RE: Definition

RE: Definition (Full Version)

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

Message

ICGsteve -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 4:24:24 PM)
The group decides. They can decide this person is a woman or that she is something else, and then they decide if she/he/other should be included. This person is free to have an opinion, free to plead the case for it, but is not free to demand entry if the group goes the other way. People too outside the norm get frozen out, and that is they way it should be.

CrappyDom -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 5:01:07 PM)
quote: 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. Steve, you might want to look down from your high horse cause all I see is a large cardboard box. Until you have spent some time in a large and diverse real world S&M scene (meaning when we get together to play I can look around the room I am in and without the aid of electronics, see those who are in the same living room I am in), then you have no idea about why many of us despise things like labels and SSC. In my not so humble opinion, it is those who most strongly resist labels who make the most interesting people to engage with on whatever level. In fact, I have found those who cling tightest to labels to be the ones you are so worried about "misleading" people...

ICGsteve -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 5:37:15 PM)
My main concern is that we have a language that is strong enough to communicate who we are online, which we don't. Those who say that we don't because people who scene have no need for it and don't want it have yet to be clear on why this is so, and why it would be harmful to the act of scening to have a functional language. Is your state of being so fluid and mysterious that you don't think that an identifier can be coined? If not that, then exactly what is the problem? " you don't go to clubs so you can't understand" does not work for me, it is either a cop-out or yet more evidence that our language needs improvement.

LadiesBladewing -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 5:57:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RiotGirl Whats the difference between you and God? God doesnt think he's you. This struck me as quite funny/interesting when I read it... so just as a point of levity in this entire discussion about subjective use of language and the peculiarly fickle nature of our communication with one another... in the paradigm in which I teach and understand spirituality, God doesn't -think- that xhe is me... xhe knows xhe is.. and I know that I am hir... so I suppose that, since God/I made up the whole idea of linguistic communication, we intended it to be flexible enough for the masses, yet solid enough to last so that our Shakesperean facet could stay the hand of time with words. In the end, if two individuals speak with one another, and they agree to continue the communication, it must be considered that they must be getting some value from it -- it may turn out that they don't understand one another at all, but at least they obtained an opportunity to broaden their minds and explore a perception through a different facet. Lady Zephyr

Level -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 6:14:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash 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. I think a lot of the resistance is the belief that set definitions would invalidate what they do... but no matter what it's called, one can still do exactly what they did before the title changed. The actions, the lifeblood of the day to day existence is unchanged. Level

RiotGirl -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 7:54:23 PM)
quote: So I guess you're on a "it's bad" kick at the moment. seems like it doesnt it?

RiotGirl -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 8:03:53 PM)
quote: 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? You and Shifted put what i am trying to say so much more eloquently! Thank you for making it clearer. A dog is a dog is a dog. Its not a cat! i agree with what you and a few other ppl said, and honestly there isnt much more to add as if people dont get it.. then uhhhh . Well never mind that! Some really good points made on what the OP was all about! i found the quote hilarious. As well as Shifted's "STOP" heh

RiotGirl -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 8:07:51 PM)
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! simple, she's a lesbian. How hard was that? No one is trying to define a "person" here or hand out labels. Its actual used words. Reaaaaaaaaallly how hard IS that? Cmon now. If you felt comfortable telling me you were a service only transgender sissy slave. i could possibly know what you mean. You know you can actually define a word and then added another defined word to create your own uniquness. you could be a purple mutant cow slave with your thinking. Labels and defined words dont limit. You might just actually figure out what you are A) exploring and B) becoming. And how else are you going to figure out what you are becoming or exploring if you havent any way to define it? What will you tell ppl so they know how unique you are? "i am a purple mutant slave cow" They just might look at you odd = ) and have no clue what you mean

RiotGirl -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 8:13:51 PM)
quote: 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. wouldnt the actual definition be a transexual or a transgender with some other add on?

RiotGirl -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 8:25:36 PM)
quote: see those who are in the same living room I am in), then you have no idea about why many of us despise things like labels and SSC Actually want to see a video i recently did with real SSC ppl, the only electronic being a video camera and uh.. electricity? They dont much care one whit or another. i told them i was a slave. They actually also taught me a new word, bukkake. Though the size and mileage may vary, they say bukkake and EVERYONE knows what it means. To say "i'm a slut who enjoys bukkake" they know excatly what you mean.. they'll of course clarify. Find out how many guys, ect ect ect. Did you know that violet wands - even though they vary (greatly) ppl generally know what they are saying. A violet wand is a violet wand. They've no problem putting defintions out there. And you know it works. When my manager said "violet wand" i said ooooooh helllllllllllllz no DONT Touch Me!" LOL i knew it ment purple orb, electricity. Usually glass and i also learned that each one is variation of the orginal defintion. Can we not do that with Submissive? Each person maybe be a variation of the orginal definition? how hard is that? Oh and LA i think the burger king thread was in sarcasm, but i dont know for sure. Would you like the link now Mr ah ICG?

PaperbagPrincess -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 8:26:35 PM)
i recently heard some rather prominent tv psychologist say in regards to relationships in general , "Do what works, not what is right". This works for me, and if i am going to continue a conversation with someone, i will establish these understandings beforehand, so there is no mix up during. As long as you can still comunitcate and understand what eachother means, is it really neccessary to have a set definition? You end up with Gorean like cliques which disallows and discriminates against others.

CrappyDom -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 9:01:28 PM)
At least for me, the labels I was discussing were not ones related to physical objects, but to the labels people slap on themselve and others in order to either push themselves up or put other down. But like all discussions of this topic over the last 40 years...this one didn't produce any answers either.

RiotGirl -> RE: Definition (4/17/2006 10:57:24 PM)
Of course Crappy - you werent talking about ppl. But if you really try and think about it. It can be very similiar. Yes specific things have definitions Yes specific words can have definitions Why can specific word have an orginal defition? Slave means owned property? And then have variations of that? Just like Dog Just like ice cream Basic definitions of what a word means that we can agree on. Shouldnt be all that hard to find something acceptable. Of course! there can be variations. Just like in Dog Just like in Ice cream Just like violet wands! i dont understand your brain blockage in acceptence of this matter

Dustyn -> RE: Definition (4/18/2006 2:04:37 AM)
Not for a bad pun, but we define the world we live in with the definitions we put to the words we use to define it. White is white, black is black, water is wet and fire burns. Short of someone just being pestiverous, it'd be pretty hard to find someone that doesn't agree with those definitions of reality. The primary problem is figuring out what you are trying to define, then figuring out a way to define it to someone else who might have a different connotation of that word stuck in their brain. One way of looking at how hard it is, in a very simplistic view, can be found in the movie "Mask" when the kid is trying to define colors for the girl that was blind from birth, or shortly thereafter. Cotton was white, a rock fresh out of boiling water was red, ice was blue, so on and so forth. It's a matter of finding a similar context that everyone can agree on before pushing forward witht he abstraction concepts like dirivations and what not like that. Want a good starting place to boggle the mind, try this test. I did it at a munch/lunch group I used to attend shortly after high school and was summarily disliked for a few days because it lead to a couple of verbal, and loud at that, fights. Hand everyone 2 sheets of paper, since handwriting varies in size from person to person, and ask them to define BD/SM in a way to present to others who want to know. 35 people and only 2 of them were even vaguely similiar when I did it.

CrappyDom -> RE: Definition (4/18/2006 7:08:39 AM)
Girl, Since you are clearly much brighter than I and since I have such a crippling brain blockage why not demonstrate your intellectual might by defining for us the quite clear distinction between a Top and a Dominant. I stand prepared to be awed...

ScooterTrash -> RE: Definition (4/18/2006 7:27:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RiotGirl quote: 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. wouldnt the actual definition be a transexual or a transgender with some other add on? Er, uh, huh? Checks...nope, original equipment in place here..lol. I'm assuming CD's situation is the same, but I'll leave it to him to verify..I'm certainly not checking.

IndigoDadesi -> RE: Definition (4/18/2006 11:33:49 AM)
I really could say alot on all the technical mumbo-jumbo being discussed, but really, I just want to get down to the fundamental question: Who are all these people who cant agree on the general definition of the lifestyle terms? I have yet to speak to someone who doesnt think that submissive means one who defers to another of higher power. What words they use to actually say that is chosen based on the vocabulary they grew up with and use in their daily lives, and the specifics are variable but we already discussed that, and decided that "a greyhound dog can be brown or grey or whatever color" So who are these people anyway?

ICGsteve -> RE: Definition (4/18/2006 1:28:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IndigoDadesi I have yet to speak to someone who doesn't think that submissive means one who defers to another of higher power. Plenty of people here don't. To defer to means to give way to, which is close to bending to the will of another. A huge portion if not the majority of those who claim the name submissive believe that the submissive negotiates the submissive role but that the negotiation is as equals. You might get away with saying that there is agreement that the submissive at least plays as though they defer to another, but if you use the words higher or power you no longer would have agreement. So lets go with Submissive: "one who at least pretends to defer to another"- is that the complete definition? Although we may agree that it is a true statement is it the best we can do to define submissive. Do you want to make submissive be one who actually defers to another?-fine with me but we will need to find a new name for many who now go by the name submissive who will no longer be able to use it honestly if we go that way. When you use the word submissive do you have any reason to believe that the person that you are speaking with has the same concept of what a submissive is as you do, even if you pare away all of the most obvious areas of disagreement are you talking about the same thing? Are you sure??Are you beginning to see the problem???

CrappyDom -> RE: Definition (4/18/2006 1:33:24 PM)
Defining dog is an effortless task and one equivent to describing a human. Try breaking it down a bit from there...and the difficulty begins. Try defining what makes a good Christian or a good Catholic, they don't seem to have much luck at it why should we?

IndigoDadesi -> RE: Definition (4/18/2006 3:24:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ICGsteve quote: ORIGINAL: IndigoDadesi I have yet to speak to someone who doesn't think that submissive means one who defers to another of higher power. Plenty of people here don't. To defer to means to give way to, which is close to bending to the will of another. A huge portion if not the majority of those who claim the name submissive believe that the submissive negotiates the submissive role but that the negotiation is as equals. You might get away with saying that there is agreement that the submissive at least plays as though they defer to another, but if you use the words higher or power you no longer would have agreement. So lets go with Submissive: "one who at least pretends to defer to another"- is that the complete definition? Although we may agree that it is a true statement is it the best we can do to define submissive. Do you want to make submissive be one who actually defers to another?-fine with me but we will need to find a new name for many who now go by the name submissive who will no longer be able to use it honestly if we go that way. When you use the word submissive do you have any reason to believe that the person that you are speaking with has the same concept of what a submissive is as you do, even if you pare away all of the most obvious areas of disagreement are you talking about the same thing? Are you sure??Are you beginning to see the problem??? No, I dont see the problem. Each submissive has a different limit and different comfort level and therefore a different extent to which they will defer to anothers will. For some it is a session, for others everyday. I dont think length of time negates title however. I still call myself a student even though Im only in class 8 hours a week. Nor does limits of what one will do negate title. An important part of any relationship is negotiation. If I hadnt negotiated with my own slave I wouldnt really know his likes, dislikes, desires and limits, nor would he know mine. It was through negotiation as equals that we developed a working relationship. Negotiation allowed us to decide how much power each would have both specifically and generally. This means that he and I both know what is and is not expected of us. It allows us to embrace our roles more fully. This does not mean that he gets to defer to me only when it suits him or he feels like "pretending", simply that negotiation of problems can be discussed at designated times as equals. In the case that you talk about above "one who at least pretends to defer to another". We do have a word for them: Poser. I still have yet to meet one. Mostly, if I talk to a submissive who does not agree with my attitude toward dominance it is because we are looking for different things, not because either of us are "pretending" to be something we are not. But again, that is getting into specifics and as we already established a dog is a dog is a dog regardless of color (or in this case, activity). So if I can re-define submissive for you I guess it would now read: one who defers to another for a variable amount of time and to a variable extent.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875