HollyS
Posts: 230
Joined: 1/5/2006 Status: offline
|
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
_____________________________
I wish my lawn were emo, so it would cut itself.
|