Wordgames in BDSM (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity



Message

Bobkgin -> Wordgames in BDSM (8/28/2007 10:38:43 AM)

Been hearing a lot about how we should all embrace the idea that people should be free to assign whatever meaning they want to words like "slave" and "sub".

What about other words: like "honesty", "disease free", "responsible" and "experienced"?

After all, I'm sure deceitful people would love to redefine "honesty" so their deceit is no longer "deceit".

And those infected with AIDs might love to redefine "disease free" to include themselves.

And so on.

If we're going to throw out the dictionary and embrace everyone defining words to suit themselves, of what use will words be for communication?

For words to be useful in communication, they must have a recognizable definition shared between the author and the audience.

So of what use are the keywords in BDSM if everyone is redefining them to suit their egos?



Raechard -> RE: Wordgames in BDSM (8/28/2007 10:44:34 AM)

Didn't we replace all words with things like this: O.o [:D] a long time ago?



Mercnbeth -> RE: Wordgames in BDSM (8/28/2007 10:49:12 AM)

Only the "un-blocked", alter ego profiles, or those in agreement; need respond.



Tigrita -> RE: Wordgames in BDSM (8/28/2007 10:50:00 AM)

I agree.  And one thing that still doesn't really make sense to me that I'm sure I'll get slammed for, but hell, I'm feeling daring today, is the word slave.  If someone truly considered themselves a slave and property, how does everyone I've ever heard claim that slaves still have the right to leave if they decide the arrangement isn't right for them anymore?  As far as I know, the historical definition of the word slave precludes any human rights, especially the right to leave.  So it appears that there is a pretty deeply engrained alternate definition of that word for BDSM, which personally, is a major source of confusion and apparent slippery slope logic to me, being new here and still getting used to all the jargon of the lifestyle. 



RCdc -> RE: Wordgames in BDSM (8/28/2007 10:50:07 AM)

Words are subjective - because many words change over time.
Words do evolve - that is what makes life so fascinating and descriptive.
 
If one really wants to be a complete nazi about words - then slave - as a word and description -  in BDSM just would not exist.
 
Dominant you can be - a dominant you cannot.
 
Words are wonderful - but if you lay too much importance on them instead of the person and the way they use them - then you are walking the plank with a very deep and cold end.
 
Peace
the.dark.



LaTigresse -> RE: Wordgames in BDSM (8/28/2007 10:54:31 AM)

Not to mention the whole sub thing.........sub sandwich? submarine? Orrrrrrrr are we supposed to guess and just ASS U ME that someone means submissive?

Hey, it was just hanging up there begging...[:D]



Raechard -> RE: Wordgames in BDSM (8/28/2007 10:58:58 AM)

I think some have already redefined the word rhetorical myself.



e01n -> RE: Wordgames in BDSM (8/28/2007 11:07:05 AM)

Oooohh... that sounds good:
"A six inch rhetorical sub with extra veggies please!"



softness -> RE: Wordgames in BDSM (8/28/2007 11:30:36 AM)

fast reply
 
now i am just a young'un .. but even i am bored by this constant banter about semantics ... language is alive, it evolves. I cant take a word in the morning and by the end of morning break have convinced the UMs in my class it means something it doesn't and have them using it entirely out of context - this would explain why my form run around telling all the other kids "to go pansy" themselves (i brainwashed them into replacing curse words with flowers)
if i can do that in a morning with a bunch of kids then imagine what a largly intelligent, introspective and dynamic community might do with a word, nay abstract concept, like slavery or submission over thousands of forum posts and e-discussions
 
shock horror!!!! ... the word tagged to the abstract concept may mean different things to different people! ... who would have bloomin' thought it!
 



darchChylde -> RE: Wordgames in BDSM (8/28/2007 11:51:05 AM)

So, if we were to somehow agree on some specific meaning for the words "submissive" and "slave", which would we use.  I would guess that the OP would state that it is only right and proper that his definitions be used to the exclusion of all variances and opposing views.  I understand that there are many "bottoms" who consider themselves "submissives" and "slaves" by another person's definition, not to mention any other combination of the above words in a sentence similar to the following. "That _________ is really just a _________."

What about "Top", "Dominant" and "Master"?  Are these up for debate and discussion, or is it in the nature of the more subserviant side of the coin to confuse such issues?

The lifestyle is filled with disparate people who come to where they are through a myriad of different ways; all with their own reasons, definitions, perspectives and motivations.  What works for me won't always work for you.  The crux of tthe question is that, no matter what the label someone uses to define themselves; whether it be nature or nurture or desire, they choose to act on their Dominance or submission by choice.  And the presence of a choice in the matter precludes any possibility of static or universal definitions.

In the end, it is merely up to the individual (if single) or themselves and their partner how they are to define whatever label they decide to take upon themselves.  To wit: it's is up to my Dominant and i that i am a submissive; it doesn't affect you or anyone else and is really none of your business unless She, i or we decide to make it so.

So you go ahead and decide what is real and true for you, and let everyone else do the same.  Concentrate on finding happiness in your own life and finding that certain someone who will accept your definitions as their own and happily be that counterpart that you desire.  If you do this, i can almost guarantee you that you will no longer worry about other people's definitions or labels.

-go in love and peace,

darchChylde

edited to add:  After reading your profile, Bobkgin; i wonder where forcing your definitions and perspective on others falls into the acceptance and understanding generally espoused in the pagan belief structure which you claim to hold?

PS: My condolences on the loss of your slave, i wish you well in your continued search.

-May your journey be ever greater than your destination.

darchChylde



Lordandmaster -> RE: Wordgames in BDSM (8/28/2007 12:12:15 PM)

Is this another dictionary thread?

Here, go look up this in a dictionary:

REDUNDANT



e01n -> RE: Wordgames in BDSM (8/28/2007 12:29:09 PM)

"The map is not the territory; the word is not the thing defined"

Null-A is non-Aristotelianism; General Semantics stresses that reality is not adequately mapped by two-valued (Aristotelian) logics. (See also: Abductive reasoning)

Null-I is non-Identity; General Semantics teaches that no two phenomena can ever be shown identical (if only because they may differ beyond the limits of measurement) and that it is more sane to think in terms of "sufficient similarity for the purposes of the analysis we are currently performing".

Null-E is non-Euclideanism; General Semantics reminds us that the space we live in is not adequately described by Euclidean geometry.

I'm thinking of just copying and pasting my posts on these "definition" threads, assembling with a few randomly generated Hegelian paragraphs and calling it my doctoral thesis. But the proliferation of this meme makes me wonder if I'm the only one who thought of this...

So, Bobkgin - good luck with your review!



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125