Gender and roles

Gender and roles (Full Version)

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

Message

NiceAnimal -> Gender and roles (9/12/2013 7:22:20 AM)
This is actually something I posted in another thread, but thought it would be much more interesting and fruitful as a discussion of its own. Okay. The gender specificity of bdsm jargon. Domme/Dom/Master/Mistress/Cuckold/Cuckquean, whatever.... It's all very gender specific, when it might be preferable to have more non gender specific wording, at least to discuss the idea/role in general terms. Sure the gender specificity might be helpful to some degree, or in person to person communications, certainly within the role or fantasy itself it has its use, but it's also hopelessly restrictive in general discussion, and for establishing commonality. This gender specificity seems to potentially get in the way of broader and more open discussion about roles, and commonality between those roles. There are surely many examples of people getting excluded from discussions, which they would otherwise personally relate to, were it not for being excluded on the basis of gender specificity. People who are essentially being more seperated than they need to be. Of course these are BDSM "standard" terms, and no thread on a forum will change the way people talk about or word things, but I thought It might make an interesting discussion, however people stand on the issue.

Darksidedame -> RE: Gender and roles (9/12/2013 8:57:32 AM)
Honestly I can't say that I've ever noticed that it hindered discussion one way or another. People who really want to be involved in something tend to do so, and those who don't, don't. I also would say that the vast majority of people out there realize that there are a lot of different flavors of any role/kink etc so I don't think using one term kind of as "short hand" is really a negative. It gets a bit wordy and long winded otherwise.

hylasEA -> RE: Gender and roles (9/12/2013 9:36:27 AM)
some scattered random thoughts on the subject: dominant, submissive, slave, top, bottom are gender neutral, right? as are teacher, captain, owner, subject... its probably not that difficult to keep your wording gender-neutral, if you just choose your words carefully? actually, the issue you describe is far less acute in english than it is in german (which is my native language). in german, there are barely any words that arent gendered. for example, "teacher" is gendered in german, and if you want to use a gender-neutral term, you have to use clumsy work-arounds like "teaching-person" or "the one doing the teaching". i remember that in a movie or tv show, female members of the armed forces were adressed with "sir" rather than "ma'am" by soldiers of lower rank. is that a thing in real life? i dont remeber what movie it was, but it may have been a scifi movie, so maybe the writers made that part up? anyway, it made me think that "sir" can be used as a gender-neutral word. similarly, "master" is gender-neutral in the world of academia ("shes mastering in biology", "she has a master in science", "shes working on her master"), so maybe "master" can be a gender-neutral word in BDSM as well? i just read a book about bdsm, and the authors just mention in the introduction that they will alternate pronouns and gendered titles throughout the book from paragraph to paragraph, but that they always mean everybody. i thought it was a quite elegant solution. lastly, i once wrote an erotic bdsm-themed short story. by the time i was done, i realized that i unintentionally didnt specify the gender of one of the two main characters anywhere throughout the story. i just left it like that, and added an note at the beginning that its up to the reader to read the character in question as female or male.

AthenaSurrenders -> RE: Gender and roles (9/12/2013 9:47:44 AM)
FR There are some non-gender specific terms which I see used a lot. Dominant, submissive, slave, switch, top, bottom, sadist, masochist, spankee, play partner, pet and owner all come to mind. I think in a venue like this, it's impossible to be completely gender-neutral in discussion because we are all just sharing opinions and experiences, and no matter how inclusive we try to be, we are all coming from our own specific corner with our own idea of gender and sexuality. There are also some trends and interests which DO tend to be... not gender-specific as such, but certainly skewed towards one gender or another. I'm thinking in terms of fetishes - it tends to be men more than women who are into chastity and cuckolding for example, which means it's often easier and more direct to talk about it in those terms. There comes a point where a deliberate effort to avoid reference to a particular gender inhibits conversation. On top of that, for many people gender can not be separated out from their experience of BDSM. Take "sissification" for example. For someone whose primary interest is forced feminization, they view power-exchange and kink through that lens, and it's going to be very difficult for them to talk about ideas and experiences in non-gender specific language because the notion of gender roles is a powerful driving force. To a lesser extent cultural ideas of gender affect most areas of BDSM and D/s, since power-exchange and the physical acts we engage in can often reinforce or transgress gender roles. I do think it's a little odd that this site separates 'Ask a Master' and 'Ask a Mistress' since in most cases, the questions there could be addressed by people of any gender. In general though, people don't stick to their own sections and I think people here generally feel comfortable responding whatever genders the question discusses. That's perhaps because many of the questions could be boiled down to basic discussions of human interaction. So while I can see some value in making an effort to consider kink and power dynamics separately from gender roles , I don't think it's as simple as just typing he/she every time, or inventing a new word which could mean both Master and Mistress (of course many women use 'Master' also, but that's an aside). This stuff is all about people relating to each other, and people are complex beings, with gender making up an important part of a person's identity and their interactions, so it's always going to be significant in debate.

TigressLily -> RE: Gender and roles (9/12/2013 9:58:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hylasEA dominant, submissive, slave, top, bottom are gender neutral, right? as are teacher, captain, owner, subject... its probably not that difficult to keep your wording gender-neutral, if you just choose your words carefully? actually, the issue you describe is far less acute in english than it is in german (which is my native language). in german, there are barely any words that arent gendered. Btw, if someone hasn't already done so, hEA [sm=welcome.gif] Mit Freundlichen Grüßen "Superior" is gender neutral, but as I once pointed out to a friend, it implies that the submissive (other) party is inferior. Being a military man, he was used to its typical usage for those of a higher rank, the lower rank being subordinate, and that is how he had meant it.

RumpusParable -> RE: Gender and roles (9/12/2013 10:53:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NiceAnimal This is actually something I posted in another thread, but thought it would be much more interesting and fruitful as a discussion of its own. Okay. The gender specificity of bdsm jargon. Domme/Dom/Master/Mistress/Cuckold/Cuckquean, whatever.... It's all very gender specific, when it might be preferable to have more non gender specific wording, at least to discuss the idea/role in general terms. Sure the gender specificity might be helpful to some degree, or in person to person communications, certainly within the role or fantasy itself it has its use, but it's also hopelessly restrictive in general discussion, and for establishing commonality. This gender specificity seems to potentially get in the way of broader and more open discussion about roles, and commonality between those roles. There are surely many examples of people getting excluded from discussions, which they would otherwise personally relate to, were it not for being excluded on the basis of gender specificity. People who are essentially being more seperated than they need to be. Of course these are BDSM "standard" terms, and no thread on a forum will change the way people talk about or word things, but I thought It might make an interesting discussion, however people stand on the issue. I'm generally for gender-neutral pronouns in anything about people. I use gendered ones at times, but only because our culture makes it needful even when it shouldn't be. Other than that comment, I will say that I've in the past online run a personal experiment of having profiles both male and female with no pictures on a few sites and posting just as I normally would on each... oh boy did I get more respect, better treatment, more recognition when thought a male. So I've at times been very tempted to go back and change or start new profiles that simply don't indicate sex or gender and then use a neutral picture avatar like some folks use.

RumpusParable -> RE: Gender and roles (9/12/2013 10:55:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hylasEA i remember that in a movie or tv show, female members of the armed forces were adressed with "sir" rather than "ma'am" by soldiers of lower rank. is that a thing in real life? Sometimes, sometimes not. It depends on what armed forces one is speaking of. In the US Army it is "sir" and "ma'am", but that's not the way for all.

hylasEA -> RE: Gender and roles (9/12/2013 11:56:09 AM)
thanks, lily!

tdavis1210 -> RE: Gender and roles (9/12/2013 1:27:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RumpusParable quote: ORIGINAL: hylasEA i remember that in a movie or tv show, female members of the armed forces were adressed with "sir" rather than "ma'am" by soldiers of lower rank. is that a thing in real life? Sometimes, sometimes not. It depends on what armed forces one is speaking of. In the US Army it is "sir" and "ma'am", but that's not the way for all. Heaven help you if you slip up and call your female drill saregent "Sir"

JeffBC -> RE: Gender and roles (9/12/2013 3:09:39 PM)
I just wish the terms were defined AT ALL. You say you're a dominant and I have no idea what that means until you explain it. I haven't really observed any problem with the gender distinctions. Commonly it seems people just talk about it from their own viewpoint and everyone else interprets as required... well... except for a few hysterical people who get up in arms if I write "dom" and they feel I'm excluding "domme". Those types, in my experience, are rare. I agree with your overall point but I see it as a small problem that's already got a workaround.

RedMagic1 -> RE: Gender and roles (9/12/2013 3:49:08 PM)
fast reply: "Master" is a gender-neutral term. I haven't seen gendered words to be much of a problem. Much more common are prejudices masquerading as the natural order of things: women are inherently submissive to men; or, Asian women are naturally submissive.

DesFIP -> RE: Gender and roles (9/12/2013 7:34:42 PM)
The majority of us use male dom/ female sub because that is the majority of relationships here. But we're all smart enough to realize that there are other permutations. Changing language cannot be done by fiat. Yes, you could invent some nongender terms but it's not going to catch on immediately, if ever. Unfortunately English doesn't have a neutral third person pronoun, except for it. And most of us object to being called it or referring to others in that manner. Instead of saying "he flogged her" we could try "third person pronoun flogged third person pronoun" but it's unwieldy as hell.

SunTzuSwe -> RE: Gender and roles (9/13/2013 1:14:22 AM)
I don't see any problem with gender specific wording and to be honest I'm a little tired of the local queer movement's crusade against all things gender. Anyone being excluded is excluding their self on their own accord. Sometimes it might be a little clunky but I don't see any real problem as it is.

hylasEA -> RE: Gender and roles (9/13/2013 2:28:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP Unfortunately English doesn't have a neutral third person pronoun, except for it. And most of us object to being called it or referring to others in that manner. Instead of saying "he flogged her" we could try "third person pronoun flogged third person pronoun" but it's unwieldy as hell. actually, you have a pretty workable solution in english: "they" "never play without a safeword, even if they insist on it."

DesFIP -> RE: Gender and roles (9/13/2013 7:09:21 AM)
But not for a scene report. If I say "they tied me up" then people are going to assume I'm playing with multiple others. Some of us don't do that.

stef -> RE: Gender and roles (9/13/2013 9:35:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP But not for a scene report. If I say "they tied me up" then people are going to assume I'm playing with multiple others. Some of us don't do that. Then say "I was tied up" instead. There is plenty of flexibility already built into the English language.

DesFIP -> RE: Gender and roles (9/13/2013 10:33:37 AM)
I'm fine using more conventional terminology myself. thanks though. If you feel the need to be gender neutral in your speech, have at it.

orgasmdenial12 -> RE: Gender and roles (9/14/2013 2:35:43 AM)
In some ways I think you're right - it is annoying to have girly endings on names as they are usually diminutive and I dislike the sexism of it. However, the alternate problem is invisibility. I run a lot of orgasm denial groups, which naturally attract a lot of male submissives. Their posts tend to always assume male submission, male orgasm denial, male chastity devices, male techniques like prostate milking, etc. When they post about their experiences, female submissives tend to simply stay away from the threads, but when female submissives post about their experiences, the male submissives almost seem to forget that they are female and turn the thread into a discussion of male experiences, male denial, male chastity devices, milking, etc. Basically, unless we do a lot of work to make gender clear, the female submissives and their discussions get completely lost. There is also the question of othering. The male submissives assume that they are the norm, and only reference gender as an aberration away from the norm. i.e. they talk about 'submissives should always wear cock cages' as though all submissives have cocks! Or 'us submissives should always worship women and remember that they are our superiors' forgetting that there are many male Doms and female submissives on the boards. I make it my policy to point out 'male assumed' posts in my groups (there's no problem with them, they just need to make it clear where they are talking about, for example, male chastity devices, rather than any chastity devices.) If we assumed a policy of gender neutrality, the female submissives would get lost altogether, would probably assume the groups were only for F/m relationships and stop coming. It wouldn't work for us.

DarkSteven -> RE: Gender and roles (9/14/2013 4:03:54 AM)
Within relationships, gender is very important. Within scenes, gender is very important for the bottom - whose genitals and breasts are fair game - but not so much the top, who is basically an arm and toys with a sadistic mind.

NiceAnimal -> RE: Gender and roles (9/14/2013 9:24:57 PM)
Cool, you get what I am on about. And yes orgasm denial is one of those areas, where there is a bit more of a male focus in discussions and generally etc - even though orgasm control, or denial is fairly popular in broad terms gender aside. And perhaps your right, that gender neutrality creates the problem of invisibility. Perhaps the best way, as you say, rather than be gender neutral, is to be , as you say, more gender specific. To be more clear in pointing out the specificity of gender, so that its clear it can swing both ways, and that this particular reference is to this gender form of the thing, and make the whole thing clearer that way. Such as "male orgasm denial" or "female orgasm denial", as an example, or to be clear which gender is the focus, so as to make it clear that it is not always that way around. Well roughly/vaguely speaking, but basically what you said. Yeah, thoughtful reply, and exactly what I was getting at :)

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625