|
juliaoceania -> Food For Thought (10/2/2006 8:16:24 PM)
|
This is not to attack the idea of defining thing, just another view of labeling... I am going to start this post with a story from one of my professors, but that is not what this post is about so bear with me...smiles
There was this anthropologist that visited a tribal group in South Central Africa (I believe it was in Zimbabwe) and he recorded their lifeways in a book and went back to England, having sent back a copy of the book to the tribal elders... several decades go by and another anthropologist visits the same tribe and starts recording what is happening around their village. He witnesses a trial in which this book was pulled out and used as a model for the "law" the villager had broken. When the new anthropologist asked what they were doing, he was told that the "book" recorded all their laws and customs... therefore they lived according to that book. It was like their 10 commandments....Someone else defined them and they lived by that definition.. it was a powerful story in my opinion in how we let others define us and the danger of being stuck with those definitions in stone
I have been tossing around something in my mind about words, labels, and how they apply to us individuals. We all checked a box when we first filled out our profiles on CollarMe. Most of us knew what was meant by those labels in a rough sort of way and were able to apply them to ourselves accordingly
For example one might see themselves as a service top, since there is no category “service top” they write this in their profile and what that means to them perhaps. Perhaps a slave-type person seeks nonsexual service slavery for a house, they can explain this further on their profiles, and if someone does not understand the definition for the terms they use they need to communicate them.
Another example I identify as a submissive. I consider myself a masochist, but my primary orientation is toward service when it comes to my submissiveness. Now any of these things I just said could not possibly be encapsulated into one word, and if they could I would feel a little like 1984 with doublespeak… exing out words to create a new shorthand language. Less words, true, less pesky definitions, true… but it would not capture the flavor of the individual I am and how I apply words to WIITWD, and every other aspect of my life.
Language is not a static thing. Every year new dictionaries are formed and the lexicon evolves as more words are added to the mix. New definitions for old words are added. A “word” cannot always describe your meaning fully, so you add other words, and then these become sentences, and then form paragraphs… and wow, then you are having a conversation! Words are all about conversing, sharing an idea, they are symbols for our thoughts.
I see a danger in labeling people so narrowly that we lose the conversation. It is not that one word does not have a meaning, sometimes one word cannot convey that meaning succinctly to those we are trying to communicate the whole idea to.
Go back to my Daddy’s example of the blind men trying to describe the elephant.. all of them had words, they only “saw” part of the elephant with their hands, and they have no way to communicate what it is they saw but through words. They are all “right”, but they are all “wrong” too. This is also a problem with labeling, we only see so much of what another person is, and we do not see the whole picture.
It is not that words do not have concrete meaning, they do in some objective universe (btw, can someone point me to the nearest objective universe… it would be a lot easier to live there then the one that I currently reside…smiles). But we do have to agree on the meaning every time we have a conversation. It is not some drawn put process mind you.. it is a casual one.
Dom: Im more of a service top when it comes to sadism than a “real sadist”
Submissive: You do not enjoy inflicting pain?
Dom: Not really, but I will for the enjoyment of the submissive when I am in the mood
Submissive: You believe a real sadist is someone who gets off on pain?
Dom, Yes
Submissive: Well I really need to feel my dominant gets aroused on some level by hurting me or it does nothing for me. Perhaps we would not be suited to each other even though you enjoy the control aspects.
BTW… that dialogue actually happened and I am paraphrasing it from the days I was looking for a dominant. Unless we talked about these labels to make sure we understood what they meant to us there would have been zero understanding. We would have went on thinking we knew what the other meant. At the time I understood service top to be more of a relationship dynamic (still do),.. he defined it in relation to sadism (and this is valid in my mind).. he considered himself a dominant in his relationship structure. I would have never known this unless I asked.. and then it might have been after we played. I would not have been emotionally satisfied in the situation possibly…
Labels do not mitigate the needs for sentences and paragraphs. They are incomplete. They are best when self applied. They are constantly changing. To think that our labels can become universal can lead to misunderstandings that are just as dangerous (or more so) than not having labels at all.
I think back on mistoferin’s painslut thread. Here is a perfect example of a misapplied label perhaps, but she thought herself a painslut. To someone else she was a painslut perhaps. Someone did not ask her what she meant by painslut, they assumed she knew her label that someone else had falsely tagged her with and used their own understanding to apply to this label. The label is a valid one, but it does not preclude a conversation that defines “What do you mean you are a painslut?” A dangerous mislabeling, and there is no way we can define “painslut” objectively.. what is a painslut isn’t one to another.
|
|
|
|
