BrutalAntipathy
Posts: 412
Joined: 7/8/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CrappyDom
BA,
Your love of dictionaries is charming but ultimately exposes a bit of ignorance. You must be annoyed when there is more than one entry for a word, no? What do you think the reason is? Ever notice that the contents and the definitions of words change over time?
If BDSM became the dominant and excepted form of sexual expression in the West you would see the number of words related to sex explode and the same would happen to the entries for each word.
When we speak of things here, consensuality is either implicit or implied, the same cannot be said for the dictionary definition. In addition, we have created words like "squick" that have not yet entered the lexicon. Words do that you know, aptly demonstrated by the colloquialism "have not yet entered the lexicon".
If you want to limit yourself and your ability to express yourself to those words chosen to be included in even as great a dictionary as the OED please feel free. For the rest of us we know we are speaking a living language, one that is both rich and ever changing.
I have thus spoken...
I do admit to a love of dictionaries. And I know that language is not static, but when applied to BDSM, it gets confusing when you ask 5 people to define a single word and they give you 5 different answers. I find that it is easier to stick to the dictionary than to have people randomly assigning words new meanings. And the way we use some words here is not comparable to a fluid state of linguistics. In order for a language to evolve, a goodly fraction of the people that use the word has to agree on it's meaning. The word Moof used in msn chat to describe an unexpected disconnect is a good example of this. A majority of the users began applying the word to this phenomena, and agreed upon it's meaning. This is nowhere near the same as 50 people using the word slave to mean 50 different things. The former is a word in the making, the latter is chaos.
And dictionaries aside, I was pointing out the medical definition of clinical sadist, and attempting to show how Ebony was misapplying it, having mistaken it for sadistic personality disorder. So if you want to call a '57 Chevy a sadist, fine by me. But when you start misleading people about conditions it becomes slanderous. To people like myself that are textbook clinical sadists, having Ebony misrepresent us as something we are not is very, very offensive. I am NOT SPD, which is what Ebony keeps confusing the diagnosis with. This is every bit as bad, if not worse, than vanillas claiming that every male non submissive involved in BDSM is a rapist. They make wild assumptions based on limited knowledge, and come to false conclusions based on those assumptions. The only difference here is that I have provided Ebony links not only to a correction of the DSM, but to a link to the condition she is applying to clinical sadism as well, yet she continues to insist that a clinical sadist is dangerous. She is being specific in using clinical diagnosis here, which removes it entirely form whatever fluff bunny definition that some small fraction of the BDSM community may decide to apply to the word sadist. Regardless of the way you define it, saying that a clinical sadist is unsafe is as incorrect as saying that a native German is unsafe. Unless that is, someone for no apparent reason decided to redefine native German to mean a Ford Pinto. Her use of the word clinical made this a whole different ballgame.
|
RE: what is a sexual Sadist? - 
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