MemphisDsCouple
Posts: 146
Joined: 11/1/2004
From: Memphis, TN, USA
Status: offline
|
99% of the time we have no need for a "specialized" dictionary. Chastity, slavery, dominance, submission, flogging, and on and on and on..... none of these are new concepts or terms. It seems clear to me, that one of the reasons we are all so drawn to d/s and s&m is because it is so deeply ingrained in our nature as a result of the ways our ancestors (prompted by the conditions of their environment) interacted. Thus, when we practice these things today, if feels "natural", we find fulfillment and an inner peace. All these terms (and the activities they represent) are (literally) older than dictionaries.
True, there will be the misunderstandings such as the one described below. Namely, a misunderstanding about the *degree* of chastity referred to as an interest. This, however, does not mean the two people have a different concept of what the word "chastity" means. We are subject to this same type of confusion when we're talking about any subject. That's why our language developed adjectives and adverbs. To be able to communicate more precisely.
Rather than needing a specialized dictionary, it seems to me the problem lies in not using the dictionaries we have and the solution is to more consitently employ those references.
A destructive force to communication, as I see it, is the widespread theory that we can (that it is acceptable to) define terminology as we see fit. We wouldn't accept this from a contractor we were hiring. (Painting a house blue and calling it white.) We wouldn't accept this from a baby sitter ("Well, I gave the baby two bites. I fed him.) We wouldn't accept this from a nilla spouse ("Well, I was faithful - that affair was meaningless.") And, it seems clear to me, we shouldn't accept redefining terminology within d/s and s&m as it may suit the writer/speaker. Whenever we do that (accept situational redefinition) we hurt ourselves by reducing our ability to communicate.
Postscript:
You are welcome to print or save this post for your own use. Please do not copy it to any public or semi-public forum (including email groups/lists) without my express permission. Thanks. All rights reserved. (I write this postscript because after-the-fact someone wrote to me to inform me that they had copied a prior post I wrote to another list. So, I thought I'd better clarify what my preference/policy is regarding use of what I write.)
B. (the male half of MemphisDsCouple)
quote:
I think sometimes people thing others are lying because both parties are working under different definitions of the same word or phrase.
Elsewhere on the boards someone mentioned that he had selected chastity as an interest, but was put off when a dominant person expected 100% fulltime chastity. To the person who put it as an interest, chastity meant occational periods in a chasity device. To the other, it meant full time.
I think that sometimes people come in with vastly different deffinitions and expectations for the same sets of words. Often, instead of taking time to realize this, they dismiss the other person as a liar, a fake or a wannabe because the two are using words differently.
I notice this happens on the boards, too. It makes sense, of course. There isn't a coherent dictionary of universally accepted definitions for many of the terms used here.
|
RE: Lies In A Profile - 
Profile
RE: Lies In A Profile - 
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