|
MasterDarkSadist -> RE: The Unpolitically Correct Lifestyle Definitions (4/1/2009 4:06:14 PM)
|
While I will agree with the OP that most here interchange Master/Dominant/slave/submissive without any thought what so ever, I tend to disagree with that perspective, with regard to my own life and experiences.
For the purposes of the way that I use the titles, there are huge differences, and there are differences that are minute. The reason for the differentiation is necessary to allow for a logical train of thought within a post. Furthermore, I believe that the lines have been purposefully blurred because being submissive or a bottom is somehow less than one who is a slave. This is untrue. Be who you are, and don't think for a second that your value has anything to do with the role that you prefer within the lifestyle. The only thing that it does make a difference in is who you play with/who you are with/etc. That being said, differentiation is necessary and positive for rational discussion, because there are differences worth noting between Masters/Dominants/slaves/submissives/Top/bottom.
I choose not to be politically correct because doing so makes everything grey, when it need not be in order to protect someone's feelings from something that should not offend them in the first place. Kinda like making the title of a car washer into motor vehicle cleanliness professional. It does not change the function of the job, only serves to stroke the ego of the employee.
With all of that in mind, lets get down to the nitty gritty of these titles.
1. Master: One who participates in a M/s style relationship. The power dynamic within this relationship is of total power imbalance.
2. Dominant: One who participates in a D/s style relationship, which has a power imbalance but the submissive being able to retain some power over their own life.
3. slave: one who participates in a M/s style relationship, and willingly participates in a relationship with a total power imbalance.
4. submissive; one who participates in a D/s style relationship, and willingly submits under prearranged terms.
5. Top: one who provides a prearranged, time specific, experience to a bottom.
6. bottom; one who accepts a prearranged, time specific, experience from a Top.
While we may argue about the semantics of what the functional differences between M/s, D/s are, why must we tear those walls down? Why is it positive for the lifestyle for the definitions to be useless. If I say that I am looking for a slave, using the abovementioned definitions as a reference point, how is that bad for a potential partner of mine? What if they are (according to the above definitions) a submissive, but not a slave? What good does it do for me or my potential partner to be unable to decipher this difference beforehand? How is this positive? I won't be satisfied by a submissive, and a submissive would be mentally incapable of dealing with me. Just the same if a slave was talking to a Top. A slave needs, wants, and desires a totally different experience than a Top can (or would want) to provide.
The main difference, as I see it is this; the different terms denote different desired outcomes of a potential relationship, and how they identify as within the lifestyle. Taking away these identifications will only serve to make finding another who could fit with you that much more difficult.
What would happen if I was no longer allowed to identify as a heterosexual male? What would I be? How would a potential mate decide of they wanted to get to know me better, but they were a heterosexual female, yet they could not identify as that either? You would have to ask about specific body parts, which are essentially the same with respect to the sex of the person, every time you wanted to get to know if someone fit you. Even if not all heterosexual females are not a good fit to you, it is one of the most basic requirements of a heterosexual male (what good does it do for a heterosexual male to hit on another heterosexual male?).
My thought is that these core definitions were torn down in order to satisfy someone's desire for inclusion versus percieved exclusion. While placing a label on yourself may seem to be exclusionary, it is actually the most basic way to include yourself within a population with which you fit. Who cares if an auto-shop mechanic goes to a hair salon. Does removing the titles really change what the respective people are capable of doing in the workplace? Or does it make hiring the right person that much more difficult. What happens if you accidentally hire the mechanic to cut hair? Whoops!
|
|
|
|
