BDSM Definitions? (Full Version)

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



Message

twicehappy -> BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 8:43:19 AM)

Between the watered down bdsm thread and the different ways of expressing WIITWD thread a lot has been said about the possibility or desirability of agreeing as a group on set(within reason) standard definitions of some of the titles or labels if you will that we use.
 
So in the interest of finding out if we can agree on definitions i am asking everyone who cares to add to this to give their definition of certain terms.
 
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.
 
Here are the terms;
 
Bottom, top, sadist, masochist, Dom/Domme, Master/Mistress, switch, submissive, slave, (Yes I define a submissive and a slave and a Dom/Domme and a Master/Mistress as separate entities)
 
(Now give me a moment to don my flame retardant suit and bullet proof vest.)
 
Here are my definitions of these words.
 
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..



MasterC46910 -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 9:13:39 AM)

Your take on it are about the same as mine.



LadyEllen -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 9:26:19 AM)

seems about right to me too, although my "switchiness" tends to be more about who I am (personality type) than simply something for play.
E



juliaoceania -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 9:31:37 AM)

The question is not definitions in my mind, definitions have already been made by many people that are nearly the same

The problem in my mind is when it comes to others judging what those definitions mean between two people (or more) in the context of their relationship which is mostly done in private.

I will say that top and bottom are also actions, they are not really titles in my mind or definitions. Dominants top submissives. People who are not submissives can bottom..

I would further say that masochism and sadism does not stop at physical pain, but can include humiliation

I do not agree about sub/dom/master/slave. I think many dominants own submissives, these are labels that you will never get everyone to agree to. I also think that all slaves are submissives, but not all submissives embrace being a slave. Same goes with "master". Some people just do not like these words applied to them, I am one that does not like the term "slave". Our dynamic is what it is, it really doesn't matter how others view it, it matters how we view it. Sometimes naming a thing something that people do not like the connotation seems a little presumptious. "Slave" and "Master" have bad historical connotations for me.. nothing personal.

I want my relationship to progress to 24-7 and 7 days a week, and even at a distance I do as I am told and I defer to him. That does not mean that I embrace the word slave, and neither does my Daddy. He likes me to call him "Daddy", not master. Why is it important to lump all people into that category... I just do not understand that concept.



NINASHARP -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 9:31:43 AM)

Question?  Sadist / Masochist one who enjoys inflicting / receiving pain, is that sexually speaking only?



Lashra -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 9:38:08 AM)

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.

~Lashra



LadyHugs -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 9:41:53 AM)

Dear twicehappy, Ladies and Gentlemen;
 
I can agree to what you have proffered thus far.
 
That said, I would also mention from these "headers" there will be branches or tailored practices which makes things more 'personal' and unique to those who read them.
 
Additionally, there the purest in S&M, which would say sexual arrousal/gratification/foreplay is required to be S&M.  Some who will say that non-sexual gratification and what may be deemed as S&M fits more into heavy players and not into S&M.  So, that may need to be clarified.
 
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
Lady Hugs



OhReallyNow -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 12:58:21 PM)

while this slave does agree on the GENERAL defininitions that you have stated, she also does not hold with the idea that any one should have the right to 'define' another's relationship.
 
this slave could care less what the 'dictionary' definition implies; in addition to that, she could care less what an individual 'definition' implies. No one person, or group, has the right to tell another that they can not label themselves how they see fit simply because the definitons do not match.
 
this slave understands the reason behind wanting to set definitions; it helps to lessen the confusion on those who are new, or just curious about the way in which others choose to live; however, to imply that they must accept OUR definitions is just wrong. It is how we use the general definition in regards to our own life that makes each of us unique in our way; in addition it is also how we apply those definitons to ourselves that make us so diverse. This slave can not hold with the idea of taking away that diversity from each individual.



ShiftedJewel -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 4:33:00 PM)

quote:

That said, I would also mention from these "headers" there will be branches or tailored practices which makes things more 'personal' and unique to those who read them.


OhReallyNow... I think LadyHugs said it best here.

quote:

while this slave does agree on the GENERAL defininitions that you have stated, she also does not hold with the idea that any one should have the right to 'define' another's relationship.  


I don't think anyone is trying to define other people's relationships just the terms used regularly in this lifestyle... a GENERAL definition as LadyHugs said, that can then be branched off of and made to fit in a more tailored fashion.... As an example... I am a Mistress because I "own" twicehappy. Beyond that (as one of those branches) I am a Mistress that enjoys sadism and the poly lifestyle. See, it can be broken down in many ways to personalize each individual.
 
Having said that, I agree with the definitions as twicehappy stated them... go figure huh?
 
Jewel



ShiftedJewel -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 4:46:42 PM)

quote:

I do not agree about sub/dom/master/slave. I think many dominants own submissives, these are labels that you will never get everyone to agree to. I also think that all slaves are submissives, but not all submissives embrace being a slave. Same goes with "master". Some people just do not like these words applied to them, I am one that does not like the term "slave". Our dynamic is what it is, it really doesn't matter how others view it, it matters how we view it. Sometimes naming a thing something that people do not like the connotation seems a little presumptious. "Slave" and "Master" have bad historical connotations for me.. nothing personal.


No one said everyone had to agree... did they? That's the joy of democracy. Whether you personally choose to apply the generally accepted definition of any given word is up to you. Whether or not you like said word is also up to you, but... that does NOT take away from the generally accepted definition of any given word. The words Master and slave are used daily and have commonly accepted definitions, good, bad or indifferent... they exist and not liking them isn't going to make them go away. There are kinks that include consensual rape scenes.. now if anything would have negative historical conotations to it that would be it.

As I've been told on so many occasions... the definitions of words change over time so to try and associate them with what they meant a hundred years ago is an act of futility. We live in the here and now and have the chance to set down some "new" commonly accepted definitions and as a group come together in a more cohesive way so that newcomers to the lifestyle don't have to flounder around sifting through mounds of bull shit just to get a straight answer. So many people complain if someone makes the mistake of bringing up "how it used to be"... or "the good old days" because they are living in the past.... guess what? They aren't alone.



ScooterTrash -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 4:53:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OhReallyNow

while this slave does agree on the GENERAL defininitions that you have stated, she also does not hold with the idea that any one should have the right to 'define' another's relationship. 
 
Not nitpicking, but by that logic I guess defining two people that are married to each other as a "Married Couple" would be in error? Yes...if there is an accepted definition of the relationship, I fail to see where it's wrong.



TheShadows -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 4:54:32 PM)

I agree with the OP's definitions.

As always, YMMV...

TheShadows



DiurnalVampire -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 4:59:25 PM)

I'd agree that the definitions work for giving someone an idea of what we might be talking about when we use the terms.  I would say that things like slave, pet and things of that nature are often not used as their intended meaning but more as pet names on occasion, but in general I would agree to what the OP is talking about.

DV



MASTERRocker -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 5:00:04 PM)

BDSM?? I thought it meant Buy Domestic Save Money............



OhReallyNow -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 5:02:08 PM)

Miss Jewel, for the sake of arugment only ( because this slave truly does understand and agree with what you are trying to say here );
 
let us say, for the sake of arguement that I come onto the scene, brand new, knowing nothing except what I have read over the last ...let's say 2 years...knowing nothing except what I have read and learned from listening and talking to others...I come onto the scene and based on what I have learned, I label myself a slave. I choose this label because everything that I have read, heard and listened to resonates within me, saying that 'i am a slave'. Yet, despite having come to that conclusion, on my own, there are some aspects that I define within myself that others do NOT, by general consensus and by the branches of different definitions...others will vehemently deny that I can label myself a slave.
( did that make any sense? )
 
Now, because MY definition of what I have learned, through reading and listening, and talking to others...because MY definiton does not coincide with the 'general' populace...where does that leave me? Am I suddenly forced to reevalutate my own thinking, and feelings? Or do I go against the grain, and tilt an already rocky boat by standing firm in my own belief that I am indeed a slave.
 
As stated, this is only for the sake of argument. This slave is truly curious as to how one would act when faced with such a dilemma from a newcomer. What will you tell them? Will you insist that they conform to the the 'general definitions and the branches' that a respected group has set forth, denying themselves the right to choose for themselves? Or do you tell them that they must go with how THEY feel within?



ScooterTrash -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 5:06:16 PM)

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.



OhReallyNow -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 5:06:17 PM)

quote:

Not nitpicking, but by that logic I guess defining two people that are married to each other as a "Married Couple" would be in error? Yes...if there is an accepted definition of the relationship, I fail to see where it's wrong.

Not to be nitpicking either [:)] but, for the sake of argument, please define what would be 'married'.
The general consensus of married would be a couple that has gone before a church or a JP, declaring their vows and sealing such with a 'legal' piece of paper, correct?
Yet, there are couples who have been together for 20 years or more, who never 'legally' sealed their union; yet in the eyes of some states, and in their own eyes, they are just as married as the ones who have the paper that states so.
 
 



ScooterTrash -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 5:10:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OhReallyNow

quote:

Not nitpicking, but by that logic I guess defining two people that are married to each other as a "Married Couple" would be in error? Yes...if there is an accepted definition of the relationship, I fail to see where it's wrong.

Not to be nitpicking either [:)] but, for the sake of argument, please define what would be 'married'.
The general consensus of married would be a couple that has gone before a church or a JP, declaring their vows and sealing such with a 'legal' piece of paper, correct?
Yet, there are couples who have been together for 20 years or more, who never 'legally' sealed their union; yet in the eyes of some states, and in their own eyes, they are just as married as the ones who have the paper that states so.
 
 
Sounds like the State already defined it for them, so it's their label whether they accept it or not. Not that I wouldn't argue with a law if I completely felt it was unjust, but if this is the accepted prerequisite (the time element) in that State...then they are certainly married until such a time as the law is changed.



OhReallyNow -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 5:11:03 PM)

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'



ShiftedJewel -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/26/2006 5:45:18 PM)

quote:

As stated, this is only for the sake of argument. This slave is truly curious as to how one would act when faced with such a dilemma from a newcomer. What will you tell them? Will you insist that they conform to the the 'general definitions and the branches' that a respected group has set forth, denying themselves the right to choose for themselves? Or do you tell them that they must go with how THEY feel within?


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. As far as the "branches" go? Well they would be submissive and the branch off of that would be "with a slave mentality" or "with the desire to be a slave". Now, to turn the tables a little bit here.... 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?
 
For instance... If a man was to walk in to a very fancy restaurant and was told that a tie was required apparel do you honestly believe that he is going to get away with saying that he doesn't believe he should be made to wear a tie just to eat at that particular establishment. Do you really think he is going to get in without a tie? In what country do they change their laws and customs to accomodate newcomers and or visitors (you know... besides the US)? What alcohol serving nightclub is going to allow a 17 year old to come in and drink simply because they say they should be allowed because in their mind they are mature enough to do it?
 
Harsh as it may sound... I would tell them to re-think that with the information they now have available to them.
 
Jewel




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.140625