RE: Philosophies concearning BDSM labels....or chasing the perverbial rabit

RE: Philosophies concearning BDSM labels....or chasing the perverbial rabit (Full Version)

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

Message

marieToo -> RE: Philosophies concearning BDSM labels....or chasing the perverbial rabit (9/27/2006 9:23:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistCpl4fslv First of all I have to state that I am starting to get a little sick an tired of the labelophobia that is going around. I mean, honestly! We label EVERYTHING. And we have definitions for EVEYTHING. Both labels and definitions are APART of communication. This is exactly how language works. Without definitions the words are totally unintelligable. This is just another stark example, IMHO, of how the mainstream Politically Correct crowd has seaped into the philosophies of the lifestyle. That same mainstream that says our lifestyle is deviant and perverse. Celeste......no offense, but your pretty naive about what is actually going on in real. To say she should have, or he shouldn't have and that is their own fault is over simplifying the matter. Actually, it is simple. And it is their own responsibility to get to know a person, before 'playing' or any other highly personal involvement. The problem, in my view, is the need for the labels. Especially when they mean something different to everyone--that tells me that they should be used less, if at all, and be replaced with questions like "what do you seek, need, like, and do". quote: It is far more complex than that and the bottom line is people are still getting hurt......BADLY. People are getting hurt for the same reasons people have always gotten hurt and will continue to get hurt. It has nothing to do with bdsm labels, and everything to do with making smart choices.

agirl -> RE: Philosophies concearning BDSM labels....or chasing the perverbial rabit (9/27/2006 10:17:47 AM)
I absolutely agree. Even if everyone DID label themselves by a universally agreed code.....people would STILL give themselves a label that suited them in their own eyes. The biggest problem by far is people going into things far too fast and bypassing an awful lot of much needed interaction. agirl

Dnomyar -> RE: Philosophies concearning BDSM labels....or chasing the perverbial rabit (9/27/2006 12:50:35 PM)
People don't want lables. Think about it. Your name is a label. You need labels to define things. Hello Im Hey-you who are you. Im also Hey-you and my friend here is Hey-you. Her 3 children here are Hey-you, Hey-you and Hey-you.

Amaros -> RE: Philosophies concearning BDSM labels....or chasing the perverbial rabit (9/27/2006 1:34:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistCpl4fslv First of all I have to state that I am starting to get a little sick an tired of the labelophobia that is going around. I mean, honestly! We label EVERYTHING. And we have definitions for EVEYTHING. Both labels and definitions are APART of communication. This is exactly how language works. Without definitions the words are totally unintelligable. This is just another stark example, IMHO, of how the mainstream Politically Correct crowd has seaped into the philosophies of the lifestyle. That same mainstream that says our lifestyle is deviant and perverse. Celeste......no offense, but your pretty naive about what is actually going on in real. To say she should have, or he shouldn't have and that is their own fault is over simplifying the matter. It is far more complex than that and the bottom line is people are still getting hurt......BADLY. It seems to me there are a lot of people sticking their head in the sand instead of facing the fact that their is a real problem in the community at large. All you have to do is read the damn newspapers. I'm sorry, but I must label you as a sadist: apparent by your eschewing of paragraph divisions in your opening post. [:(] The content, however, I cannot dispute - presumabley, most of this miscommunication is addressed in the negotiations phase, and while presumably, it occur that people with differing expectations meet in real life (analog), and problems occur, I'm loathe to make too many assumptions and imagaine the problem more widespread than it may actually be, in Uchronian fashion. Perhaps some of this may be sorted out in the definitions thread, but my problem is really that I'm easy - I have certain parameters but am relatively flexible within those parameters. Others, perhaps are not so flexible and have a very specific set of expectations, I cannot speak for them, I'm only interested in what I should call myself, and what particular set of expectations that might convey to to a potential partner.

SadistCpl4fslv -> RE: Philosophies concearning BDSM labels....or chasing the perverbial rabit (9/27/2006 4:30:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros quote: ORIGINAL: SadistCpl4fslv First of all I have to state that I am starting to get a little sick an tired of the labelophobia that is going around. I mean, honestly! We label EVERYTHING. And we have definitions for EVEYTHING. Both labels and definitions are APART of communication. This is exactly how language works. Without definitions the words are totally unintelligable. This is just another stark example, IMHO, of how the mainstream Politically Correct crowd has seaped into the philosophies of the lifestyle. That same mainstream that says our lifestyle is deviant and perverse. Celeste......no offense, but your pretty naive about what is actually going on in real. To say she should have, or he shouldn't have and that is their own fault is over simplifying the matter. It is far more complex than that and the bottom line is people are still getting hurt......BADLY. It seems to me there are a lot of people sticking their head in the sand instead of facing the fact that their is a real problem in the community at large. All you have to do is read the damn newspapers. I'm sorry, but I must label you as a sadist: apparent by your eschewing of paragraph divisions in your opening post. [:(] The content, however, I cannot dispute - presumabley, most of this miscommunication is addressed in the negotiations phase, and while presumably, it occur that people with differing expectations meet in real life (analog), and problems occur, I'm loathe to make too many assumptions and imagaine the problem more widespread than it may actually be, in Uchronian fashion. Perhaps some of this may be sorted out in the definitions thread, but my problem is really that I'm easy - I have certain parameters but am relatively flexible within those parameters. Others, perhaps are not so flexible and have a very specific set of expectations, I cannot speak for them, I'm only interested in what I should call myself, and what particular set of expectations that might convey to to a potential partner. LOL......I am a Sadist and damn proud of it, but the absence of paragraph breaks was a mistake. Sorry about that. I typed the text of the post in a word document program because my computer kept timing out when I tried to do it here. So when I C&P the text it pasted without the breaks. But if it gave you a little masochistic pleasure, then there's a bonus. :)

twicehappy -> RE: Philosophies concearning BDSM labels....or chasing the perverbial rabit (9/27/2006 4:51:30 PM)
Thread hijack!!!!!! (Damn benji is a bad influence) So are you going to come back and write me a better definition of switch from a switches point of view? I do agree they are probably the least understood group here. Just remember it needs to be basic, something that give a general definition, something we could present to the vanilla public and they would understand what it meant. As with all the other definitions i know there are infinite nuances, that is one of the things that makes what it is that we do so special, what i am looking for is a starting point. Thank you in advance, hope you agree to do this one.

Sinergy -> RE: Philosophies concearning BDSM labels....or chasing the perverbial rabit (9/27/2006 5:16:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dnomyar This whole thing can be summed up in one word. Communication. Without it talk to my hand. Robin Williams was doing his stand-up and held up his hand saying "Talk to the hand!" Then he turned it around to show his knuckles to the audience and emphatically stated "CALL WAITING!" I almost died laughing, and use it all the time when I am being mean to women in class. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy

catize -> RE: Philosophies concearning BDSM labels....or chasing the perverbial rabit (9/27/2006 5:36:37 PM)
quote: The heart of your post does has everything to do with what words mean, and how we have lost the art of honoring them. I have always contended that words do mean things—that they have definitions and verifiable standards, that at least some who practice master and slave are not drowning in an ocean of "relative truth." Yes, words do mean things, even so, meanings are variable with many words. For example, we all may know what a car is, but there are differences. Make, model, size age, is it a vehicile that one drives or is it a non-motorized part of a train? If two people own a car, they both have a general idea that what is owned has four wheels and gets them from point A to point B. But the word car is vague. To say 'I own a car' is no less true if the car is rusty, dusty and unreliable as opposed to one that is well kept and reliable. Both are cars, but I want specific information before I agree to go on a road trip.

twicehappy -> RE: Philosophies concearning BDSM labels....or chasing the perverbial rabit (9/27/2006 5:43:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: catize quote: Both are cars, but I want specific information before I agree to go on a road trip. You would be in real trouble though if the person using the term car was actually speaking of what the rest of the world calls a camel. The need for the definition as a starting point is irrefutable.

catize -> RE: Philosophies concearning BDSM labels....or chasing the perverbial rabit (9/27/2006 6:38:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: twicehappy quote: ORIGINAL: catize quote: Both are cars, but I want specific information before I agree to go on a road trip. You would be in real trouble though if the person using the term car was actually speaking of what the rest of the world calls a camel. The need for the definition as a starting point is irrefutable. First, I have interpreted your goal as not just 'definitions as starting points' but more as a campaign to create final, immutable definitions for terms within the lifestyle; that you believe it is necessary to have a majority rule regarding use of these terms; that only the definitions which have been agreed upon by the community are valid. Is my interpretation in error?

amayos -> RE: Philosophies concearning BDSM labels....or chasing the perverbial rabit (9/27/2006 7:53:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: catize quote: The heart of your post does has everything to do with what words mean, and how we have lost the art of honoring them. I have always contended that words do mean things—that they have definitions and verifiable standards, that at least some who practice master and slave are not drowning in an ocean of "relative truth." Yes, words do mean things, even so, meanings are variable with many words. For example, we all may know what a car is, but there are differences. Hence, there is a boundary or a line or a limit to how far one can stretch a word. Twicehappy summed up my counterpoint nicely, however. One should not refer to something by another name that is literally unsuitable or inaccurate; it spreads misinformation and confusion. Of course, no one can really stop anyone from doing so either, but then, I need not join in the parade.

marieToo -> RE: Philosophies concearning BDSM labels....or chasing the perverbial rabit (9/27/2006 9:02:10 PM)
Im a little bit confused with this thread, as it feels like Twicehappy's thread melded into it. So im I'm mixing up statements and points, forgive me in advance. I think part of the problem in this thread and in TwiceHappys is that people are analogizing things like a drinking glass or a car to something like a relationship. Apples to oranges. I hate to use this same tired example but it works for me....Ask a bunch of married couples how a marriage should be defined. Some might start by saying that without monogamy your vows mean nothing. Others might say, if you dont have an "open" marriage, its not real. Others still might say...its not really a marriage unless you live together 24/7 and if your husband travels for work 9 months out of 12, then you're not really in a real marriage. Some might say that if a spouse cheats, their marriage is over, others would say, if a spouse cheats, a real married couple looks at the problem, fixes it and stays together. Some might say if the wife doesnt do the cooking and the cleaning its not a traditional marriage, therefore it cant be real etc etc. They can all identify as being married couples. As we can all identify as being in power exchange relationships. Then whatever levels, or depths, or beliefs you choose to live by are your own. I mean...lets say the entire CM community agreed that there should be clear labels and definitions. How would we come up with what they should be? Whats the criteria for each label---ie sub, slave, switch? I dont understand the need for it. I dont understand the need to have words to explain this to 'vanilla' people. Why do I have to be introduced as either a slave or a sub or a top to my Masters co workers? Why cant he introduce me simply as "Marie"? How do we explain to someone blind what the color blue looks like? How do we tell engaged people what 20 years of marriage feels like and what there marriage should be if they want it to be viewed as a real marriage. We dont need to have a parade with our respective colored-coded feathers in our caps so that everyone knows who is a bottom, a subbie, a dominant, a master. If you need to explian it, explain it the same way you would explain anything else to a person that they're not familiar with. If you needed to explain marriage to someone, you would explian your idea of it, then you would have to say "but thats just my way. Not everyone's marriage works like this". Im not sure why we feel we need our very own labels. I mean..yeah we need some general terms when talking amongst ourselve so we know which end of the power exchange we are on, but thats about it. When I was married, I never met anyone for the first time who had the need to ask me what my marriage meant to me or how I defined marriage. I cant imagine than any non-bdsmer that I meet will have to need or frankly even care to have me explain to them my definitions of a top vs dom vs master. Good lord, people, we're not special.

HollyS -> RE: Philosophies concearning BDSM labels....or chasing the perverbial rabit (9/27/2006 9:03:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amayos quote: ORIGINAL: catize quote: The heart of your post does has everything to do with what words mean, and how we have lost the art of honoring them. I have always contended that words do mean things—that they have definitions and verifiable standards, that at least some who practice master and slave are not drowning in an ocean of "relative truth." Yes, words do mean things, even so, meanings are variable with many words. For example, we all may know what a car is, but there are differences. Hence, there is a boundary or a line or a limit to how far one can stretch a word. Twicehappy summed up my counterpoint nicely, however. One should not refer to something by another name that is literally unsuitable or inaccurate; it spreads misinformation and confusion. Of course, no one can really stop anyone from doing so either, but then, I need not join in the parade. Amayos is right, people should not "refer to something by another name that is literally unsuitable or inaccurate." That being said, I would suggest that people who use the terms "Master," "Dominant," "Submissive," "Slave," etc. are giving us plenty of basic information even without lowering ourselves to default labeling. Someone else used the example of "marriage" as a well-defined term, so I'll start there: When someone says "I'm married," most people understand that to mean "I've taken part in a traditional ceremony of man/wife union which entitles the both of us to certain rights under the law." It, however, does not tell you the following things, which are how many people assumptively define "marriage": Whether the couple involved is indeed man/woman Whether the couple actually took part in a religious ceremony, actually a ceremony of any kind Whether the couple are using his last name, her last name, some combination of both or each keeping their own Whether the couple live in the same residence 24/7 Whether the couple live in a 50's style, egalitarian, or female-dominated relationship Whether the couple engage in monogomy or polyamory (etc... etc...) Marriages take a million different forms and I invite anyone on this board to tell me exactly how marriage should look for a couple to be allowed to use that label. I know, there are some people working really hard to "define" marriage as one man-one woman. Such moves have encountered plenty of resistance from those who disagree with such a narrow view of the marriage union, much to the disgust and frustration of others who feel "it's only natural." It seems on this one point where many people felt agreement was a given, there is disagreement. What a surprise... If someone tells me they are in a D/s or M/s or Top/bottom relationship, I have a general idea of what they're talking about: a relationship that probably involves some kink and likely involves some power exchange. Maybe I'm wrong in those assumptions, so to fully appreciate their dynamic I would have to ask them. Using labels as shorthand to "find our own kind" and "keep those other people from feeling uncomfortable around us" assumes that any label could fully describe an intimate relationship between two people. We aren't talking about cars and camels - the concepts surrounding D/s relationships are not so different from each other. Throw in gay/lesbian relationships and depending on the people involved, they may be involved in either a vanilla or a D/s relationship (or some other variation I've not mentioned). Regardless we're still talking about the human couple dynamic. Honestly, this isn't rocket science. No one owns the terms "slave" or "Dominant" or any other. As long as people are free to live in the dynamic they choose without interference, we will not see agreement on what exactly those terms mean. I'm okay with that... a bit of ambiguity in life can be a good thing. ~Holly

SadistCpl4fslv -> RE: Philosophies concearning BDSM labels....or chasing the perverbial rabit (9/27/2006 9:14:26 PM)
Unbefreakinleavable!! It amazes me how so many can read the same thread and completely miss the entire point of it by getting hung up on one word and their own self delusion. I swear, it is like talking to rocks.

marieToo -> RE: Philosophies concearning BDSM labels....or chasing the perverbial rabit (9/27/2006 9:19:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistCpl4fslv Unbefreakinleavable!! It amazes me how so many can read the same thread and completely miss the entire point of it by getting hung up on one word and their own self delusion. I swear, it is like talking to rocks. How can one miss the "point" of an "entire thread", when an entire thread is made up of many different points from many different people? Maybe you should ask yourself why you're getting so frustrated over this; to a point where everyone who doesnt see it your way gets muds slung at them and disrepected by you, when you havent been treated that way at all. For someone who opened up her post with a humble statement about being open to all opinions, you sure turned out to be quite the tight-ass and downright insulting to all those who didnt post exactly what you wanted.

twicehappy -> RE: Philosophies concearning BDSM labels....or chasing the perverbial rabit (9/28/2006 4:48:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: catize First, I have interpreted your goal as not just 'definitions as starting points' but more as a campaign to create final, immutable definitions for terms within the lifestyle; that you believe it is necessary to have a majority rule regarding use of these terms; that only the definitions which have been agreed upon by the community are valid.Is my interpretation in error? I00 % wrong at that.

twicehappy -> RE: Philosophies concearning BDSM labels....or chasing the perverbial rabit (9/28/2006 4:51:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo Im a little bit confused with this thread, as it feels like Twicehappy's thread melded into it. There might be a reason for that; quote: ORIGINAL: SadistCpl4fslv *I began this thread in response to "BDSM Definitions?"* I originally intended to post my thoughts there and as I realized that I was getting a little too long winded and also chasing a rabit, I felt that the line I was taking needed it's own discussion.

marieToo -> RE: Philosophies concearning BDSM labels....or chasing the perverbial rabit (9/28/2006 5:04:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: twicehappy quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo Im a little bit confused with this thread, as it feels like Twicehappy's thread melded into it. There might be a reason for that; quote: ORIGINAL: SadistCpl4fslv *I began this thread in response to "BDSM Definitions?"* I originally intended to post my thoughts there and as I realized that I was getting a little too long winded and also chasing a rabit, I felt that the line I was taking needed it's own discussion. I did actually try to touch on the fact that the 2 topics were directly related to one another, but it fell on deaf ears.

agirl -> RE: Philosophies concearning BDSM labels....or chasing the perverbial rabit (9/28/2006 6:36:08 AM)
Fast reply. A couple of things..........One is that, as Celeste and marietoo said ( I think) getting hurt has a lot more to do with lack of communication (maybe from both sides) than from a label itself. There ARE definitions that are useful as a basic guide and they are used.........it's rare that you'd see a dom saying that he's a submissive, for instance. In the OP, the examples sited were more about lack of communication than about labels. It's fine for me to label myself a slave as I'm owned, collared and property..........it's a basic definition that applies to me in my situation. The labels as they are seem to work pretty well, as a starting point, if you're seeking. They DO appear to be used as a guide. I've seen little evidence to the contrary.......but have seen a LOT of people getting into things that they aren't prepared for, from lack of communication over time, lack of awareness or from deception ( self, or otherwise for whatever reason). agirl

amayos -> RE: Philosophies concearning BDSM labels....or chasing the perverbial rabit (9/28/2006 8:23:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HollyS Marriages take a million different forms and I invite anyone on this board to tell me exactly how marriage should look for a couple to be allowed to use that label. [...] We aren't talking about cars and camels - the concepts surrounding D/s relationships are not so different from each other. Indeed, it has nothing to do with cars, planes, trains or buses...or marriage, for that matter. Marriage is a social institution—a formal, culturally recognized union between one male or more and one female or more. The social engineering of modernity redefines it to include same-sex couples, too. Regardless, marriage, by its very definition, is a general term to include many social, ethnic or religious practices, just as the BDSM acronym is a general term to include a variety of specific acts and lifestyles. Terms like master and slave, while still bearing some wiggle room for interpretation and method, are far more precise. This has nothing to do with trying to own a word. We needn't try. The universalities of many of the terms used (or misused) do not stop within the limits of the BDSM underworld—they in fact, pre-date it. A Master of Mistress may marry a slave, but the two forms of interrelation—husband and wife and Master/Mistress and slave—are not synonymous; they are two separate designations, which may or may not co-exist. The suggestion that they are comparable, even in philosophical argument, is an excellent example of how I feel the terms have become muddled and misunderstood. Granted, what I write here is ultimately an opinion, but one formed strongly of literary and experiential observation.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875