RE: Definition (Full Version)

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



Message

RiotGirl -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 12:06:49 AM)

Actually, i think i just learned something.  You all are saying there are too many different definitions of a word to set a standard for what a word defines as?  Am i correct?

i assume i am.. (yes i could be making an ass out of myself) 

So could you please, everyone of you, go back through your post and define what each and ever single word you used means.  Because at this moment, if what you say is true, i have absolutelty no clue as to what any of you have said. 

Which definition of definition are we using? 
which definition of the word 'the'?
word?
Best?
a?
just?
regularity?
what?
that?
go?
labels?
mock?
arrogant?
two?
cents?
my?

please be so kind as to define every word in your posts.  As at the moment, if what you all are saying is true, i have absolutely no clue what you mean.

Unless of course, you all are actually agreeing that there is a standard for the definition of a word? (but of course not, as thats not really possible and to do so would make one lolz narrowminded, ect)




Proprietrix -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 6:10:43 AM)

Speaking from a sociological POV...

I spent many years studying and focusing on subcultures. I've observed them overtly and covertly. I've researched them. I've joined them. I've written essays about them. Hell, I've even taught classes about them.
But I have
 *NEVER*
seen, observed, been part of, heard of, or witnessed,
ANY other subculture,
ANYWHERE
that didn't have a mutually understood jargon that was shared by ALL members...

until BDSM.


My personal opinion is that the almighty "B-D-S-M" is way too large, way too encompassing, way too broad, and because of those factors, it's "members", as a whole, will never feel the unity, never have their own shared lingo, and never be in agreement, the way other subcultures are.



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 6:53:03 AM)

Riotgirl you did this essay with the same "Burger King theme" over a year ago.  Since then you've changed your mind back and forth SEVERAL times on whether you consider it good for people to do/define as they like, or bad.

So I guess you're on a "it's bad" kick at the moment.

Language and self-identification just doensn't work like that.  Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.  They are ever-changing, and do not dictate usage.  Communication is a dynamic, alive and morphing constantly.  Language simply doesn't work like a dictionary does.



ScooterTrash -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 7:07:35 AM)

I agree with both RiotGirl and Proprietrix completely. If we would simply back off some and not try to be so damned specific, we could actually get to the point of a specific word. Like RiotGirl says (I think), it's a dog, period it, who cares what kind or if you do, then drill down and get more detail. But Proprietrix's point is very valid, it seem that we as a subculture simply don't want to settle on that, we seem to think we can (or have to) narrow it down to a fine focus. Yes, it is us as a whole who seem to be the hurdle.
 
As an example, I drag raced for years. If someone told me they were getting a blower, I didn't envision a fan, I didn't envision a cute sub with an oral fetish, I envisioned a GMC 8-71 perched on top of a race engine. IF, I wanted details I asked for them. Might end up that they really were buying a Turbocharger and were simply misapplying the term "blower"....if I mentioned that they didn't get all defensive and try to reason with me that the two did basically the same thing, they more likely than not said "OH", I see the difference, OK, I'm getting a Turbo. By the same token, if they had told me they were getting a Turbo, I would not have thought they were getting a Turbohydromatic transmission, the "COMMON" lingo in those circles takes precedence.
 
That is where we are losing the battle, for some uncanny reason too many people think that the uttering of a specific term HAS to encompass ALL the possibilities. To that I say no it doesn't, it simply has to be the most widely accepted definition and you can squeeze out the little details later.  



ScooterTrash -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 7:20:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

Riotgirl you did this essay with the same "Burger King theme" over a year ago.  Since then you've changed your mind back and forth SEVERAL times on whether you consider it good for people to do/define as they like, or bad.

I am suspecting that she, as many of us, are getting increasingly frustrated with the "fluid" definitions and would like to be able to know what someone is thinking when they use a term or word in a sentence. No offense directly at you LA, but all of us are not that concerned with being politically correct, we prefer to be able to carry on an intelligent conversation without having to play 20 questions to figure out for sure if we are on the right topic. I agree and LAM if he was here would be quick to point out, that dictionaries, or whatever source you decide to use, for the most part report what is the "accepted" common usuage of the word, at the time. If there are variations it will report them as well, but the first one on the list is generally the most common usage. Right now we don't have to be concerned with the "ever changing" phenomina, we never settled on a definition in the first place. If we would at least do that much, pick one to start, I wouldn't have an issue with it evolving.



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 7:27:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash
No offense directly at you LA, but all of us are not that concerned with being politically correct, we prefer to be able to carry on an intelligent conversation without having to play 20 questions to figure out for sure if we are on the right topic.

This is the second time someone in your family has mentioned political correctness.
Do I give off a vibe of doing things based on fear of being or not being PC???  I don't think so.

Oddly enough, I and many people on here often have intelligent conversations without this grand prescriptive or generalized system in place. 

My views on this have nothing to do with PC, but simply an understanding of how language actually works, and a practical appreciation of that.

Would some standard codex help?  In some ways it sure would.  But it's not going to happen- you're trying to define internal senses of relationship position.  And that just can't be done in any universal sense. 

But I think we manage pretty well with the tools we're given most of the time.  We all get frustrated by it occasionally, but I don't think it has anything to do with PC and everything to do with simply understanding the vastness of communication and the complexity of internal states of being.
 
 



ShiftedJewel -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 7:46:47 AM)

Stop!!
 
 
 
quote:

I am sorry, but words themselves are subjective. No single word will always mean the same thing to each and every individual. To say that any single word has an agreed upon definition is extremely narrow-minded.
 
Ok, call me narrowminded. There are most sincerely words that have agreed upon definitions (see top of page) and it is very possible that there CAN be agreed upon definitions for many more words... the issue isn't the words themselves, it's the people refusing to look beyond their own narrow little definition of particular words.
 
I think Invictus may have stumbled on to something here. Lets do the same thing with the words "slave", or "submissive" or "dominant"... oh, oh... even better, lets do the same thing with the words "top" and "bottom".
 
As he made all to clear... the word "go" implies some sort of activity or action... that could be the beginning of an agreed upon definition. Then you throw some other words into the mix and the definition takes on a clearer definition of that particular variation, add a few more words and it offers up even more clarity... is anyone catching on here?
 
Take the word "slave"... a very broad difinition would be "owned property"... now add another word here... "sex slave"... ok, that clears it up a little, that person is probably an owned slave that is used mainly for sexual gratification.. lets throw in another word... "female"... even more clarity, a female sex slave.
 
Granted there are no words whose definitions will fit everyone... but there are words that a clearer definition can be built upon so that each individual may define themselves in a manor that most will understand.
 
At this particular time if someone tells me they are a slave my first response is to ask them what that means? A slave to fashion? A slave to money? A sex slave? A slave to good ole Uncle Sam? What is it they are saying?
 
How many different ways do people need to hear it explained? A dog is a dog... no matter what the breed, a cat is a cat, again, no matter what the breed. A slave is a slave... as in "owned property" no matter what other words they choose to put in there to present a clearer definition of their own personal orientation. (that should give me a reason for owning a flame retardent suit) No one is saying that there should be words that are all encompassing of each orientation, we are simply saying there should be certain words that can be used as a foundation on which to build a more clarifing personal definition of each individual.



CrappyDom -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 7:50:07 AM)

You guys want to play the definition game, try writing a definition for "woman"

As in a "woman" only group.

You can't understand the complexity and diversity of what make up a word till you live in SF!

I bet a box of stale doughnuts I can poke holes in anyones definition...anyone up for the challenge?



ScooterTrash -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 8:05:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

I bet a box of stale doughnuts I can poke holes in anyones definition...anyone up for the challenge?
Sure, no problem CD....it's a box of donuts that I wouldn't want to eat because they are stale...end of need for understanding. I don't care if they have holes, or are jelly filled or glazed. Exactly the point some are trying to make...you don't always need the specific details, a broad term telling me it's some sort of pastry that isn't fresh is enough.
 
As for the Woman thing in SF, I understand what you mean, but still, my first impression is going to be someone that was born female at birth. Could I be wrong, or more accurately, not 100% right, you bet, but it's a starting point. Perhaps depending on the area, yes, I might want to drill down and get a little more detail..lol.



ScooterTrash -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 8:12:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

This is the second time someone in your family has mentioned political correctness.
Do I give off a vibe of doing things based on fear of being or not being PC???  I don't think so.

 
  Hmmm, sounds like that to me usually. Perhaps it's "my" definition of politically correct. That's somewhat tongue in cheek LA, but see the issue?



CrappyDom -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 8:23:42 AM)

Scooter,

Sadly, I think you have missed the whole point of S&M.  The goal is to explore yourself, to find your own way.  That is why labels are of very limited usefulness at their best.  For those who want and need structure, create it, but don't try and wrap everyone else in it.

As an example.  Pat Califia was once a biological woman, who now lives as a man, takes testosterone, and may even be post surgical and loves women.  Define that!

While I am sure you can create a definition that you like, I am sure Pat would disagree with whatever you came up with.  Same goes for me, I could come up with a definition for you and I am pretty sure you would disagree with it as well.



ICGsteve -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 8:35:45 AM)

I have already spoken on this subject in other threads, so Riotgirl you know that I agree with you. A couple of things:

The dictionary alone will not do. Words change meaning over time as the usage changes, and new movements in human behavior require new vocabulary (words), so the BDSM community will need to alter some definitions of words that already exists and make new words to suit our needs. This does not any anyway explain why this has not been done this far into the popularity of BDSM. Obviously there is resistance to having the language to enable clear communication. That some people refer to language as "labels" betrays their unwillingness to be pinned down. These people should be ignored in my opinion because I don't think that anyone has a right to be misleading to others. They can mislead themselves all they want but that is where their rights to do so end. A second group that resists effective language is the predators as someone else has already pointed out. This reality  in and of itself should be good enough for everyone else  to start to agree to meanings of words. The third reason for resistance is that a lot of people currently in the community are not serious about it, they are playing around for kicks. The thrill seekers have no desire to put any actual work (or much thought)  into BDSM. Personally I think BDSM is important, and it has the potential to be dangerous, so I am perfectly happy if everyone who is not willing to put work or thought into it goes away. Long term these people are a liabilty to the lifestyle.

The best solution is for some group or website to over time work on this, put together a language for our lifestyle. When basic terms become more or less agreed to someone writes it up, and we give it a name. From that point on anyone who wishes could say up front that they use this new standard when they speak, just as some now say that they use SSC and everyone knows right away how the speaker scenes. Then everyone can choose to spend their time and energy communicating with people who have adopted the new standard, or they could deal with the rest knowing that they will need to spend hours "communicating" with the others trying to find out who they are because the others are not willing to communicate clearly. You know what will happen- those who refuse to adopt the new standard will find themselves out in the cold, they get left behind because most people are not going to take  time for someone who purposefully wastes other people time. And the Predators, they will lie of course but their intended victims will quickly know that they have been lied to.  



ScooterTrash -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 8:44:10 AM)

CD, we have to stop meeting like this...lol.
quote:

As an example.  Pat Califia was once a biological woman, who now lives as a man, takes testosterone, and may even be post surgical and loves women.  Define that!

I understand what you are saying and yes, or perhaps no, Pat would not fall into that tidy classification of "Woman" (or "man?") that I envision. Certainly to her, he, whatever, they would be defining themselves using the terms available that they were comfortable with. I do think this is the extreme of the spectrum, but I agree in principle that no, you can't always fit something in that box, particularly in BDSM, but only if you are trying to be terribly specific. I don't know so much if it's the definition that "I" like so much that is the issue as it would be the definition that "they" like that muddys the water, because technically, in the strictest sense, Pat would not be a woman. BUT, if there was an accepted broad (no pun intended) definition that was based soley on physical characteristics...I would just have to accept that they were a woman (or man) and if I wanted to know more...guess I better ask.
 
As for a definition of me...lol, let's not go there and I'll afford the same courtesy, I'm sure we will both be happier...lmao.



ICGsteve -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 9:02:31 AM)

"As an example.  Pat Califia was once a biological woman, who now lives as a man, takes testosterone, and may even be post surgical and loves women.  Define that"

We are already in the process. Over the last ten years it has become the norm to see the possiblities outside of man or woman, and to create the langauge to talk about it. We already have tranny, pre-surgical tranny, transgender, crossdresser, ect. Adding words, subdividing definitions is not a problem. Anyone who thinks that a person must be either a man or a woman is at least a decade behind the times.



ownedgirlie -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 9:10:26 AM)

Is it just me, or is anyone else (between this thread and the "true or false" thread), finding it amazing that we are having a conversation about the words we should have in a conversation?

Maybe it's lack of sleep, i don't know...but you all are twisting my brain.  i'll reply to someone the way i understand them.  If they see i have misunderstood, they correct it.  As a communicator, it is my responsibility to try to get my message across, the way i intended it.  If someone misunderstands something i say and i notice that, i will clarify.  If i don't understand something someone said, i will ask.  If i think i understand it, then i have no reason to ask, because as far as i know, i have understood.

i actually thought RiotGirl's post on defining every single word was hysterical.  Seems we are coming to that. 



Tapestry -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 10:01:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaMalinche

I am not so sure if it is the definitions that are not agreed upon, or the way we choose to live out those definitions that is the issue.

Just my two cents.

Best,

LaMalinche




Not trying to prolong this debate, nor do I think this will be the last word on the topic, but I do think this (the third post of the thread) gets to the heart of the situation.  We don't necessarily disagree on the meaning of the word, rather, we all have different ways of living out that meaning in our lives.
So maybe we can let go of making our own way the "right" way, and just go out and live.



ICGsteve -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 10:11:27 AM)

"Not trying to prolong this debate, nor do I think this will be the last word on the topic, but I do think this (the third post of the thread) gets to the heart of the situation.  We don't necessarily disagree on the meaning of the word, rather, we all have different ways of living out that meaning in our lives.
So maybe we can let go of making our own way the "right" way, and just go out and live. "

Because you are right back to words mean whatever the person using them wants them to mean, which is the same thing as nothing at all.



Ceyx -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 11:50:27 AM)

To the extent that words are useful or evocative, those using them must broadly agree on their meaning—whether we’re talking about a language group, a culture, or a subculture.  There’s nothing keeping you from defining a word any way you like—for you, ‘elephant’ might mean ‘blender’—but unless there’s someone else who shares your understanding of the word ‘elephant,’ you’re never going to be able to communicate.  So yes, words by their nature must mean something specific to some group of people.  Thus far, right on RiotGirl.  

From there, definition becomes a question of the capacity and specificity of the word, and the size and cohesion of the subculture in which it circulates.  My crappy little Webster's New World Dictionary defines ‘dominant’—an adjective, by the way, only members of a certain subculture would use it as a noun—as ‘ruling; prevailing.’  So far so good; no one who speaks English would argue that ‘dominant’ means ‘radish.’  If this is the level of linguistic flexibility that you’re concerned about, then I’m right with you.  

The problem is that it doesn’t go very far.  Ruling over whom or what?  Prevailing how?  People in these forums don’t use the word ‘dominant’ in such a general way, in which it would equally apply to a king or to a winning football team.  So you narrow the definition somewhat.  At a dash, we can make it a noun, and say that ‘a dominant’ is ‘one who exerts control over another person.’  

 I don’t think you’ll have lost anyone in the ‘BDSM community’ by that narrowing of the definition, but it’s still not a very descriptive term.  What kind of control?  How is it exercised?  And from here things get perilous.  Is a dominant one who exerts sexual control?  Yes for many, but then again, no for some.  Does he or she exert control through the use of pain?  Again, yes for many… but not for everyone.   As words become more descriptive and useful, the subculture to which they apply narrows accordingly.  

You could conceivably define ‘dominant’ as ‘a male who exerts control over a woman, in a sexual situation, through the use of pain inflicted by a single-tailed whip, for the purpose of mutual arousal and sensual gratification.’  As a definition, this provides a clear picture to the mind.  It also doesn’t apply to many people who would consider themselves to be part of the ‘BDSM community.’  

My concern with the definition of highly charged words is that to the extent that they become more specific and evocative, they also become more exclusive.  People need to be able to communicate, certainly, but it’s important that usage be attuned to the capaciousness or openness of the community that one is trying to nurture.  Define too generally, and your words won’t be very useful, granted.  But by the same token, define too specifically, and your subculture narrows.  Or fractures.   



enthralled -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 2:25:29 PM)

...... goes back to the old phrase- We hear what we want to hear.


Respectfully,
enthralled



CrappyDom -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 4:07:12 PM)

Steve,

Before you take someone to task for being 10 years behind the time, take the time to read the thread in its entirety.  I spoke of defining "woman" in relation to a group.

As in only women are allowed to attend the "Lesbian women support group".  Trust me, that group, if located in a place life SF will have a running controversy of what the seemingly simple definition of a "lesbian woman" is.  Pat would say she isn't one, some would argue she is.  How about a pre op or even a post op who is attracted to women?

Trust me, I might be a prick but I am a 21st century one.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875