RE: Folsom Fringe Presentation Provides "Common Definitions"?

RE: Folsom Fringe Presentation Provides "Common Definitions"? (Full Version)

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

Message

KatyLied -> RE: Folsom Fringe Presentation Provides "Common Definitions"? (9/25/2006 6:45:48 AM)
quote: Top/bottom = Physical Dom/sub = Mental Master/slave = Spiritual That doesn't work for me. There is an assumption that M/s is better than the other two. No one will ever convince me of that. All three dynamics are different, but one is not better than the other. What matters is how people in the relationships define what they have together. What is M/s to some would be D/s to others; what is D/s to some would be a Top/bottom dynamic for others. Everyone has different qualifiers for these labels.

CrappyDom -> RE: Folsom Fringe Presentation Provides "Common Definitions"? (9/25/2006 10:50:30 AM)
Bet you dollars to doughnuts the guy was a "Master" in a M/s relationship. I have yet to meet someone who sets up a labeling scheme who doesn't pick the "best" one for themselves. In my somewhat broad experience there is no real demarcation between dominants and masters or between submissives and slaves. Heck, I have seen self proclaimed "bottoms" that would likely give ANY "slave" here a run for their money.

Archer -> RE: Folsom Fringe Presentation Provides "Common Definitions"? (9/25/2006 12:46:43 PM)
Actually the guy is one of the few I know who had to be figuratively beat about the head and shoulders to accept the title Master from anyone. And as for "The Best Title" and those who can't get beyond the He's making it sound like Master is better than Dominant is better than Top. I'm afraid you're attributing your own predjudice to his words. Aint Projection a bitch

CrappyDom -> RE: Folsom Fringe Presentation Provides "Common Definitions"? (9/25/2006 1:00:07 PM)
Archer, if you are right about the guy I am amazed they had him at an Odyssey event. As for me projecting, you are right, that is why I chose the coolest name for myself because image is SO important to me.

juliaoceania -> RE: Folsom Fringe Presentation Provides "Common Definitions"? (9/25/2006 2:06:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Actually the guy is one of the few I know who had to be figuratively beat about the head and shoulders to accept the title Master from anyone. And as for "The Best Title" and those who can't get beyond the He's making it sound like Master is better than Dominant is better than Top. I'm afraid you're attributing your own predjudice to his words. Aint Projection a bitch Words have meaning, and if these are being sold as common definitions as the name of the thread implies, well I do not view them as common. I said what Crappy did in a different more diplomatic way, but I tend to agree with hiim. A person who is in a top/bottom relationship may not understand the spirituality of an M/s relationship and may view it as inferior to their own, and a M/s couple will think of it is in the reverse. It is only human nature after all. I know my sister thinks her marriage is the end all be all of marriages and it is strong after 21 years, but her marriage would not suit me.. it doesn't make it less that I feel that way, or make it more that she feels it is so special... it is what it is, it suits her. Only two individuals know the spiritual essense of their relationship, and to be honest, if I stated that vanilla was more spiritual than WIITWD, well you would probably not agree, even if I had been in a 30 year vanilla marriage and was Doctor Phil's wife. Not all marriages are equal, not all dynamics are the same... only the people involved can guage what their interactions are.. not someone else. It is fine with me if people accept these definitions, but because people regard this person well (probably for good reason) really doesn't impact my view of the definitions. Dr Phil and Oprah probably hold more sway over me (and that is not saying much). I think when you posted that the person that put these definitions forward states that we often label ourselves "wrongly" that kind of offends me to be honest, although he has the right to his opinion, I also have the right to say that labeling people in a way that they do not want is sort of disrespectful in my mind. I do not want to be called a "slave" even if I act more slavish than many who label themselves as this. I do not want to be called a bottom even though I am less submissive than those who call themselves this.. I do not think it is fair to impose a label on someone when the classification system is very tenuous at best, and that is my true and honest opinion. No offense to you at all, and I hope none was taken.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Folsom Fringe Presentation Provides "Common Definitions"? (9/25/2006 8:28:00 PM)
It's ironic and short sighted to apply positive and "best" to the application of the word "spiritual" to a Master/slave dynamic. Spiritual also applies to the worst aspects of a dynamic. Why assume that spiritual is necessarily spiritual good? Where is consideration of the dark side of spiritualism? There is demon as well as divinity in the realm of spiritualism. A Master can break a slaves spiritually and do far more damage than in a positive top/bottom dynamic. A vibrant top/bottom is cathartic and fulfilling. It purges physical needs that can't be purged effectively in any other manner. A Dom/sub mind play frees the individuals of inhibitions and refreshes the thought process. There are 'worst cases' in each of the definitions. In the purely physical you die. In the spiritual, your spirit is killed. You can debate the worst case of the two, but a debate indicates the spiritual and physical can both be deadly. The same holds true for the third category, mental. Causing the mental death is also a real possibility. There truly was no qualification of importance. It seems some of the audience hearing the words applied the valuation based upon their own demons and need for label validation, or a dimishes sense of self.

happypervert -> RE: Folsom Fringe Presentation Provides "Common Definitions"? (9/25/2006 9:26:55 PM)
quote: And as for "The Best Title" and those who can't get beyond the He's making it sound like Master is better than Dominant is better than Top. I'm afraid you're attributing your own predjudice to his words. I'm afraid that your buddy is feeding everyone a lot of double talk to try to justify a bastardized usage of language. If, as you say, he claims there is a continuum where tops/bottoms have a little spriituality and master/slave relationships have the most, then I don't see how one can conclude that he is doing anything other than portraying that as the best. But if it is acceptable to play fast and loose with the language, let's try another word instead of spriitual to see how folks perceive it: Top/bottom = Physical Dom/sub = Mental Master/slave = Kooky And it will be a continuum like before -- tops/bottoms are a little kooky and master/slave relationships are the kookiest. We'll even throw in the same seemingly deceitful disclaimer and say that none of these definitions are considered better or worse than the others. It all makes a lot more sense to me with kooky in there, though I suspect some others may not like it at at all. So how should we handle the objections? I think dismissing their perceptions as merely being a product of their own prejudices is nothing more than a reflection of another's prejudice in favor of the definition, and that it is disingenuous to pretend that words don't have meanings that are commonly understood to be either positive or negative.

juliaoceania -> RE: Folsom Fringe Presentation Provides "Common Definitions"? (9/25/2006 10:25:39 PM)
I see myself as a spiritual person walking around in a physical body with a mind to comprehend it all. I have little use for anything that would separate these aspects both in my person or in my intimate relationships, whether they be dark or light aspects of my spirit. I have begun to enjoy Taoism, which truly does not separate things, but shows how they define each other. Like I said, I just do not agree, and it is a spiritual reason why I just cannot, other people can try to define what I share with my Daddy, it does not matter to me, but I will stand up and say that love in and of itself makes a relationship spiritual, power exchange has very little to do with that in my mind... And any cruel person cam break another... they do not have to be in a M/s dynamic. My spirit was almost killed in my marriage, and probably would have been if I had stayed... it does not take an M/s dynamic to destroy someone, all it takes is that they were foolish enough to love an asshole

popeye1250 -> RE: Folsom Fringe Presentation Provides "Common Definitions"? (9/25/2006 10:41:00 PM)
Well, if those terms served their purpose to keep everyone focused during the lecture where's the harm?

juliaoceania -> RE: Folsom Fringe Presentation Provides "Common Definitions"? (9/25/2006 10:45:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Well, if those terms served their purpose to keep everyone focused during the lecture where's the harm? Not any harm at all if people want to apply those terms to anything they like.. it is no skin off my nose, I was not at the lecture, I am going on what is presented in this thread alone. It does not matter, and I think I have said this a couple of times, but my opinion is what it is on the matter... and we all know what opinions are like... grins. I am not offended by any of it, other then another poster stated that this same presenter also said couples define themselves in a way that does not coincide with his definitions, so he recategories them into his labels... now that is not really cool with me.. but hey.. whatever floats someone's boat, right?

Archer -> RE: Folsom Fringe Presentation Provides "Common Definitions"? (9/26/2006 5:57:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I think when you posted that the person that put these definitions forward states that we often label ourselves "wrongly" that kind of offends me to be honest, although he has the right to his opinion, I also have the right to say that labeling people in a way that they do not want is sort of disrespectful in my mind. I do not want to be called a "slave" even if I act more slavish than many who label themselves as this. I do not want to be called a bottom even though I am less submissive than those who call themselves this.. I do not think it is fair to impose a label on someone when the classification system is very tenuous at best See you read that entirely wrong what part of He may label you as a slave IN HIS HEAD while calling you submissive OUT LOUD. Disrespects you???? I specified clearly that he would use whatever label you choose or you out loud. But he might very well consider you to be something else in his definitions. If I have a set definition for a label it is only reasonable to use it accross the board using the definative differences for all people. Meanwhile though for social lubrication I may call you buy whatever label you prefer, and translate that inside my head.

Archer -> RE: Folsom Fringe Presentation Provides "Common Definitions"? (9/26/2006 6:04:20 AM)
Isn't it wonderfull that folks can take that little posting and make such a huge ad widejudgement of what the man is or isn't, if he is trying to force his definitins on everyone or not, all without ever having spoken with the man or even actually hearing the entire presentation. And yet when someone who knows the man, who has sat at a table and broken bread with him, who has sat in the man's presentations multiple times, tell you you're taking the man wrong, some folks will still not believe they might be wrongly projecting thoughts onto someone they have read all f 1/4 of a page from.

MrrPete -> RE: Folsom Fringe Presentation Provides "Common Definitions"? (9/26/2006 6:21:04 AM)
Too much difinin goin on here. I disagree with all the t3erms in the I think you need all three elements physical, mental and spiritual to have a good relationship be BDSM or vanilla.

sapphirepleasure -> RE: Folsom Fringe Presentation Provides "Common Definitions"? (9/26/2006 7:10:19 AM)
First I want to say that I love your new pic, Mercnbeth. :) For me, the definitions that the speaker gave are pretty much how I think of it, and why I am self-identified as an unowned slave, because I am seeking a relationship characterized by complete surrender and connection on all levels, including the spiritual. I knew as soon as I saw the OP though, that there would be those who strongly disagree, and see it as an oversimplification, which of course, in the interest of brevity, it kind of is.

juliaoceania -> RE: Folsom Fringe Presentation Provides "Common Definitions"? (9/26/2006 7:12:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Isn't it wonderfull that folks can take that little posting and make such a huge ad widejudgement of what the man is or isn't, if he is trying to force his definitins on everyone or not, all without ever having spoken with the man or even actually hearing the entire presentation. And yet when someone who knows the man, who has sat at a table and broken bread with him, who has sat in the man's presentations multiple times, tell you you're taking the man wrong, some folks will still not believe they might be wrongly projecting thoughts onto someone they have read all f 1/4 of a page from. I haven't judged him, that is you projecting on to me if I am "some folks"... I do not know him, and I have only responded to the information on this thread. I do not agree with the definitions, and frankly the sun will come up tomorrow even though I do not.

KatyLied -> RE: Folsom Fringe Presentation Provides "Common Definitions"? (9/26/2006 7:16:18 AM)
quick reply Sheesh, the op asked us to respond with our reactions to the definitions. That's exactly what's going on here. I couldn't care less who said it, I don't know the guy.

Archer -> RE: Folsom Fringe Presentation Provides "Common Definitions"? (9/26/2006 9:57:12 AM)
Actually those two responses were seperated because the first applied to you and the second applied to others mostly. My Bad or not making that more clearly a seperation of thoughts.

amayos -> RE: Folsom Fringe Presentation Provides "Common Definitions"? (9/26/2006 10:26:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth At one of the seminars being offered at the Folsom Fringe a presenter,national known in the lifestyle, required a common vocabulary for the audience. He was presenting a talk called "Servant Master". In and of itself very interesting, but I was wondering how you would react to his definitions concerning relationship dynamics. Top/bottom = Physical Dom/sub = Mental Master/slave = Spiritual What is your reaction to these definitions? My take: Master and slave = Physical, mental and spiritual

Dnomyar -> RE: Folsom Fringe Presentation Provides "Common Definitions"? (9/26/2006 1:11:44 PM)
Long lasting marriages do not denote spirituality. Circumstances could dictate why they are still together.

juliaoceania -> RE: Folsom Fringe Presentation Provides "Common Definitions"? (9/26/2006 1:20:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dnomyar Long lasting marriages do not denote spirituality. Circumstances could dictate why they are still together. Same can be said about Master/slave relationships.... No relationship structure in and of itself denotes spirituality I have known a few spiritual marriage connections and hope to have one for myself one day

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875