mynxkat
Posts: 240
Joined: 5/7/2011 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: leadership527 OK, a few questions: a) Why is this unfortunate? The word had to be deliberately chosen to be shocking. In fact it's my observation that alternative folks like to be shocking. I'd say that the word accomplishes it's purpose admirably. And, as I noted above, the English language does this ALL THE TIME. Why is it so unfortunate in this particular situation? Granted, English is littered with examples of a single word covering multiple, fairly frequently mutually exclusive meanings. The unfortunate aspect comes in when people come to associate the meaning with a single meaning, without giving consideration to other possible meanings. In this case, it could be boiled all the way down to the single word 'victim'. Which implies that the slave referred to in the conversation not only had no choice in the matter, but bitterly resents having BEEN a slave (or is percieved to feel that way)... do I really need to continue in that vein? As far as shocking people goes, shock values wanes very quickly. Take as an example most common curse words. 10, 15, 20 years ago the shock value for even the ones we consider mild was much greater than it is today. Even 'f-bombs' don't garner more than perhaps an affronted look these days, whereas 20 years ago to hear such a word spoken out loud in public was...well, shocking. quote:
b) Which "we" and which "community" do you think ought to coin this new word? Near as I know it's already happening in the form of "Owner/property". But hey, don't let me stop you. Feel free to coin whatever words you want. I didn't have any particular subset of people who practice various branches of what is lumped together under BDSM in mind. Perhaps if I can think of some word that easily conveys the spirit of consensual slavery (yes, it IS oxymoronic when put like that), I'll start using it. And if other people like they'll take up using it... Perhaps it will start with someone else. Either way, that's fundamentally how new words enter our language. I can point out some specific examples, even, if you need them. quote:
c) And finally, the one that just has me bursting out laughing... how in the heck do you figure you're going to get to any commonality on what "most people consider submissive to cover"? What makes you think we even all use the same definition for the word "submissive" or even "submission". I personally happen to think that "submission" is the umbrella term and it covers "everything". When someone says to me they are a "submissive" I don't infer anything from that... not even that they'll obey... not even in limited contexts. I wait to hear what they mean rather than try to invent answers. Did I not state in my first post that you'd get as many different personal definitions of what 'slavery' and 'submissive' are in terms of BDSM as there were people willing to tackle defining them? The only thing that sets a definition of any particular word is people agreeing that 'this word means THIS'. So, to borrow an example, when I use the word 'sailboat', you don't think I'm referring to a furry quadruped with retractile claws. quote:
Fundamentally the problem with sub/slave is that there is no distinction.... there's no magical line in the sand... there's just "stuff that might be commanded and might be obeyed" and in every relationship the commands given and the commands obeyed are going to be vastly different. Then, of course, there's a LARGE contingent that sees it more as a spiritual outlook than any specific set of actions (hence my comment that I don't assume that slaves will obey at all). Strange as it may seem, I do basically agree with you on this point. Until enough people come to a consensus as to what, precisely, defines the terms 'slave' and 'submissive' and what the differences between the two are, there is, for all practical purposes, no real difference.
|