RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (Full Version)

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



Message

goodpet -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/8/2007 5:30:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin
To the audience at large:
Since labels no longer have any meaning, beyond what is personally assigned to them, does that mean there's no such thing as a "wannabe" because no one chooses that label?
No such thing as a "liar" or "fraud" because no one chooses those labels either and it is incorrect to apply a label to someone which they did not choose for themselves?
If someone wants to self-identify as "doctor" or "rich" that's okay regardless of what they do or how much money they have, because they are free to label themselves as they wish and the 'community' encourages self-labelling?
If a man self-labels himself as a "female" and answers the ads of straight men by claiming to be "female" that's cool with the 'community' that advocates self-labelling?
I just want to be sure I understand this self-labelling concept clearly.
[;)]


Excellent.   Good point and well said.

I understand how we have taken fantasy and wants and turned them into the titles we give ourselves.. Fine for a fantasy world.. but in reality.. Labels do carry meanings.. 

Because we have morphed from fantasy we have no overall standards, just what you find in your community.  one reason we tend to vacillate towards the leather community, (particularly our local gay leather community), and the MAsT community. The fit of standards and expectations makes sense.

But on another note.. We have our own fantasy label, in that we like to call our little house “Castle Griffin” , it may be just a 4/3 house but it is our castle..




EbonyPhoenix68 -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/8/2007 2:34:15 PM)

And you have a problem with this because...?



EbonyPhoenix68 -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/8/2007 2:40:33 PM)

Hey, I like Genesis (which at the moment is on tour)! Phil Collins is one of the few lead singers who could also play the drums. Lol



Owner4SexSlave -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/8/2007 3:21:03 PM)

The words "Master" or "Mistress" are simply titles.   These titles by no mean indicate the type of relationship being D/s or M/s.   Even people not in the lifestyle can hold such titles.   Such as Married man keeping a "Mistress" on the side.  Oh wait, how many of you guys used to watch "Magnum PI", if so does "Master Robin" ring any bells?  LOL...

One of the meanings of the word "Master" is "one having authority over another", so you can see why it's used without meaning.  Also you might see period movies of where young boys are addressed as  "Master (insert Surname here)".

Also "Dom" has special meaning when talking in the context of the Mafia.

Again, all simply titles.   Just what is the Traditional Grain of D/s and M/s relationships.  People have been doing both legally, illegally, consentually and non-consentually for thousands of years.   People have been doing BDSM things for thousands of years as well.    Some people like to believe that America's traditional value system is something from the 1950's as well.



hisannabelle -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/8/2007 4:10:55 PM)

greetings ebonyphoenix,

it depends on the couple, really. He refers to Himself as dominant; however, i self-identify as slave, and i fit most people's definitions of "slave," as opposed to submissive. in general, and especially because most of the topics on these forums are equally applicable to dominants as to masters or to slaves as to submissives, i use the terms dominant/master and slave/submissive interchangeably. i find not getting caught up on what exactly a dominant is versus what exactly a master is versus what exactly a slave is versus what exactly a submissive is leads to a much healthier blood pressure, sense of self and identity, etc. that's what works for me.

greetings bobgkin,

while your arguments have merit to some extent, exactly how are they applicable to bdsm? there are certain socially recognized areas in which one has to possess certain qualifications to be labeled a certain thing. there are other socially recognized areas in which some labels are applied incorrectly or haphazardly and that's encouraged and the problematics of it are ignored. there are other areas where self-labeling and social labeling coexist in certain ways. in general, most people's identities are a mix of the ways in which they have internalized or reacted to social labeling, and the labels which they have chosen to apply to themselves. labels are fluid and dynamic things, and the ways in which human beings apply them (to self and to each other) are also fluid and dynamic, and very much depend on all sorts of variables that are usually in flux, such as social convention, law, commonly accepted definitions, personal experiences, etc. so while i think your argument has some merit in regards, to, say, labeling someone (or self-labeling) as a pediatrician, let's face it...labeling in bdsm (for the most part) is much more relaxed and not contingent on a certain set of qualifications. i personally find equating the two to be somewhat ignorant of context and of what it means to label people, to have an identity, or to belong to a particular profession or hobby (to say the least).

respectfully,
annabelle.



EbonyPhoenix68 -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/8/2007 5:49:35 PM)

Thank you for your comments, annabelle. They are most appreciated and will prove valuable in my journey.



Bobkgin -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/8/2007 6:26:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hisannabelle

greetings bobgkin,

while your arguments have merit to some extent, exactly how are they applicable to bdsm? there are certain socially recognized areas in which one has to possess certain qualifications to be labeled a certain thing. there are other socially recognized areas in which some labels are applied incorrectly or haphazardly and that's encouraged and the problematics of it are ignored. there are other areas where self-labeling and social labeling coexist in certain ways. in general, most people's identities are a mix of the ways in which they have internalized or reacted to social labeling, and the labels which they have chosen to apply to themselves. labels are fluid and dynamic things, and the ways in which human beings apply them (to self and to each other) are also fluid and dynamic, and very much depend on all sorts of variables that are usually in flux, such as social convention, law, commonly accepted definitions, personal experiences, etc. so while i think your argument has some merit in regards, to, say, labeling someone (or self-labeling) as a pediatrician, let's face it...labeling in bdsm (for the most part) is much more relaxed and not contingent on a certain set of qualifications. i personally find equating the two to be somewhat ignorant of context and of what it means to label people, to have an identity, or to belong to a particular profession or hobby (to say the least).

respectfully,
annabelle.


Annabelle, the point I am making is that without commonly-shared definitions, there is no clarity and thus no communication.

We use labels for ourselves despite the fact there is no commonly-shared definition. Yet, for some reason, we assume that when we say "slave" or "master" everyone will know what we are talking about.

This is a recipe for misunderstandings and miscommunication.

I agree that words like "doctor" and "pediatrician" (not to mention all the examples I've cited) have social sigificance and should not be re-defined at whim.

But this is true of any word used in public discourse, including discussions in a BDSM forum.

If the purpose of communication is to be understood, does it make sense to inject words that have been re-defined to suit the whimsy of the speaker? Who else will know of the unique definition assigned by the speaker, unless the speaker defines such words using other words with commonly-understood definitions?

Yet we never see these explanation when people speak of "slave" or "master". It is assumed by the speaker that everyone will implicitly understand the speaker's unique definition for these words.

And if the meaning of words like "slave" and "master" are subject to personal whimsy in public discourse, why not other words like "honest", "trustworthy", or "disease-free"?

Once you accept the concept that anyone can redefine labels to suit their personal whimsy, you open up the door for people to redefine -any- label to suit themselves.

By accepting that personal whimsy should be used to define words when speaking to others, you are justifying the arguments that permit people to turn "deceitful" into "honest", and "AIDs-infected" into "disease-free".

This is why I reject that sort of reasoning.

The demands of communication do not change, even for BDSM. Communication still requires commonly-understood definitions for the words used in order for communication to occur. It is widely (almost universally) accepted that words like "slave" and "master" have no commonly-understood definitions. Thus, any use of these words instantly translates into misunderstanding and mis-communication.

Consider how that impacts any BDSM discussion using those words.



hisannabelle -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/8/2007 6:49:33 PM)

greetings bobgkin,

and yet, we manage to have constructive discussions on bdsm every day, often involving such words.

even "commonly accepted definitions" have rough edges and grey areas; words like "master" and "slave" are excellent examples of places where the definition just isn't always clear-cut and in black and white. hell, by the usage in most bdsm contexts, even the dictionary definition or traditional definition can't be held as the "commonly accepted" one, as what those words have traditionally meant bear little resemblance to what they mean in the context of many bdsm relationships.

the fact is, unless some clear-cut definition of the "bdsm community" and all related terminology becomes commonly accepted, and there is some stronger consensus on what all of this means, and everyone agrees to use it in that way, what you want isn't going to happen. and i seriously doubt that we're ever going to get to a place where we all agree enough on everything for it TO happen, unless we decide to legislate it and require people to meet certain standards of qualification to take certain labels (which i seriously doubt will ever happen as well).

to me, saying that the grey area of "master" and "slave" will lead to people redefining what it means to be "aids free" is a slippery slope fallacy. that probably won't happen until there IS no longer a strong consensus on what it means to have aids in the first place.

respectfully,
annabelle.



MadRabbit -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/8/2007 7:05:42 PM)

If you would step off your soap box for a minute, you would realize that the words in fact have definitions and they are very simple ones.

Master/Top/Daddy/Dom/Trainer/Owner refer to the person in control of the relationship or scene and Slave/Bottom/Submissive/Daughter/Trainer/Property refer to the person who is not.

The problem is when people want to go past these simple definitions and try and create a universal standard or qualification that people must meet to become a "slave" or "Master"....

which is what you have done in the past, Bobby and why it was met with such rejection...

Implying or claiming that these labels have any other meaning besides simply being a self chosen label to express one's own chosen orientation is false.

Implying the labels at one point in time in the "good old days" had universal definitions is false and not historical fact.

Personally, I wonder what makes you so qualified to talk about how these words had definitions in the past when through your own admittance in other threads, you have never once been a part of the public scene.

Where exactly are you getting your experiences from?

Where exactly is this textbook with the textbook defintions you claim to have? I would love to see it.

Communication is a means, not an ends.

Its a means for people to best express their own individual relationship and desires.

Not an ends for some people's right to decide for themselves what their own identity is because some boob on the Internet decided to narrowmindly project his own homemade definitions of "Master" and "slave" as the universal standard for all to follow.

I'm sorry your feeling a little insecure because not everyone is buying into your "one True way" bullshit, but get over yourself already.

My girl is my slave to me because of my standards and criteria. What makes you think that your standards and criteria matter in the slightest?



Bobkgin -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/8/2007 7:13:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hisannabelle

greetings bobgkin,

and yet, we manage to have constructive discussions on bdsm every day, often involving such words.



We also manage to have a fair number of fire-fights over labels as well. [;)]

I suspect that where there are those who have found a discussion constructive, there is also a shared understanding of the meaning of the words used by the participants in the discussion (or at least those who got something out of it).

Many discussions are so general as to group "submissive" and "slave" together, thus avoiding the need to define each distinctly.

quote:



even "commonly accepted definitions" have rough edges and grey areas; words like "master" and "slave" are excellent examples of places where the definition just isn't always clear-cut and in black and white. hell, by the usage in most bdsm contexts, even the dictionary definition or traditional definition can't be held as the "commonly accepted" one, as what those words have traditionally meant bear little resemblance to what they mean in the context of many bdsm relationships.



BDSM would not be the first sub-culture to adopt words from the main culture and adjust the meanings. However, for effective communication there still must be commonly-understood definitions.

quote:



the fact is, unless some clear-cut definition of the "bdsm community" and all related terminology becomes commonly accepted, and there is some stronger consensus on what all of this means, and everyone agrees to use it in that way, what you want isn't going to happen. and i seriously doubt that we're ever going to get to a place where we all agree enough on everything for it TO happen, unless we decide to legislate it and require people to meet certain standards of qualification to take certain labels (which i seriously doubt will ever happen as well).



I think my first contribution to this thread makes clear my expectations on this question.

quote:



to me, saying that the grey area of "master" and "slave" will lead to people redefining what it means to be "aids free" is a slippery slope fallacy. that probably won't happen until there IS no longer a strong consensus on what it means to have aids in the first place.

respectfully,
annabelle.



Actually, there is a case in a town about an hour away of a man who has infected women with AIDs for the past 20 years or so. No doubt he was asked, and no doubt redefined the words "Disease-free" to suit his personal whimsy.

The truth is, Annabelle, people re-define words to suit themselves in such ways and have done so probably since humanity started. Their reasons for doing so (personal preference) are no different than those being put forward for the confusion that exists with labels in BDSM.

Clear communication requires commonly-understood definitions. Where that doesn't exist, abuse can and will occur.



SunnyTawse -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/8/2007 7:36:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

the point I am making is that without commonly-shared definitions, there is no clarity and thus no communication.




As a professional editor, writer and tutor, I'm with you 100 percent, Bobkgin. Madrabbit's comments aside, people can define their relationships for themselves, and they can use words how they please, but if they want clarity and communicatin, there has to be a shared understanding of terms.

It may be nothing but shades of gray, but I do think there is a general understanding across most of the kink/ leather/ fetish community in terms of being able to rank the roles for these words in order of the power exchange:

Master (no good correlation for Mistress yet, imo, although I like Domina)
Dominant
Top
Switch
Bottom
Submissive
Slave

Sunny Tawse
Sadien Domina



MadRabbit -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/8/2007 7:48:20 PM)

I will agree that we have a general understand and definition regarding what certain labels mean, but those are just general definitions.

And even if we manage to communicate on a simple level, everyone still has to explain their own label and the unique details of their own particular dynamic...at least everyone that I have met publicly...because everyone is different in some way when it comes to their own relationship.

My disagreement with the particular poster is that time and time again, he hasnt tried to present simply general definitions, but standards and criteria that qualify people specifically as slave or Master, even going as far as to blatantly say that certain individuals arent slaves because they didnt mean the standards of the relationship dynamic he presented.

Edited to Add :

Also...the words just arent simply labels to me or some people, but identities that express a dynamic and individual part of who they are as a person.

If someone truly identifies as a slave and feels that is part of who they are as a person, then they shouldnt have to be insulted and told they are in fact not who they beleive themselves to be, because they are still devoted to their family and not solely to their Master according to the "true definition" of a Master presented here on these forums.

This debate as to whether words have to have solid definitions or can be dynamic expressions of an individual is as old as time. The Bible is a good example.




Bobkgin -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/8/2007 8:00:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SunnyTawse

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

the point I am making is that without commonly-shared definitions, there is no clarity and thus no communication.




As a professional editor, writer and tutor, I'm with you 100 percent, Bobkgin. Madrabbit's comments aside, people can define their relationships for themselves, and they can use words how they please, but if they want clarity and communicatin, there has to be a shared understanding of terms.

It may be nothing but shades of gray, but I do think there is a general understanding across most of the kink/ leather/ fetish community in terms of being able to rank the roles for these words in order of the power exchange:

Master (no good correlation for Mistress yet, imo, although I like Domina)
Dominant
Top
Switch
Bottom
Submissive
Slave

Sunny Tawse
Sadien Domina



I'd agree with that list, but I've seen several claims along the way that Sub and Slave are interchangeable, as well as Master/Dom.

As for the female counterpart to "master", perhaps it is "goddess", as I've yet to see a male use the masculine counterpart for -that- particular label [;)]


General note to the audience:
Pay no mind to derogatory claims made by a particular individual regarding my position on labels. I trust most of the regular audience is aware of the agenda that spawns these claims (thread after thread after thread after ...)



SunnyTawse -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/8/2007 8:05:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

As for the female counterpart to "master", perhaps it is "goddess", as I've yet to see a male use the masculine counterpart for -that- particular label [;)]




Ooooh... I do like that term! And I know two women who use it, now that I think about it. Interesting concept.

Sunny



MadRabbit -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/8/2007 8:09:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

General note to the audience:
Pay no mind to derogatory claims made by a particular individual regarding my position on labels. I trust most of the regular audience is aware of the agenda that spawns these claims (thread after thread after thread after ...)


Lol

Talking over me doesnt change the fact that what I am talking about is directly related to the thread at hand.

If you want to ignore challenge because you cant argue the logic, you can go right ahead.



IrishMist -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/8/2007 8:10:26 PM)

~~fast reply to no one in particular ~~

I, personally, could give a flying fuck what someone else cares to call themself. I have to yet to come across someone who labeled themselves, and left me in confusion.

submissive, slave, bottom, master, dominant, daddy, lilgirl, top domme; etc  ... pick your poison... it makes no difference to me simply because I really don't care one way or another.

Those who waste precious energy trying to get others to conform to their own standards, labels, definitions, ways of life... I have no use for them... they are nothing more than leeches who try to suck the happiness from others because their own lives are too miserable.

Live on; debate this issue over and over again... it really makes no difference because tomorrow, when ya'll wake up... slaves will still be calling themselves submissives; submissives will be calling themselves bottoms... and so on and so on



hisannabelle -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/9/2007 12:57:11 AM)

greetings bobgkin,

quote:

The truth is, Annabelle, people re-define words to suit themselves in such ways and have done so probably since humanity started. Their reasons for doing so (personal preference) are no different than those being put forward for the confusion that exists with labels in BDSM.

Clear communication requires commonly-understood definitions. Where that doesn't exist, abuse can and will occur.


yes, but that ignores the fact that for the majority of society, we DO have commonly understood definitions. i apologize for my earlier post being so short (and perhaps obscure); i had more that i wished to say but was on my way out the door to work. i will add in some of my earlier thoughts in the hopes that they will further clarify my position; take them or leave them as they appeal to you to discuss :)

my point is simply that in the larger picture, language (and by extension, labeling, as that is one of the primary functions of language - labeling for the purposes of communicating concepts) is an organic process. i think that what bothers me about what i understand of your post/approach/point is that you seem to be trying to impose rigidity on an organic process. language will and has always taken care of itself, mostly independent of individual people trying to make sense of it, because it is fluid based on the needs of society and the actions and tendencies of society and individuals. that does not mean that at certain periods of time and for certain lengths of time, we do not (and do not try) to impose some sense of staticness onto language...law and scientific labels/definitions are excellent examples of this. but even in the larger picture, those definitions will eventually change. and they vary from society to society as well; every kind and use of language does. to try and reduce it to rigid, static definitions that are The Truth just ignores what language is and how it functions.

i understand what you are saying, to some extent...but i suppose i fail to see the point. to me, being upset over the fact that the language of a particular subculture is not static enough for you and commuting that into some idea of a slippery slope fallacy really doesn't seem to be anything but an exercise in futility (and a primarily intellectual one at that). it won't solve anything; it will not create definitions of particular terms that every single person who practices bdsm can agree on and thus save us all from miscommunication. that is impossible; it has never happened, and it will never happen. those definitions may become less fluid or more fluid as time goes on and the "bdsm community" becomes more or less solidified, but again, it is an organic process. yes, there will always been fringe idiots who do not include aids in their definition of disease-free; but like every single other area of society, the fact is, most of society presumes a certain level of trust in other people's use of commonly accepted terms, and most of the time that trust is fulfilled...otherwise we would have a total breakdown of civilization. i seriously doubt the fact that i tend to use master/dominant and slave/submissive interchangeably in most conversations will contribute to your getting aids because somebody decides that aids doesn't belong in the category of "disease." it just seems alarmist to me.

i don't think that it's entirely BAD to have these kinds of conversations or desires to impose rigidity...and some of the concerns resulting from it actually do make sense to me. but for the most part it seems to me that you are just inviting frustration and high blood pressure. ;) and i do say this in all friendliness, and in the spirit of discussion, not argument (although i must admit a slight irritation at what i felt was a somewhat patronizing tone...i am not an idiot, and in fact, i have some small measure of education when it comes to linguistics; i recognize that people redefine things to suit themselves, and that yes, at times, that can cause localized breakdowns of social trust, usually between individuals in the form of miscommunication or outright misrepresentation; however...a widespread outbreak of that such as you seem to be fearing would cause the breakdown of civilization, and i just can't see that happening anytime in the near future).

respectfully,
annabelle.



obis -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/9/2007 1:51:45 AM)

While I can appreciate the desire to eliminate all linguistic ambiguity, the English language doesn't have to bend to your need for rigorous order.

There are countless common words that have no specific, indisputable, definition. The most notorious, of course, being "pornography" -- nobody can define it, yet we all know it when we see it.

So yes, Master, dominant, slave, submissive all seem to be used for similar situations by large numbers of people. Does it create ambiguity? Of course! Welcome to the English language. If you dislike ambiguity, may I suggest Esperanto or assembler? Just because a word is ambiguous and sometimes causes confusion doesn't mean the world is clamoring to be told one, ultimate definition so we can all line up behind it.

One man's art is another man's pornography is another man's erotica. His slave might be her submissive -- her dom may be his master.



RCdc -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/9/2007 4:41:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

To the audience at large:

Since labels no longer have any meaning, beyond what is personally assigned to them, does that mean there's no such thing as a "wannabe" because no one chooses that label?


In a way and a word Bob - Yes.

quote:

No such thing as a "liar" or "fraud" because no one chooses those labels either and it is incorrect to apply a label to someone which they did not choose for themselves?


In a word and a way Bob - Yes.

quote:

If someone wants to self-identify as "doctor" or "rich" that's okay regardless of what they do or how much money they have, because they are free to label themselves as they wish and the 'community' encourages self-labelling?


Yes.

quote:

If a man self-labels himself as a "female" and answers the ads of straight men by claiming to be "female" that's cool with the 'community' that advocates self-labelling?


Seems like it huh?  However, not everything is so black and white Bob.

quote:

I just want to be sure I understand this self-labelling concept clearly.


How can you understand something for others, when labelling itself is totally subjective in the end?[;)] Don;t work out others, just work it for you.
 
Peace
the.dark.



crouchingtigress -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/9/2007 6:13:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

I dont like the word Master


me neither...not sure why.



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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875