RE: Definition

RE: Definition (Full Version)

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

Message

broadline -> RE: Definition (4/18/2006 4:11:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RiotGirl 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? Except Pat(rick, legally) Califia doesn't identify as a she. I've got no problem with other people using whatever convoluted phrases they want to identify themselves, nor with actually, gasp, having conversations with them to figure out how what they are translates in my common language. I've got a problem with other people trying to slap labels on my ass (or any other part) for me. Not your job, not your responsibility, not your right. Mine. If you're confused about something I call myself, think that it doesn't jive with the way with which I purport myself, talk to me. Ask me who the hell I think I am, calling myself a switch when all I've done is bottom and submit. I love to talk, obviously, and I really love to talk about myself. It's been my experience that most human beings are the same way. (I'd agree that submission means something like "deferring to another for a variable period and to a variable extent," but I'd really disagree that it means "subservient." I don't serve as part of my submission.) (Edited 'cause my definition of submission was grammatically incorrect, and wrong even to me.)

ICGsteve -> RE: Definition (4/18/2006 7:38:52 PM)
"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. " from #60 If the entire scene as been scripted in negotiation is there any deferment to another? Are we going to say that scripted scenes are play acting and not real BDSM? That makes a lot of sense to me but then we must deal with the fact that many who consider themselves doms or subs who would fail this definition, they must adopt new identifiers for themselves. Maybe we call them BDSM performance artists?

CrappyDom -> RE: Definition (4/18/2006 8:10:58 PM)
Steve, Try this...since some submissives conduct extensive negotiations prior to submitting, then in that case it might the the submissive who is the one in charge and the Dominant who is submitting to the negotiations conducted prior to the submissive assuming her submissive role... Steve, I suggest you join an email list called Frenzi and pick a fight with Malcom, you two would love each other...

ICGsteve -> RE: Definition (4/18/2006 9:29:53 PM)
CrappyDom: according to Thomas Moore in "Dark Eros: The Imagination of Sadism " it is indeed the submisive who holds the majority of the power. Several bright people here at CM have figured this out on their own as well. I am happy to see that you are are learning something. O wait, you were joking right? Too bad.

IndigoDadesi -> RE: Definition (4/19/2006 11:28:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ICGsteve "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. " from #60 If the entire scene as been scripted in negotiation is there any deferment to another? Are we going to say that scripted scenes are play acting and not real BDSM? That makes a lot of sense to me but then we must deal with the fact that many who consider themselves doms or subs who would fail this definition, they must adopt new identifiers for themselves. Maybe we call them BDSM performance artists? What is fun for one may not be fun for another. If my sub tells me a fantasy he has had and together we acted out that fantasy is that "fake BDSM"? cuz it didnt feel fake at the time.

ICGsteve -> RE: Definition (4/19/2006 10:05:25 PM)
"What is fun for one may not be fun for another. If my sub tells me a fantasy he has had and together we acted out that fantasy is that "fake BDSM"? cuz it didnt feel fake at the time. " The use of the verb "acted" is telling. An actor can play a roll and if they are good at it they can look as if it is real as they are doing it, and to some extent even feel that it is real as it is happening, yet it was all along acting. Yes, I think that a great many people role play BDSM fantasys and no they are in my opinion not involved with BDSM. They are like actors playing monks, not actual monks. Playing a monk is not a fake experiance, but it is not the monk experiance either. I use the monk example on purpose, because for those mining the BDSM the experiance of self discovery is not unlike a monk's experiance.

IndigoDadesi -> RE: Definition (4/19/2006 10:34:36 PM)
Well if youd like I can pull my thesaurus out and find a word more appropriate than "acting". If you think that true BDSMers use practises as a form of self discovery though, I couldnt agree more. I think that is one of the many reason people practise BDSM. Unfortunately it is hard to determine anothers motivation for an activity. Even if one asks one can never be sure if the answer is true. Just as one cannot say "the fish was being agressive" rather we say "the fish displayed such and such behavior which we have defined as agressive". Definitions must be based on observable traits and behaviors.

RiotGirl -> RE: Definition (4/20/2006 3:47:12 AM)
quote: 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... Boy, i am not a girl, i am a woman. Nor am i your girl to call me it as you please. My name is RiotGirl, or Riot. Girl, coming from your mouth with your post, comes off as highly disrespecting. Nor do i appreciate nor will i stand for it. i am frankly not a girl. Top and Dominant are quite easy for me to distinguish between. i've never had any problem defining Any of the catagories we have in the BDSM world. Top, bottom, sub, Dom/Domme, slave, Master/Mistress, switch. You might as well keep standing as there is only one person in this world i listen to, or even obey, nor take instruction from and quite frankly that isnt you. Next time you give me a directive you might want to keep that in mind as best you'll get a mild response stating your directive can go to hell.

RiotGirl -> RE: Definition (4/20/2006 3:52:20 AM)
quote: Except Pat(rick, legally) Califia doesn't identify as a she. I've got no problem with other people using whatever convoluted phrases they want to identify themselves, nor with actually, gasp, having conversations with them to figure out how what they are translates in my common language. I've got a problem with other people trying to slap labels on my ass (or any other part) for me. Not your job, not your responsibility, not your right. Mine. i really dont care what you call yourself. But i would generally assume and try to figure out what you are and i would stand by to find out if i was right or wrong. Though really it wouldnt matter. As your sexuality is your business, what you are is your business, not really something for me to contemplate. But since you did ask a question, you DID ask to be defined.. i did my best. So what, i was wrong. Happens alot. As for getting an attitude. What the hell do you care what i think anyways. Who am i to you? Nobody! My words should be relatively meaningless to you, unless of course you want to put meaning into them. To you i should be nobody, do i affect your life, your happiness? If i fall off a cliff will you care? No, so why should you care about my words? By the way you seem highly sensitve about the subject matter and if you are, you shouldnt of asked in the first place

CrappyDom -> RE: Definition (4/20/2006 8:16:57 AM)
Riotgirl, If you feel my use of "why not" on an internet chat board was too strong for you, I appologize. Rather than attack me for a rather logical abbreviation of your name, a simple correction would have sufficed the first time, unless of course you get off on being "wronged", which is a nonconsensual attempt to wrap me in your drama. As for words being meaningless, I think someone arguing your position would not say such things, unless of course you are just arguing for the sake of being argumentative. I have drawn my own conclusions and will leave you to play with others.

ICGsteve -> RE: Definition (4/20/2006 1:50:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IndigoDadesi Well if you'd like I can pull my thesaurus out and find a word more appropriate than "acting". If you think that true BDSMers use practises as a form of self discovery though, I couldnt agree more. I think that is one of the many reason people practise BDSM. Unfortunately it is hard to determine anothers motivation for an activity. Even if one asks one can never be sure if the answer is true. Just as one cannot say "the fish was being agressive" rather we say "the fish displayed such and such behavior which we have defined as agressive". Definitions must be based on observable traits and behaviors. You are missing the point. Two of the strongest values in the BDSM community are responsiblity and clarity. If we had a functional language with agreed meanings everyone could choose to identify THEMSELVES as best they are able, thus never is it a case of others trying to watch and place labels on you. Those who abide by the communitie's values will agree to do this, and those who won't we know will know more about and may decide to ignore. It is a means to end the majority of the drama and harm that is done by people communicating poorly, as well as a way to shut down (by catching in lies) those who are just playing around and not being honest.

CrappyDom -> RE: Definition (4/20/2006 2:00:32 PM)
Steve, I understand what you want to do and the constructive urge behind it. However, our charming little community has been fighting this fight for at least four decades and probably more. Somehow I don't think we are suddenly going to agree. Have you ever read the attempts to provide broad definitins of even the simplest terms like S&M and dominant that were included in The Topping Book and/or The Bottoming Book?

BitaTruble -> RE: Definition (4/20/2006 2:20:24 PM)
quote: Yes, I think that a great many people role play BDSM fantasys and no they are in my opinion not involved with BDSM. This is much to broad a generalization and really fails to take into account that S/m is an activity involving action. Whether you fantasize about being scaled with a knife, calling yourself a fish and having the fisherman cutting you up, if you engage in it, are actually taking the 'action' of knife play, that is 'real' S/m. You are 'really' bleeding regardless of the motivation. If you fantasize about being tied up by the evil Prince of Egypt and your Top ties up you, the fantasy is that he's actually a prince, not that he didn't tie you up. He did, thus meaning the 'action' of bondage was actually done, and again, that action is 'real' and it's the "B" part of BDSM. Celeste

IndigoDadesi -> RE: Definition (4/20/2006 3:14:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ICGsteve You are missing the point. Two of the strongest values in the BDSM community are responsiblity and clarity. If we had a functional language with agreed meanings everyone could choose to identify THEMSELVES as best they are able, thus never is it a case of others trying to watch and place labels on you. Those who abide by the communitie's values will agree to do this, and those who won't we know will know more about and may decide to ignore. It is a means to end the majority of the drama and harm that is done by people communicating poorly, as well as a way to shut down (by catching in lies) those who are just playing around and not being honest. If Im missing the point then I think you are disagreeing with yourself. I fully agree that a definition should be clear and that we should all agree on it, or at least scoff at the ones who dont agree for their imporper use of the term. My point is simple that the definition needs to be based on something that is not so subjective as motivation and core value. As an example I looked up the definition of "monk" (your example) at Dictionary.com. Ill admit that it is not the best dictionary, but this is just an example anyway. The definition of monk states: A man who is a member of a brotherhood living in a monastery and devoted to a discipline prescribed by his order. Definative actions. Even the statement "devoted to a discipline" adds "prescribed by his order". The definition says nothing about state of mind or spiritual agenda. Infact the definition actually implies that there is room for variation. One orders discipline may differ greatly from anothers. Simply put: If we define our terms based on observable behavior then there is really no excuse for not agreeing on them.

meatcleaver -> RE: Definition (4/20/2006 3:29:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ICGsteve CrappyDom: according to Thomas Moore in "Dark Eros: The Imagination of Sadism " it is indeed the submisive who holds the majority of the power. Several bright people here at CM have figured this out on their own as well. I am happy to see that you are are learning something. O wait, you were joking right? Too bad. This was obvious to me the moment I was introduced to BDSM by a woman who said she was a sub. I was given a long list of things I could and could not do to her which had me asking her where does my domination and her submission come into it? I've never viewed BDSM as anything other than an ersatz experience because for it to be anything else you would have to take SSC out of the equation.

stef -> RE: Definition (4/20/2006 3:34:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom Steve, I suggest you join an email list called Frenzi and pick a fight with Malcom, you two would love each other... Oh god, what a horrifying thought. One Malcolm on a mailing list is enough. Shame on you! ~stef

ICGsteve -> RE: Definition (4/20/2006 3:48:39 PM)
"My point is simple that the definition needs to be based on something that is not so subjective as motivation and core value." Like I said, you miss the point. The definition of who you are is who you identify yourself to be. It is who you believe yourself to be. It is very subjective. If you believe yourself to be a sub for instance you are a sub in your own mind, and this identity will be based on how you live and what you think and what you believe and a whole lot of other stuff. . What motivates you very much plays into who you think you are. The problem is that what you think a sub is is not what anyone else thinks a sub is because nobody has bothered to decide as a group. If we decided what a sub was you could match-up who you are with the available identifiers and pick the one that matches best. The more defined the identifiers and the better that who you are matched with the agreed definition then the better that everyone else will understand who you are. Right now everyone thinks that they know who they are, and no one can disagree because no one has that right, but because we don't have a functional language there is no way for you to describe who you are without using many thousands of words. If we had definitions, it would save a lot of time, confusion, and would delete a lot of problems caused by miscommunication. Nobody is going to identify you for you, which is a point that I know a lot of people don't understand. Defining identifiers does not take away your right to be who you want to be. You don't have the right however to mislead others about who you are, or hide who you are in your relationships with others, so there is not to my knowledge a good justification for demanding that the language be kept impoverished.

CrappyDom -> RE: Definition (4/20/2006 3:54:16 PM)
Steve, If you are up to it, come up with a definition for something you feel there needs to be a definition and let us provide constructive criticism. However, as a warning, I don't look at labels, if the Domme across the tables has trouble meeting my eye and lowers her voice when speaking to me and the submissive next to me doesn't, I know who I am going to be playing with later regardless of labels. Not only that, but I would expect nothing less than for her to pick up her Domme label when she left the next day and continue wearing it proudly.

IndigoDadesi -> RE: Definition (4/20/2006 4:45:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ICGsteve Like I said, you miss the point. The definition of who you are is who you identify yourself to be. It is who you believe yourself to be. It is very subjective. If you believe yourself to be a sub for instance you are a sub in your own mind, and this identity will be based on how you live and what you think and what you believe and a whole lot of other stuff. . What motivates you very much plays into who you think you are. The problem is that what you think a sub is is not what anyone else thinks a sub is because nobody has bothered to decide as a group. If we decided what a sub was you could match-up who you are with the available identifiers and pick the one that matches best. The more defined the identifiers and the better that who you are matched with the agreed definition then the better that everyone else will understand who you are. Right now everyone thinks that they know who they are, and no one can disagree because no one has that right, but because we don't have a functional language there is no way for you to describe who you are without using many thousands of words. If we had definitions, it would save a lot of time, confusion, and would delete a lot of problems caused by miscommunication. Nobody is going to identify you for you, which is a point that I know a lot of people don't understand. Defining identifiers does not take away your right to be who you want to be. You don't have the right however to mislead others about who you are, or hide who you are in your relationships with others, so there is not to my knowledge a good justification for demanding that the language be kept impoverished. So what youre saying is that right now no one can agree on what "submissive" means because different people identify as submissive for different reasons and act according to their own definition of the word? And that we need a solid definition that everyone can agree on because it will make identifying yourself to others easier? Is that right? And if thats right how is that different than what I am saying? Do you think that we should include motivation in the definition? Do you think we should include state of mind? Beliefs? What else? How limiting do you think the definition should be? How broad?

ICGsteve -> RE: Definition (4/20/2006 10:20:21 PM)
I really don't know how I can be more clear. Identity = state of being. BDSM'ers who are really doing it live on the edge, in a state of being that very few humans ever have. As a result we don't have a language that can keep up with who we are, and we need one if BDSM is going to envolve so many people as it does now. Too many people are getting hurt as a rusult of having an inferior language, of not having a language that can match-up with our state of being . This is a problem that we can fix, and choosing not to (or even see the problem it seems) reflects negatively upon our personal charactor and the charactor of the community. The difference I suppose is that you can't get your head out of a language, and rules for that language, which is too weak to handle BDSM. I am saying that we don't have a tenth of the power in our language that we would need to do the BDSM experiance justice, to really learn what we could from it, and this sucks.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.320313E-02