RE: Definition

RE: Definition (Full Version)

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

Message

IndigoDadesi -> RE: Definition (4/21/2006 10:08:55 AM)
Steve, I feel for you man. I dont know what your talking about, but I feel for ya! [;)] Im a pretty literal straight forward kinda person myself. A scientist. You sound like more of a philosopher...in a good way. It sounds like youve gotten quite deeply into lifestyle philosophy. So Ill tell you what: you make up an all encompassing word that IS suitable to define submissive and, if it catches on, Ill start using it too. Other than that, I dont know what to tell ya. Im pretty happy with using the terms we have and clarifying what I mean when my definitions dont match up with someone elses. And, as always, if someone has a better word for it, I tend to adopt that new word into my vocab as well and use the old one for something its more suited for.

Reasonable -> RE: Definition (4/21/2006 10:18:54 AM)
I do look in dictionaries,and they usually give more than one definition of a large percentage of words. Make clear what YOU mean,and try not to worry too much about what others think-we don't all share a common reality,so projecting your thoughts and feelings onto others is usually only an excercise in masochism.[;)]

gooddogbenji -> RE: End of the universe (4/21/2006 10:53:08 AM)
Here's my take on it. Submissive and dominant are relative terms. I can be submissive to one person, and dominant to another, as we all can. Each person lies somewhere on a sliding scale of Dominance/submission. In our everyday lives, we submit and dominate people subconsciously. Who in your group of friends usually decides what the fun plan for the night is? That person may well be the "Dom" of the group. In his absence, someone else decides. And so on. So now, here's what happens when we view Dom and sub in absolute terms. Two subs meet. One is invariably slightly more submissive on the sliding scale than the other. Therefore, if we're speaking in relative terms, one is dominant. However, because he is NOT dominant, he also submits to the submissive submissive. As they both submit to each other, a slow, gradual power vaccuum is created. Since nature abhors a vaccuum, but there is no dominance to fill the void, the ever increasing power of these 2 submissives slowly starts sucking in energy, until slowly but surely the universe collapses. Now, all you word nazis, do you want to be responsible for that??????? Yours, benji

CrappyDom -> RE: Definition (4/21/2006 11:11:21 AM)
Steve, Now I understand you. What you are doing is so far ahead of the rest of humanity and most of us poor schmucks here, that you need a new language to describe it. Wow, will you be doing classes? I mean, I would love to get to your enlightened state. Most of the rest of us are just normal humans, making the same human mistakes that we have been repeating since long before the Greeks made them into a cliche...

MichMasochist -> RE: Definition (4/21/2006 7:17:18 PM)
Ok first of all I haven't read the entire thread. So maybe this has already been said. I think that terms used in BDSM lifestyle should be defined in that context. If not to clarify what it is that is being said within this context. Just to make it easier, so someone doesn't pick up a websters dictionary and trying to use that definition were the same word means something completely different.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Definition (4/21/2006 7:24:42 PM)
I thought we dispatched the whole dictionary nonsense last year. http://www.collarchat.com/m_106416/mpage_1/tm.htm#106416 Funny, I see the same people saying the same things over and over again in THIS thread.

crazypatient -> RE: Definition (4/21/2006 7:42:38 PM)
I dont think I'm actually dominant to anyone except my dog....

Kedikat -> RE: Definition (4/21/2006 8:25:25 PM)
My words are Chameleons Changing colors as they touch you. If I were you. We might know. What we are talking about.

ICGsteve -> RE: Definition (4/21/2006 8:49:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster I thought we dispatched the whole dictionary nonsense last year. http://www.collarchat.com/m_106416/mpage_1/tm.htm#106416 Funny, I see the same people saying the same things over and over again in THIS thread. And just like now the overall response is "I know who I am and what I mean so whats the problem, AND STOP TRYING TO TELL ME HOW TO TALK!" Meanwhile we continue to go a thousand rounds of what is a this and am I a that because the words are left mostly meaningless............What a waste. O'well, maybe next year we will reach critical mass of people who have figured out that there is a problem, that we can do better.

ImpGrrl -> RE: Definition (4/22/2006 9:48:07 AM)
The difference here is, we are talking about human relationships. Which, in and of themselves, are really undefinable. We can only use words that sort of fit and hope to cover it well enough the first time. quote: ORIGINAL: RiotGirl Oh of the many things that has bothered me on this board is everyones right to define things how they choose to define them. What suits them. What they feel it means. Generally my response to "it means what ever you wish it to mean" just has me shake my head and say "i'm a purple elephant" or some such. Personally, i think its retarded. Facts are facts, no two which ways there is about. Define fact? GO look it up in the dictionary. There will be the accepted term of fact. Facts are facts. Words have definitions. Generally, common definitions. Even, ohmygosh, that can travel across languages (granted the word is different.. but hi is hi is hi, no matter how you say it) So no matter how you say hi, the definition of Hi is still the same. Get my point? Arg, and i suppose its abit of a rant, which isnt ment to be! But i just find it absolutely stupid for me to be able to say "i'm a purple elephant" for it to mean that i am a submissive into puppy play with a brown nose and 3 legs. i think we do it to try and steer clear of the all dreaded labels.. oooh labels. i'm a purple elephant. Honestly folks, thats excatly what we do. When we decide its okay to go and define anything any which way we want to. For example the key words Master, Dom, Domme, slave, Mistress, sub, Top, bottom. Purple elephant!! i had a conversation with my father in law, or fiance in law, or as i asked him later (would that be Master in law?) Rather it was a debate. On the word Sorry. He hurt himself and i said "i'm sorry" so of course it got to "you didnt do it" and i'm like i know. lolz his defintion didnt match mine. Hence the confusion. So after debating awhile and him telling me the defintion of sorry was "to take responsiblity, to have done something.. ect" and mine being "to show sympathy ect", no matter which way i put it, he wouldnt relent. So what'd we do. Look in the dictionary. One of the most interesting things he said during the conversation in a round about way was "if you take words and define them how you choose to define them, you might as well be saying Ug." Which i suppose is why the whole define it your way thing makes me shake my head. But until he said it, i wasnt able to stick a finger on it. i just thought it stupid. (no offense) Okay not stupid, illogical. And frankly, it is illogical. Highly. Thats like saying i can post a message saying this: "The dog ate the cat and then the mouse licked the cat, to a purple frog and my goodness my toe ached, so i kicked the heater.." Meaning: i need to scratch my back but i havent anything to scratch it on mmmmmm ug anyone? Guess what folks. Master, Mistress, slave, submissive all of those and almost any other word in the english language has an agreed upon defintion. Go look it up! www.dictionary.com i mean really, this practice that is so excepted on these boards is illogical, highly. Maybe its just the online world - i dunno but try walking out into broad daylight and saying "i'm a purple cow" (or insert your choosen word) with your own defintion and just umm.. watch the expressions on others faces. No, i am not getting into a debate about the defintions of the specific words Master, sub, slave, Mistress, Dom, because i dont have too. i can go look it up = ) i'll leave with you one word to ponder Ug

Lordandmaster -> RE: Definition (4/22/2006 9:51:08 AM)
Yeah, let me know when the Revolution comes. quote: ORIGINAL: ICGsteve O'well, maybe next year we will reach critical mass of people who have figured out that there is a problem, that we can do better.

ImpGrrl -> RE: Definition (4/22/2006 10:00:27 AM)
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? He may have been a lesbian at one time, but he is certainly not anymore.

KittenWithaTwist -> RE: Definition (4/22/2006 10:35:08 AM)
Hm, I take it you didn't study philosophy. The word Mistress, in the dictionary, is the feminine counterpart of Master. However, in common usage, the word "Mistress" usually refers to a woman having an affair with a married man who is not her husband. As in "She is his mistress..." The word "gay" means "happy", but now, in common usage, it means "Someone who is homosexual." Among young people, "gay" may also mean "something that is stupid."

ImpGrrl -> RE: Definition (4/22/2006 10:59:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ICGsteve 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. It's not lack of suitable language that hurts people. It's rigidness when it comes to that language - and inability to see that others may view it dofferently. quote: 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. Why does a language need to be "stronger" to "do BDSM justice"?

KittenWithaTwist -> RE: Definition (4/22/2006 11:02:24 AM)
I don't think Pat Cafia, who is living as a man and is attracted to women would appreciate being called a lesbian in hir current manifestation. As a person who is still struggling to appropriately identify the terms "man" and "woman" in our current society, I can say that it isn't as easy as Man, Woman. Or Lesbian, Gay, Straight, Bisexual. We have transgendered, genderqueer, asexual, man who is taking hormones to become a woman but will never have a sex change, man who is looking into having a sex change and taking hormones to change their apprearance, woman who wears a strap on to penetrate, woman who dresses in drag, man who dresses in drag. Then there's woman/man who is attracted to person who is asexual. There's woman who is attracted to people that are biologically female but dress and behave as men. There's woman who identifies as lesbian but dates transsexual man who takes hormones but has a penis. What sex are these people? Are they a sex? What word that is a dictionary-defined term will you use to describe them? What gender pronoun will you use to describe this person who is not a "him" or a "her"? How far can your words really take you? If you can figure this out, let me know. Because I cannot.

ICGsteve -> RE: Definition (4/22/2006 5:54:08 PM)
"The difference here is, we are talking about human relationships" #88 Wrong, we are talking about identity, and if you know who you are but can not communicate this efficiently and correctly to another person than your language is failing you. "Why does a language need to be "stronger" to "do BDSM justice"? " #94 Stronger language is by definition louder or more abrasive. I said more powerfull which means is more able to communicate that which is being intended to be communicated. I said this because language can not currently communicate the experience. There are lots of books and such on how to do this or that in BDSM, about negotiations and boundaries, but next to nothing from one who has done it about what it is like to be a slave or master or whatever. Why? there can be only one explanation- whenever anyone sits and tries to do it they find out they cant put it into words. The language does not support the BDSM experience. You can go to a demonstration and get some sense of it, but still you can't put it into words. Not being able to put human experience into words has all of the negative results that it always has. Humans grew overall when we learned to talk, and we did it again when we developed the written language. Not being able to write and talk about the BDSM experience holds us all back because we can not learn well from those who have gone before. Every individual needs to reinvent the wheel for themselves. There is a reason why most people think it is better to learn about everything that has been done already and try to build on it. BDSM has gone the other way, without even knowing it.

foxnotinsox -> RE: Definition (4/22/2006 6:26:36 PM)
Definitions, like labels, are just models of the true "thing" .. and NOT the thing itself. Using words (which are unidimensional) to describe states of being (which are multi-dimensional) .. well, they are lacking in some way or another. Add to this the myriad definitions of any word, and the evolution of common usage of a word ("fetish" seems to come to mind) .. and I find that words oftentimes are inadequate. Make the language stronger? heheh .. gosh! I can see that there is going to be peace and harmony once we ALL agree upon which words to use and how to use them properly <snickers> I take what applies, leave the rest .. and put my own spin on things. Frankly .. why should I put myself in somebody else's box? Ug =]

BitaTruble -> RE: Definition (4/22/2006 7:10:40 PM)
quote: . I said this because language can not currently communicate the experience. There are lots of books and such on how to do this or that in BDSM, about negotiations and boundaries, but next to nothing from one who has done it about what it is like to be a slave or master or whatever. Why? there can be only one explanation- whenever anyone sits and tries to do it they find out they cant put it into words. The language does not support the BDSM experience. The language supports it quite well. It's the ability of the individual which is sometimes lacking. Poets abound. People with the ability to paint pictures in words which speak to specific subjects. Not everyone can write a symphony and it's not because the notes aren't available. They are, but the masters can make the combination of those notes speak volumes... such that to listen touches emotions which bring tears to your eyes. I appreciate the artists among us. I try to emulate such art and, on rare occasions, believe I succeed in that endeavor. Sometimes I fail the language, but the language does not fail me. Celeste

IndigoDadesi -> RE: Definition (4/23/2006 9:28:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ICGsteve There are lots of books and such on how to do this or that in BDSM, about negotiations and boundaries, but next to nothing from one who has done it about what it is like to be a slave or master or whatever. Why? there can be only one explanation- whenever anyone sits and tries to do it they find out they cant put it into words...You can go to a demonstration and get some sense of it, but still you can't put it into words. “If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.” --Louis Armstrong

RiotGirl -> RE: End of the universe (4/24/2006 6:27:15 AM)
quote: Since nature abhors a vaccuum, but there is no dominance to fill the void, the ever increasing power of these 2 submissives slowly starts sucking in energy, until slowly but surely the universe collapses. Now, all you word nazis, do you want to be responsible for that??????? Yours, benji Sure sounds like fun, when can we begin?

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875