The D/s nomenclature is in need of serious updating

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

The D/s nomenclature is in need of serious updating

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> The D/s nomenclature is in need of serious updating

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

The D/s nomenclature is in need of serious updating - 4/16/2013 5:21:22 PM

SeverinVim

Posts: 69
Joined: 9/6/2011
Status: offline

1. Dominant

2. Switch

3. Submissive

This probably sounds obnoxious, but I think that women with major self-esteem issues should not be encouraged to hold themselves out as "Dommes." There should be another label for them, like "women interested in dominating men," or something to that effect.

It would be like me saying that I'm a "Dominant Male" if I ever feel the need to dominate a woman. The title of "Dominant Male" just wouldn't be true to my personality. Sometimes I may fantasize about dominating a woman, but that doesn't make me a "Dominant." I will still have a submissive personality.

Lots of submissive women are interested in dominating men, and a lot of men (and women) enjoy this. But there should be more truth in advertising. For example, if I know that it is a submissive woman looking to dominate me, I will approach the interaction much differently.

The difference? Submissive people (myself included) crave attention; we need a LOT of care. What do Dominants get in return? The control. Dominants generally crave the CONTROL. Yes, I'm aware that these are broad generalizations, but there is a lot of truth to them.

Incidentally the term "switch" doesn't exactly apply, either. Why? "Switch" implies that the person is capable of being "Dominant" and "Submissive." A lot of submissive people (myself included) are only capable of being one way, even when we "dominate" another person. In other words, we are dominating as a "submissive" would, not as a "Dominant" would (which is what a switch would be doing when he/she dominates another person).

Anyway, it may all sound rather confusing, but when you really think about it, it makes perfect sense.

People should take the time to figure out what they really are before advertising on these pages.

< Message edited by SeverinVim -- 4/16/2013 5:27:28 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: The D/s nomenclature is in need of serious updating - 4/16/2013 5:27:53 PM

breagha

Posts: 380
Joined: 7/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeverinVim

Lots of submissive women are interested in dominating men, and a lot of men (and women) enjoy this. But there should be more truth in advertising. For example, if I know that it is a submissive woman looking to dominate me, I will approach the interaction much differently.

The difference? Submissive people (myself included) crave attention; we need a LOT of care. What do Dominants get in return? The control. Dominants generally crave the CONTROL. Yes, I'm aware that these are broad generalizations, but there is a lot of truth to them.

Honestly... i'm not really sure what you mean here. i don't know lots of submissive women that want to dominate men. if a woman wants to be dominant... doesn't that make her dominant and NOT submissive? or it makes her a switch? i also disagree that submissive people crave attention and need a LOT of care. i'm a grown woman. i can care for myself ( and my child ). do i want his attention? yes. sometimes i do crave him. it isn't a 24/7 thing though. if i spent all day craving attention and needing someone to care for me... i would never get anything done.

_____________________________

"Consumed with memories that preceded today; given a chance to bereave life that's slipping away"

(in reply to SeverinVim)

Post #: 2

RE: The D/s nomenclature is in need of serious updating - 4/16/2013 5:32:12 PM

OsideGirl

Posts: 14441
Joined: 7/1/2005
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeverinVim

This probably sounds obnoxious, but I think that women with major self-esteem issues should not be encouraged to hold themselves out as "Dommes." There should be another label for them, like "women interested in dominating men," or something to that effect.

So, you think men with issues don't do the same damned thing?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeverinVim

Lots of submissive women are interested in dominating men, and a lot of men (and women) enjoy this. But there should be more truth in advertising. For example, if I know that it is a submissive woman looking to dominate me, I will approach the interaction much differently.

You mean like guys who are switches answering people looking for a Dominant man? Or do you mean like guys that advertise they're a switch when they're really a sub because they think it increases the chances of getting laid?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeverinVim

People should take the time to figure out what they really are before advertising on these pages.

And people should really not assume that everything gets handed to them, sometimes it takes effort and time to be invested to eventually get what you want.

But, anyway.....thanks for lecturing everyone in the forums before even figuring out that most of us rarely go on the other side.

< Message edited by OsideGirl -- 4/16/2013 5:33:30 PM >

_____________________________

Give a girl the right shoes and she will conquer the world. ~ Marilyn Monroe

The Accelerated Velocity of Terminological Inexactitude

(in reply to SeverinVim)

Post #: 3

RE: The D/s nomenclature is in need of serious updating - 4/16/2013 5:35:26 PM

SeverinVim

Posts: 69
Joined: 9/6/2011
Status: offline

I think you're missing my first point, honestly. And, with respect to the second, "craving attention" doesn't mean that it's a 24/7 thing. I'm a submissive male, I crave attention, but I'm an introvert and I need a LOT of alone time, too. These two needs are not mutually exclusive.

(in reply to breagha)

Post #: 4

RE: The D/s nomenclature is in need of serious updating - 4/16/2013 5:35:57 PM

LadyPact

Posts: 32566
Status: offline

While I tend to agree that it would be nice for the site to include a couple of additional terms as far as labels go, I figure that those who feel limited by the available boxes to check can designate if the Dominant or submissive description doesn't really fit them in the profile text. The terms top and bottom have been around for a very long time and those are always available for those who don't really want control, authority, etc outside of the context of a scene. A good example of this is "The Topping Book" and "The Bottoming Book" which have been in publication for several years.

I do have to disagree with your viewpoint on the definition of switch. While it can mean a person who can be in relationships where they can take the submissive role or the Dominant role, it can also mean a top/bottom switch. In other words a person who likes giving sensations during a scene and may enjoy receiving sensations at another time. Many people who are play only labels themselves as a switch and it has nothing to do with relationship status.

_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to SeverinVim)

Post #: 5

RE: The D/s nomenclature is in need of serious updating - 4/16/2013 5:38:03 PM

HisPet21

Posts: 395
Status: offline

Okay, so I am confused by your post, but the terms you may be looking for are "top" and "bottom." A submissive person, for example, can top someone else (i.e. play a dominant role) within the confines of a pre-agreed upon scene or play session. Similarly, dominant personalities can "bottom."

(in reply to OsideGirl)

Post #: 6

RE: The D/s nomenclature is in need of serious updating - 4/16/2013 5:38:04 PM

SeverinVim

Posts: 69
Joined: 9/6/2011
Status: offline

I never said that men don't do it, too. I said the nomenclature itself needs to be updated. It's not a gender-specific problem. I'm only referencing submissive women because most of my interactions have been with Dominant and/or submissive women. If most of my interactions were with Dominant and/or submissive males, I'd use them to illustrate my point instead.

(in reply to OsideGirl)

Post #: 7

RE: The D/s nomenclature is in need of serious updating - 4/16/2013 5:39:40 PM

Rawni

Posts: 1175
Status: offline

Get out of your thinking box. You are too closed in, assuming that the way you view things is the way it is, ought to be or should be and how others should cater to it... has you spinning in that box. That won't go well.

How you are defining things and the reasons given... are far more than I would wish to correct at the moment. You are wrong on so many levels. To start with... submissive people need lots of attention. In your box, maybe. Not always. Etc. etc. etc.

(in reply to SeverinVim)

Post #: 8

RE: The D/s nomenclature is in need of serious updating - 4/16/2013 5:40:24 PM

SeverinVim

Posts: 69
Joined: 9/6/2011
Status: offline

Maybe the solution is to have a "Top" or "Bottom" designation then.

(in reply to HisPet21)

Post #: 9

RE: The D/s nomenclature is in need of serious updating - 4/16/2013 5:41:01 PM

HarryVanWinkle

Posts: 1720
Joined: 5/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeverinVim

1. Dominant

2. Switch

3. Submissive

This probably sounds obnoxious, but I think that women with major self-esteem issues should not be encouraged to hold themselves out as "Dommes." There should be another label for them, like "women interested in dominating men," or something to that effect.

It would be like me saying that I'm a "Dominant Male" if I ever feel the need to dominate a woman. The title of "Dominant Male" just wouldn't be true to my personality. Sometimes I may fantasize about dominating a woman, but that doesn't make me a "Dominant." I will still have a submissive personality.

Lots of submissive women are interested in dominating men, and a lot of men (and women) enjoy this. But there should be more truth in advertising. For example, if I know that it is a submissive woman looking to dominate me, I will approach the interaction much differently.

The difference? Submissive people (myself included) crave attention; we need a LOT of care. What do Dominants get in return? The control. Dominants generally crave the CONTROL. Yes, I'm aware that these are broad generalizations, but there is a lot of truth to them.

Incidentally the term "switch" doesn't exactly apply, either. Why? "Switch" implies that the person is capable of being "Dominant" and "Submissive." A lot of submissive people (myself included) are only capable of being one way, even when we "dominate" another person. In other words, we are dominating as a "submissive" would, not as a "Dominant" would (which is what a switch would be doing when he/she dominates another person).

Anyway, it may all sound rather confusing, but when you really think about it, it makes perfect sense.

People should take the time to figure out what they really are before advertising on these pages.

There sure are a lot of gross generalizations, "shoulds" and "should nots" in this post. People, ALL people are unique individuals. That includes people into BDSM. We cannot be neatly crammed into one of three little boxes, dominant, submissive or switch. We couldn't even be neatly crammed into thirty little boxes, but you offer only three. As to how each of us "should" or "should not" label ourselves, neither you nor I has any right to say. The difference between you and I is that I have no desire to say.

(in reply to SeverinVim)

Post #: 10

RE: The D/s nomenclature is in need of serious updating - 4/16/2013 5:41:02 PM

breagha

Posts: 380
Joined: 7/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeverinVim

I think you're missing my first point, honestly. And, with respect to the second, "craving attention" doesn't mean that it's a 24/7 thing. I'm a submissive male, I crave attention, but I'm an introvert and I need a LOT of alone time, too. These two needs are not mutually exclusive.

i know i am missing your point... i said so in the very first sentence i typed. i was asking you to clarify.

_____________________________

"Consumed with memories that preceded today; given a chance to bereave life that's slipping away"

(in reply to SeverinVim)

Post #: 11

RE: The D/s nomenclature is in need of serious updating - 4/16/2013 5:42:19 PM

SeverinVim

Posts: 69
Joined: 9/6/2011
Status: offline

Sorry, Rawni, but in my experience these broad generalizations have held true.

(in reply to Rawni)

Post #: 12

RE: The D/s nomenclature is in need of serious updating - 4/16/2013 5:45:21 PM

SeverinVim

Posts: 69
Joined: 9/6/2011
Status: offline

I just think it would be better if someone could have a designation like this: "Submissive Male interested in Dominating" or "Switch interested in submitting" or "Switch female interested in dominating." With respect to your point, HarryVanWinkle, i just think the nomenclature is too rigid for the idiosyncratic nature of D/s play.

(in reply to HarryVanWinkle)

Post #: 13

RE: The D/s nomenclature is in need of serious updating - 4/16/2013 5:46:16 PM

Rawni

Posts: 1175
Status: offline

That's why you are still in a box.

When a title defines people, on a total... you have a box. Try communication rather than assumptions and personal opinions being a rule that needs a title.

(in reply to SeverinVim)

Post #: 14

RE: The D/s nomenclature is in need of serious updating - 4/16/2013 5:47:23 PM

angelikaJ

Posts: 8641
Joined: 6/22/2007
Status: offline

Your post is confusing to me.

Is it possible that you are forgetting the designations of Top and bottom?
Sometimes people who identify as submissive happily Top those who wish to be topped.
They still consider themselves to be submissive and Topping someone is a service they provide.

I do think it is perfectly fine for women who dominate men to list themselves as a Domme (personally I am not partial to any self-bestowed title... although for the purpose of Pro-Dommes, they are using the designation to define their profession).

And again as far as craving attention and needing a lot of care, I don't make that out to be a submissive quality.
I call that simply being needy.

As His submissive, I look after His needs and He looks after mine.
We are in a relationship and generally speaking that is what people do in healthy relationships.
However, I serve Him and not the other way around.

Going back to the beginning, I think you are getting your terms confused.
There is nothing wrong with being a bottom, but a bottom is not a submissive.
A submissive submits.
A bottom receives.

_____________________________

The original home of the caffeinated psychotic hair pixies.
(as deemed by He who owns me)

http://www.collarchat.com/m_3234821/tm.htm

30 fluffy points!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQjuCQd01sg

(in reply to SeverinVim)

Post #: 15

RE: The D/s nomenclature is in need of serious updating - 4/16/2013 5:49:42 PM

LadyPact

Posts: 32566
Status: offline

On this one, I'm not thinking the problem isn't primarily with the site not having enough boxes to check. If that was it, the original would have been phrased a lot differently in regarding to wanting to add terms like top and bottom.

I'm going to go with lack of education on this one. Either that, OP, or you have tunnel vision thinking that all of these terms apply in the context of relationships only and aren't looking at things to include the scene aspects of the community.

You might enjoy reading some non fiction books about BDSM.

< Message edited by LadyPact -- 4/16/2013 5:50:38 PM >

_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to SeverinVim)

Post #: 16

RE: The D/s nomenclature is in need of serious updating - 4/16/2013 5:50:20 PM

angelikaJ

Posts: 8641
Joined: 6/22/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeverinVim

Maybe the solution is to have a "Top" or "Bottom" designation then.

Nothing prevents anyone from writing that into his/her text in their profile.

A profile should be more than a bunch of check-offs.
It should indicate who you are as a person, what you are looking for and what you have to offer in whatever type of relationship you are seeking.

_____________________________

The original home of the caffeinated psychotic hair pixies.
(as deemed by He who owns me)

http://www.collarchat.com/m_3234821/tm.htm

30 fluffy points!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQjuCQd01sg

(in reply to SeverinVim)

Post #: 17

RE: The D/s nomenclature is in need of serious updating - 4/16/2013 5:54:58 PM

SeverinVim

Posts: 69
Joined: 9/6/2011
Status: offline

quote:

You might enjoy reading some non fiction books about BDSM.

Actually, you wouldn't even need to add a box. A person could create a profile, identify as a submissive and seek submissives...or identify as a Dominant and seek a Dominant. It could all be done right now without even having to add "Top" or "Bottom" to the list of "labels."

I do appreciate all of the personal attacks, though, and not because I'm a troll but because it's illustrative of some of the major defects in the scene.

I'm sorry if I have a different point of view than all of you, but I am entitled to my opinion and you don't have to be rude about it.

(in reply to LadyPact)

Post #: 18

RE: The D/s nomenclature is in need of serious updating - 4/16/2013 6:03:57 PM

UllrsIshtar

Posts: 3693
Joined: 7/28/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeverinVim

1. Dominant

2. Switch

3. Submissive

This probably sounds obnoxious, but I think that women with major self-esteem issues should not be encouraged to hold themselves out as "Dommes." There should be another label for them, like "women interested in dominating men," or something to that effect.

It would be like me saying that I'm a "Dominant Male" if I ever feel the need to dominate a woman. The title of "Dominant Male" just wouldn't be true to my personality. Sometimes I may fantasize about dominating a woman, but that doesn't make me a "Dominant." I will still have a submissive personality.

Lots of submissive women are interested in dominating men, and a lot of men (and women) enjoy this. But there should be more truth in advertising. For example, if I know that it is a submissive woman looking to dominate me, I will approach the interaction much differently.

The difference? Submissive people (myself included) crave attention; we need a LOT of care. What do Dominants get in return? The control. Dominants generally crave the CONTROL. Yes, I'm aware that these are broad generalizations, but there is a lot of truth to them.

Incidentally the term "switch" doesn't exactly apply, either. Why? "Switch" implies that the person is capable of being "Dominant" and "Submissive." A lot of submissive people (myself included) are only capable of being one way, even when we "dominate" another person. In other words, we are dominating as a "submissive" would, not as a "Dominant" would (which is what a switch would be doing when he/she dominates another person).

Anyway, it may all sound rather confusing, but when you really think about it, it makes perfect sense.

People should take the time to figure out what they really are before advertising on these pages.

I disagree. People should be exact copies from what *I* want them to be.
Everything you said is wrong.

_____________________________

I can be your whore
I am the dirt you created
I am your sinner
And your whore
But let me tell you something baby
You love me for everything you hate me for

(in reply to SeverinVim)

Post #: 19

RE: The D/s nomenclature is in need of serious updating - 4/16/2013 6:05:07 PM

LadyPact

Posts: 32566
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeverinVim
Actually, you wouldn't even need to add a box. A person could create a profile, identify as a submissive and seek submissives...or identify as a Dominant and seek a Dominant. It could all be done right now without even having to add "Top" or "Bottom" to the list of "labels."

I do appreciate all of the personal attacks, though, and not because I'm a troll but because it's illustrative of some of the major defects in the scene.

I'm sorry if I have a different point of view than all of you, but I am entitled to my opinion and you don't have to be rude about it.

Ah, I stand corrected. You just want to dictate how other people should write their profiles.

Got it.

_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to SeverinVim)

Post #: 20

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> The D/s nomenclature is in need of serious updating

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.086