RE: Square pegs and round holes ?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Square pegs and round holes ?

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

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Square pegs and round holes ?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Square pegs and round holes ? - 1/7/2009 7:11:57 AM

NuevaVida

Posts: 6707
Joined: 8/5/2008
Status: offline

Labels can be a great starting point, but I don't think they should be the end-all, be-all. Colouredin made a great point about how once you put a label up, there is a tendency to try to be that label, as opposed to being yourself. Personally speaking, toward the end of my slavery to my former owner, I did just that - I was unhappy yet beat myself up for it, because I should have been able to accomplish what he wanted..."because a slave should do that." This was my own skewed thinking, mind you, and it didn't work well for me.

But it works in all areas of life, doesn't it? When I was a wife, I tried to be a "good wife" (whatever that means!). As a daughter, I tried to fit that bill, too. It goes back to what was said about stereotypes and generalizations, and that we (or at least me, for a time) tend to put that on ourselves and live up to crazy self-imposed expectations.

This doesn't mean I am opposed to slapping labels on things, but I think one should do so carefully and with the understanding that the label is just an outer shell and not reflective of what is inside. I have a file cabinet in my office, for example. It holds files. It also holds other stuff. There's a whole variety of types of information in there, useful for various parts of my life. What is inside is complex, but the outer shell is just that - a body that houses the cool stuff inside, and there's no way of knowing what's in there and what it's comprised of without opening it up and looking through it. Slapping a label on the outside only gives an indication of its overall being, but not of what its content is.

As for "prefers to be..." that wouldn't work for me, personally. I am naturally submissive (yeah I know we hate the qualifier of "naturally") in intimate relationships. I can't help myself. I have tried not to be, but I always go back to that. It is simply part of my make up. So sure, I prefer to be, because it is inherent to who I am. I prefer to be thin and in shape, too, but I'm not!! I prefer to be wealthy, but that's not going to happen any time in the near future, either!

_____________________________

Live Simply. Love Generously. Care Deeply. Speak Kindly.

(in reply to Aneirin)

Post #: 21

RE: Square pegs and round holes ? - 1/7/2009 7:20:54 AM

kiwisub12

Posts: 4742
Joined: 1/11/2006
Status: offline

As far as pegs and holes goes, i prefer the analogy of venn diagrams - a series of circles that overlap to indicate duel (or more) membership in a given group. Therefore you can be submissive, slave and domme/dom (or more).

Not many of us are just one "thing" - we are a mixture of many, usually with one in ascendence. Its convenient to label the thing in ascendence, but disregards the rest of the person. Just as long as people don't set labels in concrete, i have no issue with them.

(in reply to NuevaVida)

Post #: 22

RE: Square pegs and round holes ? - 1/7/2009 7:26:46 AM

pixidustpet

Posts: 857
Joined: 6/4/2008
Status: offline

TheEngineer and i had an interesting talk about labeling the other night, bought on by one of the threads on here. he is definitely dominant...but at the same time enjoys taking care of me. he asked if that was "okay".

um...why wouldnt it be? caring and nurturing is a daddy's job, yes? and so he is. i'm his little girl as well as his submissive, and so if that's how we decide the relationship should go, it does. he doesnt care to indulge in the more extreme behaviors that can go with WIIWD and i'm perfectly fine with that.

labels are good jumping off points for conversation. and communication is how we find out if we're compatible with one another, or if we even mean the same thing by the same word. i can say blue and mean a deep rich cobalt, but someone else says blue and means robin's egg blue. its still the same name...but that isnt the same color.

kitten

(in reply to kiwisub12)

Post #: 23

RE: Square pegs and round holes ? - 1/7/2009 7:32:04 AM

oceanwynds

Posts: 1044
Joined: 8/24/2006
Status: offline

My thing with labels is in some cases they can stifle a person, or make a person take on all the qualities of that label. When I first started exploring my submissiveness, I had many labels attached in my head. If I didn't seek out others in this community and chatrooms, along with Sir's help, I would still be thinking a submissive person is a 'wet rag', no idenity, no life of their own but to serve their Dom. Now I know my attachments to that label are faulty, not all are the same, and we can't be lump into a narrow catagory.

When I had my nervous breakdown at the age of 31, my Dr. didn't discuss my label. His belief was that people tend to absorb it and give up. That was one of the best gifts anyone gave to me. I was diagnosed bipolar, but i never let the title absorb me. At this time, I have been off all my medication for 2 years and am learning to deal with my issues without being medicated. If though I would need to be again, I would. The point though is He never used the label of bipolar on me, so i did not limit myself to the prison walls of that disease.

I am a praticing witch, but even with that i do not put a specific limit on me. I do not follow every idea a witch believes is correct. I am a submissive, but i am not the concept that I held for so long, and fought my own nature. I have plenty to give to the world, besides Sir. I am a spirit expressing through my humanness, and have many traits, but labels can be confusing. I am in a Ds relationship though it would maybe not totally fall into the label of this. Yet, i know i am not the label of Ds and I am not the label of submissive. I use these words though to help communicate with others on this board or friends that live this lifestyle.

(in reply to kiwisub12)

Post #: 24

RE: Square pegs and round holes ? - 1/7/2009 7:35:55 AM

NuevaVida

Posts: 6707
Joined: 8/5/2008
Status: offline

~ Fast Reply ~

Just wanted to add, I do think labels can be a good thing. It can help define for someone what they were unaware of, previously. I mean, I grew up thinking I was a freak of nature (no comments from the peanut gallery, please) for feeling so submissive and fantasizing about being whipped. When I discovered there was a name for this, I was so relieved! When I discovered there was a name for my ADD, OCD, and dyslexia, I was also relieved. The trick was to not rely so much on the label that it becomes your only descriptor, or that you become confined to its definition.

_____________________________

Live Simply. Love Generously. Care Deeply. Speak Kindly.

(in reply to oceanwynds)

Post #: 25

RE: Square pegs and round holes ? - 1/7/2009 8:21:39 AM

Padriag

Posts: 2633
Joined: 3/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

So, back to BDSM and labels, given the analogy of a simple intelligence test of shaped pegs and their respective holes, can this be likened to kink and it's fascination with labels ?

Would it be a step in the right direction to change the rigidly set labels that define our orientation in kink to something else other than the four main titles ?

The fascination with labels, as you put it, is nothing more than a by product of the need people have to try and figure out things. I'd say the majority of people in this lifestyle, particularly those newer, have a need for labels as part of the process of discovery. The ongoing struggle of people trying to figure out what this is all about, how it works, who is whom, and where they themselves fit into the grand scheme of things.

Part of the problems which spawns from this is that these labels are NOT rigidly defined. In fact, there are no fixed definitions... just lots and lots and lots of personal definitions. Naturally and not surprisingly that results in a lot of arguments.

So no, I think what would be helpful is if we did have some clear, fixed broad definitions. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen either.

_____________________________

Padriag

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

(in reply to Aneirin)

Post #: 26

RE: Square pegs and round holes ? - 1/7/2009 8:38:17 AM

IronBear

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

Without reading the replies, I'd have to say that a square peg into a round hole is painfull and hard to do without rounding off the sharp edges of the square peg to make it fit.

In this case rounding off the sharp edges can equate to education of the problem followed by lots of discussions.

Some square pegs just can't be rounded off and are best left alone though.

_____________________________

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 Aneirin)

Post #: 27

RE: Square pegs and round holes ? - 1/7/2009 8:40:51 AM

JustDarkness

Posts: 1461
Joined: 7/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronBear

Without reading the replies, I'd have to say that a square peg into a round hole is painfull and hard to do without rounding off the sharp edges of the square peg to make it fit.

In this case rounding off the sharp edges can equate to education of the problem followed by lots of discussions.

Some square pegs just can't be rounded off and are best left alone though.

if 1 solution doesn't work..rounding the pin..we..go to the second ... we make the hole bigger ;)

< Message edited by JustDarkness -- 1/7/2009 8:41:16 AM >

(in reply to IronBear)

Post #: 28

RE: Square pegs and round holes ? - 1/7/2009 8:53:02 AM

IronBear

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

Double OUCHHH!!!!!!!!!

_____________________________

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 JustDarkness)

Post #: 29

RE: Square pegs and round holes ? - 1/7/2009 9:56:53 AM

ALAstella

Posts: 253
Joined: 12/3/2008
Status: offline

The problem I find isn't so much with people or with labels, but with stereotypes and people assuming that someone's use of a label matches their own comprehension of a label.

Truth is only universal when it's concrete, such as a tree, water, an apple, something that we can touch, feel, see with our own eyes, something which is defined by a label.

The problem appears to be when we're talking about something which is abstract, such as love, domination, submission, where any truth is limited by our own perception of the truth. We have the additional handicap in that English is a language which is not just a language which can be individual, but it is also more a naming or labelling type of language rather than a descriptive language such as Spanish, Portguese, Polish or Russian.

Getting to know the individdual or person behind the label helps you appreciate the label and avoid the stereotype.

(in reply to Aneirin)

Post #: 30

RE: Square pegs and round holes ? - 1/7/2009 11:44:54 AM

bound4more

Posts: 128
Joined: 10/3/2008
Status: offline

I think labels are an introduction, nothing more. They are nothing more or less than categorizing types - for example, there are many many buildings but one needs to know which one to enter for food, which one for books, etc. I think labels assist us in knowing if we're even heading in the right direction. After that, they become useless I think. There are food stores - they are all food stores, but that does not describe what kind of food they contain. Our labels are the same.

I am called a sub/slave - so that can mean many things to different people. But it clearly indicates that my predominant disposition is not dominant, I enjoy the submissive end. How I enjoy it, in what ways all need to be communicated. I think in this sense labels are helpful, but do not define the whole person, just the position.

_____________________________

You can tell who someone really is by how they act

(in reply to Aneirin)

Post #: 31

RE: Square pegs and round holes ? - 1/7/2009 2:32:51 PM

piratecommander

Posts: 895
Joined: 8/20/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

Spurred on by poor Ravenslaveheart's plight the question of, ''mental illness ''. We live in a society of labels, everyone has a label and there are people who seek to label, categorise people into labels, nowhere more so than BDSM it seems. We have Slave, Submissive, Switch and Dominant then further subsets of that, more labels, that we believe are there to define a person in the kinky community.

Now with the mental illness game, that is all about labels, people seek to label and seek labels to perhaps put a definition on themselves for a time, be it life or any variable in between for a variety of reasons. The practitioners who are there to listen and hopefully help are interested in labels, if they can make a label fit, it makes their job easier, but we all know from our young age, a round peg might fit into a square hole and a square peg will fit into a round hole, depending on the sizes of pegs and holes, even then if of the same size each will fit into each if the corners are ignored or in the case of a square peg, the corners are cut off. Like life and people there are no perfect definitions of anything.

So, back to BDSM and labels, given the analogy of a simple intelligence test of shaped pegs and their respective holes, can this be likened to kink and it's fascination with labels ?

Would it be a step in the right direction to change the rigidly set labels that define our orientation in kink to something else other than the four main titles ?

Perhaps keep the titles as an overall guide, but add ' prefers to be ' before the label, so it does not make things so rigid, it would be a better guide for a prospective partner and free those partners to move within their kink. So a dominant perhaps can say prefers to be dominant, but can scratch an itch now and again without fear of having to feel they are not complying with their label and if they are not careful, they could be labelled something else.

Any ideas anyone ?

We have a connection mate , only this week I used the same analagy in the same way in terms of shaped pegs and their respective holes , so it would be wrong of me not to compliment you for starting this thread

Pirate

(in reply to Aneirin)

Post #: 32

RE: Square pegs and round holes ? - 1/7/2009 2:38:36 PM

piratecommander

Posts: 895
Joined: 8/20/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JustDarkness

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronBear

Without reading the replies, I'd have to say that a square peg into a round hole is painfull and hard to do without rounding off the sharp edges of the square peg to make it fit.

In this case rounding off the sharp edges can equate to education of the problem followed by lots of discussions.

Some square pegs just can't be rounded off and are best left alone though.

if 1 solution doesn't work..rounding the pin..we..go to the second ... we make the hole bigger ;)

Sounds like my kind of thinking JD ! (but why is it always the ROUND hole thats portrayed as uncompromising ?

)

Pirate

(in reply to JustDarkness)

Post #: 33

RE: Square pegs and round holes ? - 1/7/2009 6:34:04 PM

CallaFirestormBW

Posts: 3651
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline

quote:

Perhaps keep the titles as an overall guide, but add ' prefers to be ' before the label, so it does not make things so rigid, it would be a better guide for a prospective partner and free those partners to move within their kink. So a dominant perhaps can say prefers to be dominant, but can scratch an itch now and again without fear of having to feel they are not complying with their label and if they are not careful, they could be labelled something else.

Any ideas anyone ?

It's been my experience that, the longer one is involved in something, the more it is that one will realize that the labels that are used to conveniently categorize people or activities may not be a precise fit for that person's individual nature. This is to be expected, and after a while, I think that many people abandon labels for themselves and others except as a very -general- picture of how they inter-related.

Labels are necessary for those individuals who are newly exploring something. Learning the -general-, broad categories of how things inter-relate can help a person find the starting point for hirself that seems most effective/efficient for hir exploration of the concepts. After a while, though, once the first learning curve is surmounted, during the plateau that typically follows, the person will often start to notice that the broad categories fail to capture certain individual deviations. It is how the person deals with those deviations that determines hir level of conceptual flexibility, especially once the 'new' has worn off and xhe becomes truly comfortable with understanding those broad categories.

The individual who is inflexible will feel compelled to try to reshape others to fit into those categories in the manner in which -xhe- perceives them as fitting. The more flexible the individual is, on a conceptual basis, the more able xhe will be to recognize that categorization is really only a way of delineating a limited set of potentials... and it is not descriptive, in most cases, of everyone who ever gravitated towards that box.

In addition, the inflexible person will resolve the dichotomies of categorization and individuality by creating more and more precise 'boxes' in which to put the people and concepts xhe is exposed to. The more flexible individual will allow that most people will flow between a number of categories over time, and will bear characteristics of all of them, without being bound to any of them in particular, and will save hir labeling of others (and hirself) for general ease of communication, rather than as a rigid system that a person MUST fit into in order to be 'real' or obtain validation of hir existence.

_____________________________

***
Said to me recently: "Look, I know you're the "voice of reason"... but dammit, I LIKE being unreasonable!!!!"

"Your mind is more interested in the challenge of becoming than the challenge of doing." Jon Benson, Bodybuilder/Trainer

(in reply to Aneirin)

Post #: 34

RE: Square pegs and round holes ? - 1/8/2009 11:40:02 AM

Jeptha

Posts: 780
Joined: 9/18/2008
From: Portland, Oregon
Status: offline

I think the labels are ok, as long as one realizes that they are just generic, umbrella, catch-all terms.

It's hard to keep that in mind, though; especially when you are searching for something that is out of the mainstream to begin with. It can be easy to slip into the assumption that you are speaking the same language as someone that you've found and that you are hopeful about.

Occasionally new labels, or variations on the old, do come along.

(in reply to Aneirin)

Post #: 35

RE: Square pegs and round holes ? - 1/8/2009 12:03:25 PM

AquaticSub

Posts: 14867
Joined: 12/27/2005
Status: offline

~Fast Reply~

I have long-regarded labels as a convienent shorthand, be it dominant, slave, woman or Redskins fan. They are a needed shorthand as they make communication more effective. They provide some "more likely than not" information but you still need to actually talk to the person to get the accurate information.

_____________________________

Without my dominance you cannot submit. Without your submission I cannot dominate. You are my equal in this, though our roles are different.-Val

It was ok for him to beat me but then he tried to cuddle me! - Me

Member:Clan of the Scarlet O'Hair

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Post #: 36

RE: Square pegs and round holes ? - 1/8/2009 2:26:03 PM

IronBear

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: AquaticSub

~Fast Reply~

I have long-regarded labels as a convienent shorthand, be it dominant, slave, woman or Redskins fan. They are a needed shorthand as they make communication more effective. They provide some "more likely than not" information but you still need to actually talk to the person to get the accurate information.

Here! Here! 'Tis always best to go to the sourtce to get accurate information..

_____________________________

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 AquaticSub)

Post #: 37

RE: Square pegs and round holes ? - 1/8/2009 4:24:32 PM

Sundowner

Posts: 2549
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark
Many people like labels because they feel isolated or fearful.
the.dark.

quote:

ORIGINAL: colouredin
All people are complex and complicated, even the basic labels like man and woman or young and old can be totally misleading.

I think you're both, whislt quite right, on altogether too precise a path (and hey, good to hear that they're both somewhat icy paths - it's shirtsleeves here

).

It's helpful to get guidance on stuff so if you meet someone and they say "I'm an accountant" or "I'm a postman" it gives you a useful heads up on who or what they are. But sheesh - all you've got, and all that's intended, is an indicator. There are so many different accountant roles and the guy, or girl, could be any one of a variety of accountants. Being a postman gives a narrower range, but still with bags of scope for variation.

And have you met a good accountant or a nasty one? And did he actually mean "I'm an accountant now but I used to be a tax inspector and I'm training to be a nurse". All the label does - dominant, submissive, whatever - is give you some intial broad guidance. Discovering the detailed complexity behind that initial indicator is then the fun.

(in reply to RCdc)

Post #: 38

RE: Square pegs and round holes ? - 1/8/2009 7:41:53 PM

IronBear

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sundowner

And have you met a good accountant or a nasty one? And did he actually mean "I'm an accountant now but I used to be a tax inspector and I'm training to be a nurse". All the label does - dominant, submissive, whatever - is give you some intial broad guidance. Discovering the detailed complexity behind that initial indicator is then the fun.

As I have told people repeatedly, you are entitled to ask for proof when someone sets up as something. I see a new accountant or lawyer, I will check them out professionally, criminal suspicions (fraud etc) as well as ask to view their documents (Most have them on their walls here as prescribed by law). I do the same with physicians and surgeons and other health professionals. On some occasikons I'll grill a pilot about his or her training and experience (usually bush pilots or scenic ones. But that's be being an evil bastard. Some new sub/slavbe or Dominant wants to meet me I ring a few folk to see whatthe reputation is like if known but remember my motto in my siggy. Ultimately I will make a final decision based on what I see rather than on what others tell me.

_____________________________

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 Sundowner)

Post #: 39

RE: Square pegs and round holes ? - 1/9/2009 11:27:53 AM

ResidentSadist

Posts: 12580
Joined: 2/11/2007
From: a mean old Daddy, but I like you - Joni Mitchell
Status: offline

I am very empathetic to your topic. There once was a time when a switch was simply considered confused . . . someone that hasn’t evolved to make a preference yet. Like bisexuals that have a history of being shunned by both the gay and straight communities, switches were rejected by both Dominant and subordinate factions of the BDSM community.

Our BDSM community has evolved to use more than four main titles although Collarme.com may not. As I said in my own thread about labels a few days ago, “BDSM isn’t a contest” and our chosen roles are not ranks nor is one role necessarily related to the other. Switching or bottoming has nothing to do with manliness or authority.

I can see your motivations for this post and I feel collarme is once again due for a category upgrade as reflected by the repeated threads about label conflicts. It takes less than 10 minutes for the mods to add additional categories to the forum software. However, the community will have to send a clear signal as to what we want and that hasn’t happened yet. Confusion still abounds and the anti-label coalition here prevails . . . some even suggesting we reduce the categories to only two! At one time collarme.com tried to only use two categories. It sure didn't last long. Eventually Collarme evolved to match 4 of the categories we use to define ourselves in the lifestyle. Given time, I suspect they will catch up and add more.

-Collarme category history-
Oct 01, 2002 Owners & Slaves . . . (only lasted 53 days)
Nov 24, 2002 Tops & Bottoms . . . (only lasted 69 days)
Feb 02, 2003 Submissives & Dominants
Feb 04, 2004 Submissives, Switches, Dominants
Nov 01, 2004 Slaves, Submissives, Switches, Dominants

Even Fetlife and the other alt sites that have more abundant categories still don’t have it completely together yet. Fetlife ignores switches entirely in their profile “looking for” preferences and strangely lists “gay, queer & lesbian” as self-descriptions for sexual preferences. Gay vs queer… what the hell is that all about? Both terms apply interchangeably to homosexual no matter how you look at it.

As our community’s sub groups grow, so do the needs to identify and define them. I do not think we as a community are quite ready to list every aspect of every sub group and I suspect it will be a long time before we see switchmissives and switchominants. However, there are definitive differences between Dominant, subordinate, Top and bottom roles.

Top/bottom Switch
Dom/bottom Switch
sub/Top Switch

That seems to loosely cover all the sado/maso/Dom/sub/Top/bottom/Master/slave roles without listing all 56 variables in order to let people know who’s pitching and who’s catching. When you have a system that clearly identifies masochistic Dominants or sadistic slaves, it seems like a good start in helping people find each other.

Another quirk is that Collarme recognizes submissves and slaves but not their D/s vs M/s counter parts of Masters and Doms? For the life of me I will never understand that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin
...Would it be a step in the right direction to change the rigidly set labels that define our orientation in kink to something else other than the four main titles ?

Any ideas anyone ?

More recent stuff about labels from a different angle here: -=Sub/Slave, Guppy/Shark, Role Mislabeling Fatal, Shame on You=-

_____________________________

-=BDSM Book List=- Reading is Fundamental !!!
I give good thread.

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Post #: 40

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Square pegs and round holes ?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

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

0.110