Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Labels: S-types and D-Types


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> Labels: S-types and D-Types Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Labels: S-types and D-Types - 9/30/2005 9:05:34 PM   
Elegant


Posts: 1024
Joined: 3/15/2005
Status: offline 		In another post I used the terms D-Type Person and S-Type Person. I've started using these terms and did not think to define them here.


This is from Heather in Atlanta:

S-type = submissive/slave/property/bottom of any gender orientation - anyone on the "right side of the slash" in a d/s-type relationship. It's referring to the relational dynamic, not the SM component - so even "bottom" in this case doesn't mean "masochist", it means "one who submits to someone/something in the context of d/s or SM" rather than "one who receives the action in a play scenario".

D-type = dominant/master/owner/top of any gender orientation - anyone on the "left side of the slash" in a d/s-type relationship. It's referring to the relational dynamic, not the SM component - so even "top" in this case doesn't mean "sadist", it means "one who dominates someone/something in the context of d/s or SM" rather than "one who facilitates the action in a play scenario".

Switch is separate, unless the conversation is referring to their experience on either specific side of the slash - because generally unless their talking about that specific scenario, they're *not* one or the other.

Sadist and masochist (and top and bottom in a play sense) are also separate, because that is generally an action-based, and not a relationally-based, distinction - and sadists and masochists equally can be either d-types or s-types.

I admit, that's a bit of "lumping" there. But it's the same bit of lumping that people employ when they speak of "subs" (as many do) or "bottoms" (mostly seen in the gay communities, but not completely absent in the het communities). And it's *tons* simpler than typing all the slashes (sub/slave/bottom/property/etc), if you're talking about any of these people *as a group*.

That's exactly how these terms are meant - to speak of the people *as a group*. So "lumping" is exactly what is *meant* to happen - because otherwise, we're doing the same lumping by using different terms – saying "subs" or "doms" or "s/s/p/b", etc.

The variety of self-identities in this subculture, and their expressions and terms, is endless. It's rare that three people (who are not in relationship with each other) can ever agree on what each term means, how it should be applied, and who qualifies (as if it's their place to determine who qualifies, outside of a relationship with them! But that's an unrelated rant :) ). So, when I talk about "slaves", you have your idea in your head, and I have mine - but they're likely worlds apart. Ditto on all of the terms listed above.

These terms are *not* taking anything away from self-identities - they are capturing all of the identities anyone might have on either side of the slash. There is plenty of room for the following conversation:

Person 1 - "How do the s-types here perceive blah blah blah..."
S-type - "I identify as a submissive sadist, and I blah blah blah..."
Person 1 - "How do you, as a submissive sadist, perceive blah blah blah..."

The conversation can *start out* general, as most of them do, and narrow from there - as most of them do. That, to me, is the beauty of an all-inclusive umbrella - it brings the broadest meaning to the table, which can *then* be narrowed down. We don't have to continually mire ourselves in inclusive efforts and cumbersome extra language because we started out too narrow in the first place.

I'm not demanding (or even *asking*) that anyone pick up this language - I'm not *that* arrogant :) It's just what I found worked for me, and continue to use it. I'm a bit tickled that it's worked for others, and not at all irritated that I've had to explain it a few times - that's what happens when you use unfamiliar terms.

~~~~~~~~~

Heather has been in the public subculture for about 8 years, in Atlanta for close to 4. She "grew up" fast and furious in this subculture – and while she doesn’t try to claim any expertise, she knows her way around a dungeon, a d/s relationship, and both ends of many SM activities. Heather lives her d/s and s/m face-to-face. Her relationships take place in "meetlife", while many of her *discussions* take place online.






_____________________________

Elegant
~Slave To Master Archer

http://www.FantasiesInLeather.com
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Labels: S-types and D-Types - 9/30/2005 9:06:32 PM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		I thought you were referring to different kinds of Jaguars.

(in reply to Elegant)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Labels: S-types and D-Types - 9/30/2005 9:10:07 PM   
Elegant


Posts: 1024
Joined: 3/15/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

I thought you were referring to different kinds of Jaguars.



Although there is an S-type Jaguar I percieve that auto as a D-type...grin

_____________________________

Elegant
~Slave To Master Archer

http://www.FantasiesInLeather.com

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Labels: S-types and D-Types - 9/30/2005 9:15:30 PM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		There was a Jaguar D-Type:

http://www.autoswalk.com/worgreatcarj.html
http://www.fast-autos.net/jaguar/jaguardtype.html

(in reply to Elegant)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Labels: S-types and D-Types - 9/30/2005 9:21:03 PM   
Padriag


Posts: 2633
Joined: 3/30/2005
Status: offline 		Thanks for posting that... not sure if d-type and s-type (or even /-type) will catch on as terms but the definitions are good. I use dominant and submissive as generic terms with the same definitions and leave dom, domme, sub, master, slave as labels and titles. Same idea though, just trying to sort things out. The confusion about meanins makes writing essays and other literature on this lifestyle hell.

_____________________________

Padriag

A stern discipline pervades all nature, which is a little cruel so that it may be very kind - Edmund Spencer

(in reply to Elegant)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Labels: S-types and D-Types - 9/30/2005 9:36:23 PM   
EmeraldSlave2


Posts: 3645
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline 		Did Heather give you permission to post this? She's a personal friend of mine and I know she tends to feel like I do about copyright.

(in reply to Elegant)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Labels: S-types and D-Types - 10/1/2005 6:40:56 AM   
Elegant


Posts: 1024
Joined: 3/15/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EmeraldSlave2

Did Heather give you permission to post this? She's a personal friend of mine and I know she tends to feel like I do about copyright.



Heather is also a personal and local friend of mine and has given permission to share this piece with appropriate aknowledgements.

Good point for all to remember though!

_____________________________

Elegant
~Slave To Master Archer

http://www.FantasiesInLeather.com

(in reply to EmeraldSlave2)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Labels: S-types and D-Types - 10/1/2005 7:24:37 AM   
happypervert


Posts: 2203
Joined: 5/11/2004
From: Scranton, PA
Status: offline 		I don't see the point of this. It is nothing more than using a different term for the commonly understood terms of dominant and submissive and this is implied in the names of the types. I suppose there is some nitpicking where these terms could be described as supposedly "better", but in the grand scheme of things that is insignificant compared to the disadvantage of futher cluttering a landscape of definitions that already isn't clear to a lot of folks.

In other words, these new terms just have the potential to confuse others while not clarifying anything, so therefore they are a bad thing.

_____________________________

"Get a bicycle. You will not regret it if you live." . . . Mark Twain

(in reply to Elegant)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Labels: S-types and D-Types - 10/1/2005 7:32:28 AM   
pollux


Posts: 657
Joined: 7/26/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

I thought you were referring to different kinds of Jaguars.


LMFAO. She left out the E-types, but I think you're onto something.

I think CollarMe should let us self-identify as English sports cars.

I think I'm an Aston Martin V-12 Vanquish.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Labels: S-types and D-Types - 10/1/2005 1:12:19 PM   
Elegant


Posts: 1024
Joined: 3/15/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: happypervert

I don't see the point of this. It is nothing more than using a different term for the commonly understood terms of dominant and submissive and this is implied in the names of the types. I suppose there is some nitpicking where these terms could be described as supposedly "better", but in the grand scheme of things that is insignificant compared to the disadvantage of futher cluttering a landscape of definitions that already isn't clear to a lot of folks.

In other words, these new terms just have the potential to confuse others while not clarifying anything, so therefore they are a bad thing.



One point of this is that 'dominant' and 'submissive' may be commonly used by some people but those words are incorrect descriptions for many when used as a general description.

I am slave to Master Archer but I am not a submissive nor do I have a submissive personality.
Using the above labels I would be an S-type.

My friend Tony is a 'bottom'.
He likes to be the receiver of pain but in no was would he ever serve anyone
in any other capacity and there is not a submissive bone in his body.
He is an S-type.

Aquaintance Marianne is a 'Top'.
She directs the action in s/m and sexual scenarios but
does not dominate anyone in interpersonal relationships.
She is a D-type.



Put this into more vanilla context: Football - Defense (D-type) and Offense (O-type)

Biff is a quarterback.....He is an O-type.
Teammate Tab is wide receiver. ....He is also an O-type.
When speaking about these players you would not call them both quarterbacks
but you would classify them as Offensive players (O-types.)

Bubba is a linebacker. ....He is a D-type
Jim Bob is a safety. ...He is a D-type.
When speaking about these players you would not call them both linebackers
but you would classify them as Defensive players( D-types.)



If using these terms is a bad thing for you then don't use them. But please do not refer to me as a submissive. (Note: 'submissive' is an adjective anyway) Frankly I find the terms D-type and S-type more inclusive and potentially less offensive when referring to a general group of people.



_____________________________

Elegant
~Slave To Master Archer

http://www.FantasiesInLeather.com

(in reply to happypervert)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Labels: S-types and D-Types - 10/1/2005 3:52:47 PM   
imtempting


Posts: 1280
Joined: 2/11/2005
Status: offline 		I thought it was ok to post other people work aslong as you give credit to those people?

I thought we recently had a debate on this and alot of people including the mods said you need to either put in a link or write where you got it from and the op did write where she got it from.

As for asking if they have permission well how many Heather's wold there be in Atlanta?
So how do you know you talking about the same Heather??

After recently coming off being moderated and having many conversations I would of thought this is something the mods should of asked instead of self moderating the forums.

Or something you could of pointed out to the mods...

Funny how people beleive a nick name but not that someone got permission to post something..

I would of known what D type and S type is :)

< Message edited by imtempting -- 10/1/2005 4:41:27 PM >

(in reply to EmeraldSlave2)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Labels: S-types and D-Types - 10/1/2005 4:04:45 PM   
imtempting


Posts: 1280
Joined: 2/11/2005
Status: offline 		Oops

< Message edited by imtempting -- 10/1/2005 4:41:52 PM >

(in reply to imtempting)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Labels: S-types and D-Types - 10/1/2005 4:46:16 PM   
EmeraldSlave2


Posts: 3645
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: imtempting

I thought it was ok to post other people work aslong as you give credit to those people?

Only if the person ALSO gives you permission and/or you are giving only a small relevant portion of the persons work under the "fair use" laws.

quote:

As for asking if they have permission well how many Heather's wold there be in Atlanta?
So how do you know you talking about the same Heather??

LOL because there's only one Heather who has written a few good essays on the s-type and d-type topic, and she and I emaild back and forth about that particular essay a few times as it was developing.

As it was, she and I talked on the phone this morning and Heather let me know that she had given permission to repost it (though she hadn't really meant "everywhere" and that she thinks Elegant is a very cool person, which is good enough for me!

< Message edited by EmeraldSlave2 -- 10/1/2005 4:49:08 PM >

(in reply to imtempting)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Labels: S-types and D-Types - 10/1/2005 5:04:08 PM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		I have to say, I still agree with happypervert. If "submissive" and "dominant" aren't adequate to describe the world, then "S-type" and "D-type" can't possibly be either. The point is that there are too many shades of gray for a single set of terms to cover--not that the terms we have aren't specific enough. I mean, what do you do with a lifestyle domme who loves to bottom, especially to certain people? I don't think "submissive," "dominant," "S-type," or "D-type" would be meaningful enough to describe her very accurately.

(in reply to Elegant)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Labels: S-types and D-Types - 10/1/2005 7:57:08 PM   
TexasMaam


Posts: 1467
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: offline 		I liked the thread about cars, better.

P type or H type? (Petrol vs Hydrogen).

Let's start a new thread.

Texas Maam

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Labels: S-types and D-Types - 10/1/2005 10:09:39 PM   
EmeraldSlave2


Posts: 3645
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline 		The terms aren't meant to re-define anything, nor are they meant to clarify. Above all they are meant to make typing easier and communication quicker in GENERAL discussion where any "left side of the slash" or "right side of the slash" orientation applies.

So instead of s/s/b/p or sub/slave or submissive/subbie/pet/bottom/property/etc...you just say "s-type" and everyone gets a general idea of who you are referring to.

And by doing this we sidestep all the immediate cries from when someone makes a statement about "slaves" of "well that doesn't apply to me since I'm not a slave" and then of course no one really gets where anyone is coming from and we're likely completely off topic and back to a definitions thread again. Using "s-type" in a discussion where a particular definition of orientation is irrelevant can get everyone on the same page without diverging through overly walked paths.

Discussions of definitions are of course important, and whenever you want to talk about a specific person, or a discussion where orientation really IS relevant, then this no longer applies. But I think applied in the correct context with the right intention, it could help focus discussions greatly.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Labels: S-types and D-Types - 10/1/2005 11:32:50 PM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		That's a little bit like saying that instead of specifying whether we mean elephants or hippos, we should just say "animals," and that would focus the conversation greatly. Boy, that really makes no sense to me. Wouldn't that UNFOCUS the conversation?

Anyway, if people find the s-type/d-type stuff useful, I'm certainly not going to lodge a complaint with the Bureau of Proper BDSM Terminology.

(in reply to EmeraldSlave2)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Labels: S-types and D-Types - 10/2/2005 12:03:53 AM   
Padriag


Posts: 2633
Joined: 3/30/2005
Status: offline 		I can see both sides of it. There have been so many debates about "what is a..." and "this doesn't apply to me because I'm not a...." so I can see the desire to find a way to side step that... to be able to talk about things and include everyone, not exclude some particularl group. But at the same time I'm not sure new terms will necessarily help, part of the problem I've observed as that many of those arguments are with people so busy being an individualist and trying to assert that who they are or what they do is unique that frankly, they can't see past the end of their nose much less the larger picture.

As for what kind of car I would be... Chitty chitty bang bang. You figure out why.

_____________________________

Padriag

A stern discipline pervades all nature, which is a little cruel so that it may be very kind - Edmund Spencer

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Labels: S-types and D-Types - 10/2/2005 12:51:17 AM   
IronBear


Posts: 9008
Joined: 6/19/2005
From: Beenleigh, Qld, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: happypervert

I don't see the point of this. It is nothing more than using a different term for the commonly understood terms of dominant and submissive and this is implied in the names of the types. I suppose there is some nitpicking where these terms could be described as supposedly "better", but in the grand scheme of things that is insignificant compared to the disadvantage of futher cluttering a landscape of definitions that already isn't clear to a lot of folks.

In other words, these new terms just have the potential to confuse others while not clarifying anything, so therefore they are a bad thing.


I’d going to totally disagree here. I see nothing wrong with groups of people using convenient labels to aid in what they are doing or talking about, especially if there is an explanation for each label available. Not once has it been stated that all should adopt the labels. All any one can say definitively is that they don’t agree and will not use said labels. I do have a problem when I perceive some one making what I feel to be an attempt to persuade others to avoid something being used by another person or group. No I am not saying this is the case here, but IMO it comes close.


_____________________________

Iron Bear

Master of Bruin Cottage

http://www.bruincottage.org

Your attitude, words & actions are yours. Take responsibility for them and the consequences they incur.

D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F.

(in reply to happypervert)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Labels: S-types and D-Types - 10/3/2005 5:48:52 AM   
wantinaSireorSir


Posts: 29
Joined: 8/12/2005
Status: offline 		I agree with you

(in reply to Padriag)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> Labels: S-types and D-Types Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.094