistant that the elephant needs it's teeth cleaned, he is going to be a little annoyed if the assistant defines teeth as anus and gives the elephant an enema, all the while whining " But you SAID to clean it's teeth! "

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.

 
I do not mind being called a submissive, I mind being called a slave.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

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?........ 

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

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.  But that is just me, and I could be wrong.

Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

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.

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.

Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: OhReallyNow

However, this slave does not agree with the idea or theory that a select group of people has ANY right to decide what definition should be used by whom, and how.

your desire to come up with a generally accepted code of definitions as it pertains to the lifestyle is foolish at best for the simple reason that individuals are diverse and unique in how they interpert certain things. To adopt a 'code of definitions' that are 'generally' accepted by 95% of the populace will not eradicate the confusion of newcomers to this lifestyle. It will only force them to either enter the mainstream of thinking, or become outcasts when their own interpertations differ from that of the mainstream.

this slave see's no reason to force that on anyone; not even for the sake of 'easier' communications.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OhReallyNow

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:

ORIGINAL: BrutalAntipathy
We are looking at the whole elephant, and giving descriptions of the individual parts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash
OK..I admit, I got to within the last two pages of this thread and simply gave up. There appears to be 2 sides to this. There’s those who either agree or can intelligently offer alternative definitions/labels, and those who are scared to death of definitions &/or labels. Well I hate to break it to you folks, the undecided and I won't do it group, but if you don’t pick something that categorizes your relationship, don’t be all pissed off when someone labels your ass with something you don’t like. It’s like they say…you are either part of the solution, or part of the problem and a whole lot of people who don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings (yes those oh so close folks you know so intimately over the internet (rolls eyes)) are definitely part of the problem. Do I have a personal interest in this…damned right I do! I am in a BDSM relationship and I give a damned how other people, nilla or otherwise view it. To those who don’t want to be tied down to a definition or a label….fine, have it your way AND remember me when you are trying to explain to the cop hauling your lame ass off to jail, or the judge that sentences you, that it was consensual bondage and you are in a D/s relationship. Without definitions…he won’t have a clue. May you rot in peace…PS…don’t call me for bail money.
 
We either get it together or we are doomed to fail. From what I have seen, and to count at this point, we have a decent chance at this point for survival.