RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion

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

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

Message

LadyPact -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/9/2007 7:33:01 AM)
(using fast reply..... get the marshmellows for the flame roast) It might be confusing to some, however, I have a very specific terminology. Recently I was sitting with some folks after a local gathering. Just the normal chit chat thing after a meeting. Anyway, someone new to the lifestyle was talking with Me and called Me a Top. I went ahead and explained that I am not a "Top". In some circles, I am considered a Mistress, very specifically because, in the past, I have had the life experience of owning a slave. To My current boy, because of O/our specific arrangement, I am his Dominant. I "Top" those in which I engage in casual play. The point of this being that I do have different terms depending on different situations. It's just the way I do things. There's no offense by those who don't understand what I base the terms on. I'm happy to explain it. That is just My way, and I don't expect My way to work for everyone.

Bobkgin -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/9/2007 9:12:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hisannabelle ... take them or leave them as they appeal to you to discuss :) ... respectfully, annabelle. As I said earlier, Annabelle, my first contribution to this thread reflected my attitude about this issue. The issue does not upset me, nor am I trying to enforce a single definition. All I've done is point out the consequences of not being able to agree to a single definition: misunderstandings, mis-communication. I am not arguing against the organics of language. But despite the dynamic changes in language,. dictionaries are still produced and are in remarkable agreement with one another. Creating commonly-understood definitions does not preclude further developments. It is merely a snap-shot of today for the convenience of communication till the next snap-shot is taken. Keep in mind, Annabelle, that it really doesn't matter to me what the 'community' does with itself. I am here to find those I seek. Once I've found them, I'll return from whence I came and darken these forums no more. That's not to say I won't express opinions, ask questions, etc while I'm here. But I have no vested interest in changing anyone or anything I encounter here. I'm not going to be here any longer than necessary to find those I seek. Thank you for sharing your point of view with me.

Bobkgin -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/9/2007 9:21:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark ow can you understand something for others, when labelling itself is totally subjective in the end?[;)] Dictionaries offer reference points that can reduce the subjectivity. On the other hand, it is also useful to be reminded that labels are not universal. Might cut down on the misunderstandings when people realize they should ask before they assume someone meant XYZ. [;)] quote: Don;t work out others, just work it for you. That's what I do.

velvetears -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/9/2007 9:30:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner4SexSlave Also "Dom" has special meaning when talking in the context of the Mafia. i believe its "don" not "dom" as regards mafia.

RCdc -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/9/2007 9:42:56 AM)
I think it's easiest to either think of a label as something akin to a name rather than it's one, single definition. Your name is Bob - but I have known other Bobs in my time. Each Bob was a Bob - but each Bob was different. It's a starting point, but not the be and end all. Like a tin of soup. A tin of soup may say it is tomatoe. However, there are so many types of tomatoe soup. I can eat Heinz Tomatoe soup until it's flowing out of my ears. But campbells? Blergh - it does not suit my palette - to me it doesn't taste like tomatoes. So - the label is good to get a first impression - it gets my attention and lets me take it off the shelf and I may try it once, but it doesn't mean it is what I like, how I define it personally or even how I like it. Peace the.dark.

Bobkgin -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/9/2007 10:01:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark I think it's easiest to either think of a label as something akin to a name rather than it's one, single definition. Your name is Bob - but I have known other Bobs in my time. Each Bob was a Bob - but each Bob was different. It's a starting point, but not the be and end all. Like a tin of soup. A tin of soup may say it is tomatoe. However, there are so many types of tomatoe soup. I can eat Heinz Tomatoe soup until it's flowing out of my ears. But campbells? Blergh - it does not suit my palette - to me it doesn't taste like tomatoes. So - the label is good to get a first impression - it gets my attention and lets me take it off the shelf and I may try it once, but it doesn't mean it is what I like, how I define it personally or even how I like it. Peace the.dark. As a writer communication is important to me. Thus far I've identified three different factors that influence the meaning of a word: 1. Language (formal definitions found in dictionaries) 2. Regional (aka Dialect, definitions developed within sub-groups of #1) 3. Personal connotation (our own personal experience with words and the situations where they were applied) People tend to place far more emphasis on 3 than they do on 2 or 1. Yet 3 is the most easily misunderstood and the least useful for communication. That's why people who have unique or unusual experiences find it so difficult to tell others what it was like. No commonly-understood words to describe it. Perhaps that is why BDSM labels are so closely-guarded. To define them for common usage would take the mystique and magic out of them.

velvetears -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/9/2007 10:02:11 AM)
FR Labels are identifiers not definitions. The problem lies in wanting to stick a rigid definition on a label or when we project our own whatever onto that label. Take two simple labels like boy and man - both share a common definition - having male genatalia, age factors in, but there is so much more to being a boy or a man then the defining definition. Some could even make an argument that some men are still boys if they carry a certain mindset and actions into their adult years. Everyone defines in the context of their own experiences - how else could it be done? Why is it necessary to put so many qualifiers on a label to define it? Keep it very simple and there will be less angst and miscommunication.

RCdc -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/9/2007 11:45:19 AM)
As a person, communication is important to me. Darcy, being the writer he is - uses words to place a visual inside the head of a reader. As useful as one word can be - many words make the visual far more stunning and understandable. Is there a problem with people placing more enphasis on number 3? Isn't being oneself far more important than being 'true' to everyone else? I do not believe that there is miscommunication with 3 unless someone only reflects on one single word. The word 'slave' has so many meanings unless you combine it with other words to expound upon it. The word 'Doctor' has many meanings unless you combine it with and explaination and other words to expound upon it. If you get more wrapped up in the word than the communication itself, then you will never understand the person you are speaking to. Peace the.dark.

heartfeltsub -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/9/2007 11:46:50 AM)
Very good response the dark, but that presupposes that he wishes to understand the person he is speaking with.

Bobkgin -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/9/2007 1:15:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark As a person, communication is important to me. Darcy, being the writer he is - uses words to place a visual inside the head of a reader. As useful as one word can be - many words make the visual far more stunning and understandable. Is there a problem with people placing more enphasis on number 3? Isn't being oneself far more important than being 'true' to everyone else? The three factors I provided are factors affecting effective communication. Certainly it is important to be one's self, but if one is speaking one's own personal language, words that have been defined by the individual for the individual, then very little if any effective communication will occur. It's like using all the local idioms when speaking to people on another continent who speak a different language, a lot will be missed in the translation. [;)] quote: I do not believe that there is miscommunication with 3 unless someone only reflects on one single word. The word 'slave' has so many meanings unless you combine it with other words to expound upon it. The word 'Doctor' has many meanings unless you combine it with and explaination and other words to expound upon it. I think that depends to some extent on the specific word, and how key an understanding of it is in the discussion. But it isn't just one word. 3 covers all the words in a person's vocabulary, and how their personal experience with these words has coloured their meanings for that person. We can use the word "blue", but what shade of "blue" does each person think of when the word is used? If it is important that the shade be understood for the conversation to have meaning, then the use of commonly-understood definitions (1 and 2) are more important. Consider trying to make a recipe without using any standard form of measurement, with someone saying "a bit of this and some of that and then put it in a hot oven for a while". All of this has meaning to the individual speaking at level 3, but none of it means anything at levels 1 and 2, so no one else can actually make the recipe as given. quote: If you get more wrapped up in the word than the communication itself, then you will never understand the person you are speaking to. [But if I am the one "speaking", then my choice of words does matter if I wish to convey my unspoken thoughts o the individual in question. I need to translate my level 3 words into level 2 or 1 to find common ground with which to communicate. In the above example, I'd need to convert "a bit of this" into a specific mesaurement that is understood by the listener. Otherwise, it means very little and effective communication has not occurred.

pseudopsychotic -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/9/2007 3:53:34 PM)
People can call themselves what they want. End of.

RCdc -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/10/2007 3:51:22 AM)
Hello Bob I don't believe that 3 is anymore used, nor anymore or less important than 1 and 2. And if there was someone communicating with me simply using one single word and not expounding upon it using different words - then that is where the miscomunication lays. You used the example of a Doctor. Now someone may come up to me and say - "Hello, I am Dr Smith." Now I could be naive and assume he/she is a medical expert. Or I could ask him or her to expound on what type of Dr. It is my own responsibility to myself to grow to know more in depth the person in front of me. You specifically asked in the beginning, if it is ok for a person to call themselves whatever they want - the answer is - yes it is. I am the.dark. I can call myself that. But that doesn't make me the actual darkness - its simply what I identify myself as for whatever reason. Labels aren't definitions of a person, activity or tincan. They describe what is within according to the person. They are a identity qualifier that becomes a definition once you define what the individual means through further communication. I do not see anyone defining themselves as a slave, or dominant personality etc without expanding on what type of slave/dominant etc they are. Darcy is a writer - but what does that actually mean? Some people may agree, some maynot. I am a foot fetishist. I also am a synaesthesic. I am many things. But you have no idea what these mean to me and how I am affected as an individual by these unless you speak to me on a much deeper level. So in response to your question - anyone can call themselves anything they want - what it means is only discovered through further investigation and communication. Labels are the guide - not the be and end of all reason. Peace the.dark.

Bobkgin -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/10/2007 6:07:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark Hello Bob ... Labels are the guide - not the be and end of all reason. Peace the.dark. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this, Dark. My understanding of the needs of Communication in a public forum remain intact, and upon this we might, perhaps, need to disagree. However, I do agree that at a personal level, when interest is expressed from one person towards another, that clarification of labels is most likely to occur such that both individuals will understand how the labels are being used by each of the people involved. I hope you've enjoyed the exchange of viewpoints as much as I.

hisannabelle -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/10/2007 6:29:21 AM)
greetings bobkgin, your post on the three factors of communication really helped clarify your position for me, and gave me some thinking material as well. :) thank you for the opportunity to discuss. respectfully, annabelle.

Bobkgin -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/10/2007 7:00:11 AM)
You're welcome Annabelle. I'm glad you found that useful to you. Always a pleasure to share a discussion with you. [:)]

missturbation -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/10/2007 7:10:51 AM)
Why do some submissives have a Master and some Doms have a slave, when I was under the impression that the idea of a D/s or M/s relationship is that it is Dom/me and submissive or Master/Mistress and slave? Oh no i don't fit any! I am slave, He is Sir [:o]

SirEbonyPhoenix -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/10/2007 5:44:44 PM)
[sm=applause.gif]As they used to say on Family Feud, "Good answer!" Lol [sm=wave.gif]

CuriousLord -> RE: D/s & M/s relationships:Land of confusion (10/10/2007 7:44:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EbonyPhoenix68 I've thought about something that leaves me a little bit confused when it comes to D/s & M/s relationships:Why do some submissives have a Master and some Doms have a slave, when I was under the impression that the idea of a D/s or M/s relationship is that it is Dom/me and submissive or Master/Mistress and slave? To me, when some go against the "tradtional"grain of a D/s or M/s relationship, it leaves me scratching my head in terms of what I desire as a Dominant. Any thoughts on this? It's a consquence of people using different terminology. I've seen a lot of Dom's call themselves Master and a lot of subs call themselves slave.. normally, since a lot of people tend to think that being more "hardcore" means you're better than others, so it's sort of like exagerrating on your resume. But, anyway, it's just what people call themselves; you can still figure out if they're M/s or D/s if you know a lot about their relationship and such- it's not that they're unusual- they just use different words for it.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875