RE: Incorrect representation through terminology

RE: Incorrect representation through terminology (Full Version)

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

Message

Apocalypso -> RE: Incorrect representation through terminology (4/30/2009 6:40:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder I think it's just kinda funny these days that no one seems to know how to use a dictionary. Easier to just make up their own definitions. The problem with that in relation to polyamory is that polyamory actually is a very new, entirely artifical, linguistic construction. It's the very model of a made up definition. That's why this issue arises. There is no single accepted definition of what "polyamory" means. Apart from anything else, the term hasn't been in use long enough to have a commonly accepted popular usage.

DomImus -> RE: Incorrect representation through terminology (4/30/2009 6:41:57 PM)
I can honestly say that what I do and how I feel about what I do has never been impacted by how others define it. I would hope that they do not feel burdened by my opinions of their activities, as well. I would also hope that if I ever get preoccupied by how others define me that someone has the courtesy to shoot me.

catize -> RE: Incorrect representation through terminology (4/30/2009 6:56:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop ~FR~ the problem, as I see it, with the idea of asking people to define how THEY define any given term is that -unless they realize that the person they are speaking to has a different definition of the term - how would they know to ask? GT, experience has taught me to never assume that the other person defines terms the way I do; particularly if they are interested in meeting. I have had many men who present their orientation as sadistic dominant. When I ask for clarification, their answers often reveal vast differences of opinion. I don’t mind playing with someone who calls himself a dominant when to my mind they are a top---as long as I know not to expect to be dominated. I do mind playing with a self described sadist who apologizes for ‘hitting so hard’ when my butt gets a little red (it happened to me !) I don’t presuppose anymore. I ask for definitions of every descriptive word they use.

MzMia -> RE: Incorrect representation through terminology (4/30/2009 8:00:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus I can honestly say that what I do and how I feel about what I do has never been impacted by how others define it. I would hope that they do not feel burdened by my opinions of their activities, as well. I would also hope that if I ever get preoccupied by how others define me that someone has the courtesy to shoot me. This post has me laughing my ass off. I thought about posting about incorrect representations dealing with Female Supremacy, but then I said to hell with that one, I am capable of explaining it on an as needed basis. I don't have the time or energy these days, to make sure everyone understands MY definition of female supremacy, and unless they are my friend or my submissive, I don't give a flying fuck what they think about how I define myself. As many have posted on this thread, many people are always going to think about certain terms in a certain way, no matter how many times you attempt to correct thier incorrect representations about terminology. Many vanilla's would classify most of the activities around here as seriously deviant behavior, and would say most of these activities are sick. [:D]

Padriag -> RE: Incorrect representation through terminology (4/30/2009 8:55:34 PM)
I agree with much of what has already been said, and I've been vocally analytical about this topic before. I especially agree with the points already made about how aggrivating it is constantly seeing basic terminology debated... or how someone new asking a simple sincere question often gets chewed up and spitted out for asking. I am still of the opinion that a lot of the staunchly defended personal definitions stems from people defending labels they've tied up in their own personal identity... so to sugges that a XXX isn't what they believe it to be is to literally threaten their personal self image... and some defend that rabidly. On another note... two of the terms that annoy me the most are submissive and dominant. Ya ever notice how we use them both as adjectives and nouns? Sometimes a submissive is an all inclusive group... including subs, slaves, bottoms, etc. At other times Submissive is a noun referring to a specific role or personality (ie. Submissive instead of Slave). Same with dominants. I've often wished we had better terms, something that left submissive and dominant as purely adjectives. But like all the other terminology debates, I've given up any hope it'll ever improve.

littlewonder -> RE: Incorrect representation through terminology (4/30/2009 9:12:58 PM)
quote: I've often wished we had better terms, something that left submissive and dominant as purely adjectives I rarely will ever call a person a "submissive" or "dominant". I tend to call them a submissive personality or dominant personality.

Padriag -> RE: Incorrect representation through terminology (4/30/2009 9:38:09 PM)
I used to try and use capitalization to distinguish them. That is, when spelled "submissive" I was using as an adjective referring to the inclusive group, and when spelled "Submissive" I was referring to an exclusive subset of that group. Nobody ever seemed to notice, and that only works online anyway (not that it actually seemed to work or make any difference). These days I tend to refer to just about everyone as submissive or dominant, ignoring the subsets most of the time. It doesn't resolve any of the confusion... but then nothing short of spelling out personal meanings ever seems to... so at least it saves effort. [image]http://www.collarchat.com/image/s3.gif[/image] Switches of course are still clearly switches. Isn't ironic one of the least understood roles is probably the most singularly identified. LOL

marie2 -> RE: Incorrect representation through terminology (4/30/2009 11:01:50 PM)
This is why I'd rather just call people bitches, bastards, assholes, and dipshits. No one ever wonders what you mean.

SteelofUtah -> RE: Incorrect representation through terminology (4/30/2009 11:24:34 PM)
Oy what do you mean Dipshit? Steel Sorry Had to be done

SlaveBlutarsky -> RE: Incorrect representation through terminology (4/30/2009 11:51:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DemonKia This is why negotiation gets me hot . .. . . [:D] This actually resonated with me. I've been more active on the board and talking to more people off of it, and just discussing these things in real terms had gotten me incredibly turned on and frustrated. It's not even like these conversations are going to lead anywhere, just friendships developing mainly, but it's still not common for me to discuss these things to the extent I have been, partly for the fact that I get really frustrated about these things. I can completely see how negotiation would be completely hot, not only for the subject matter, but also because in most cases it's going to lead to something more. sigh.

marie2 -> RE: Incorrect representation through terminology (4/30/2009 11:59:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SteelofUtah Oy what do you mean Dipshit? Steel Sorry Had to be done Ha! Don't be a bastard.

HeavansKeeper -> RE: Incorrect representation through terminology (5/1/2009 12:11:10 AM)
Quickly, and more directly in response to Lady Pact's opening point: In the scientific community, it is good form to specify when an operational definition* is being used. But as we often experience, good form (the more modest and innocent little sister of common sense) seems to be a rarity. I try to define the terms I use, which forces my posts to be exceedingly dry. Flaming statements are simply much more plump and juicy. *An operational definition is when terms have a specified meaning. The goal is often to clear up possible ambiguity. Ex: "The room is cool. "Cool" meaning less than 69º Fahrenheit."

breatheasone -> RE: Incorrect representation through terminology (5/1/2009 12:29:16 AM)
~~FR~~ Daddy and i had a lengthy discussion on this... We were using a rating system of 0 - 10. 0 being NO way and 10 being can't live without. What was funny is that it became necessary for Us to make sure we BOTH had the same concept of 0, 1, 2, etc... It was one of those great conversations we both enjoy so much. Sometimes its like mental gymnastics....[sm=pillowfight.gif][sm=duel.gif]

DemonKia -> RE: Incorrect representation through terminology (5/1/2009 1:26:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SlaveBlutarsky This actually resonated with me. I've been more active on the board and talking to more people off of it, and just discussing these things in real terms had gotten me incredibly turned on and frustrated. It's not even like these conversations are going to lead anywhere, just friendships developing mainly, but it's still not common for me to discuss these things to the extent I have been, partly for the fact that I get really frustrated about these things. I can completely see how negotiation would be completely hot, not only for the subject matter, but also because in most cases it's going to lead to something more. sigh. Someone's gonna swoop on you one of these days, you're a keeper, so buck up . .. . [;)] All communication is negotiation, to my mind; it's all just a matter of degree & goal . ... . All this communication we're participating in here is practice for the much more targeted & goal-oriented negotiations we want to have at some future point . ... . &, for me, I tend to learn as much or more from those ostensibly 'dissimilar' to my supposed 'goals' -- for instance, gay men, or male doms . . . . . So I tend to treasure the learning even if it's not specific to my purposes; in the long run it may turn out handy . ... .

LadyPact -> RE: Incorrect representation through terminology (5/1/2009 2:18:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: catize I don’t mind playing with someone who calls himself a dominant when to my mind they are a top---as long as I know not to expect to be dominated. I do mind playing with a self described sadist who apologizes for ‘hitting so hard’ when my butt gets a little red (it happened to me !) Believe Me. This happens from the other way around, too. Only then, the term that one tends to use for themselves is either masochist or pain slut. LOL.

DesFIP -> RE: Incorrect representation through terminology (5/1/2009 4:44:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact It is actually the.dark. who is right. (My best to Darcy.) I did not spell out the word in My comments. Poly does, in fact, mean many. In My own habit of abbreviating it, I may have helped to contribute to the confusion. Had I written the term out as polyamorous, meaning many loves, it might have come across differently. But even saying polyamorous, that you love more than one does not say if all of your lovers love each other. You could be like KOM, where the three of them live together, or you could live with one and see the other at their house, while the two people you love don't interact. Just because you love more than one doesn't mean they love each other. There really are no exact definitions here.

Jeptha -> RE: Incorrect representation through terminology (5/1/2009 10:24:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper Quickly, and more directly in response to Lady Pact's opening point: In the scientific community, it is good form to specify when an operational definition* is being used. ... One useful experience of being on this site is realizing how wildly differently people can interpret the same word. I've done my share of creative interpretation. I've also noted the creative conceptual line-blurring that can happen in real-life relationships... But, reading on this site helps keep the lesson in mind~ If you want to discuss something very specifically, it is a good idea to define your terms as clearly as possible prior to going into the discussion. A PS: One example of this was when President Clinton claimed not to have had sex with his intern - because he'd only had oral sex, no vaginal penetration. It never occurred to me that that wouldn't be considered sex, but then a lot of people I know backed him up in subsequent conversations. It's a wonder that we can communicate at all without rolling out "fine print"-worthy clauses and codicils in quasi-legalese each time.

SlaveBlutarsky -> RE: Incorrect representation through terminology (5/1/2009 2:25:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DemonKia quote: ORIGINAL: SlaveBlutarsky This actually resonated with me. I've been more active on the board and talking to more people off of it, and just discussing these things in real terms had gotten me incredibly turned on and frustrated. It's not even like these conversations are going to lead anywhere, just friendships developing mainly, but it's still not common for me to discuss these things to the extent I have been, partly for the fact that I get really frustrated about these things. I can completely see how negotiation would be completely hot, not only for the subject matter, but also because in most cases it's going to lead to something more. sigh. Someone's gonna swoop on you one of these days, you're a keeper, so buck up . .. . [;)] All communication is negotiation, to my mind; it's all just a matter of degree & goal . ... . All this communication we're participating in here is practice for the much more targeted & goal-oriented negotiations we want to have at some future point . ... . &, for me, I tend to learn as much or more from those ostensibly 'dissimilar' to my supposed 'goals' -- for instance, gay men, or male doms . . . . . So I tend to treasure the learning even if it's not specific to my purposes; in the long run it may turn out handy . ... . Thank you for the kind words, I know I'll find what I'm looking for, it's just frustrating, like I'm looking for Amelia Earhardt riding a Unicorn holdinf the Holy Grail. I agree with both points above. I try and take something away from every communication I have with someone, either on this board in or real life. There's so much that people say that most don't pick up on or don't care about. Communication to me is about learning as much about the world around you, but also figuring out about yourself as much as possible as well.

DemonKia -> RE: Incorrect representation through terminology (5/1/2009 4:50:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SlaveBlutarsky Communication to me is about learning as much about the world around you, but also figuring out about yourself as much as possible as well. There's a school of thought that says that no thought is fully articulated until it's written out . . . . . I've struggled some with that, but I see what they're getting at . ... . . & one of the implications of that thought is that all these people grappling with their communication skills, their social skills, & etc, here on 'teh intrawebs' are actually engaging in rather profound growth processes, no matter what it might look like from out here . . . . . . Ya know, aboard the alien spacecraft, in orbit around the planet, remote & distanced from all the monkey-people, hehehehe . . . . .. [;)]

SlaveBlutarsky -> RE: Incorrect representation through terminology (5/1/2009 7:48:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DemonKia quote: ORIGINAL: SlaveBlutarsky Communication to me is about learning as much about the world around you, but also figuring out about yourself as much as possible as well. There's a school of thought that says that no thought is fully articulated until it's written out . . . . . I've struggled some with that, but I see what they're getting at . ... . . & one of the implications of that thought is that all these people grappling with their communication skills, their social skills, & etc, here on 'teh intrawebs' are actually engaging in rather profound growth processes, no matter what it might look like from out here . . . . . . Ya know, aboard the alien spacecraft, in orbit around the planet, remote & distanced from all the monkey-people, hehehehe . . . . .. [;)] unless profound growth process is describing what's going on in my pants while on the interweb, I don't buy it. Just kidding, I don't do a lot of surfing or posting on sites like this, but I could see how you could learn about yourself in the process. In the last couple of weeks, I've found myself thinking a lot more about different things that I probably wouldn't have otherwise if I hadn't been reading/posting here.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875