|
Amaros -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/29/2006 9:31:39 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thisishis
quote:
ORIGINAL: Amaros
You are confusing roleplaying, as a discrete and separate kink with the notion that your identity as a slave is essentially a role - I'm sorry if you don't like that idea, but the fact remains, if you are in a consensual relationship, which can end at your discretion, it is a role, however real it may seem to you, nor am I disputing that it's done in a genuine and sincere manner, as opposed to a "game", like roleplaying in the ordinary sense.
i'm not confused.
This says you are:
quote:
ORIGINAL: thisishis
i haven't presented any arguement or disagreement of the use of the word role. And i'd certainly agree with the word role over roleplay. i'd agree even more with the use of the words 'position' or 'place' or 'status'. i do not agree with the word 'roleplay' as i don't make-believe in this relationship, nor am i experimenting with a role, or representing a role in a drama.
Perhaps the confusion is my fault, the term "roleplay" is typically used as synonymous with "playacting", and it's this connotation that's causing the cognitive dissonance, I believe. In light of the fact that this isn't going to go away, I would amend my definition and replace the word "roleplaying" with simply "role".
One of the problems with this is that there are two different definition being debated here: mine is constructed from the outside, looking in, i.e., how would you explain this particular dynamic to someone who knows nothing whatsoever about BDSM?
You and OhReallyNow, by contrast, are defining it from the inside, looking out - i.e., what it means to you, within the context of your relationship, and the identity/role you have adopted.
I am actually less concerned with that, and am happy to see you define it anyway you want. I'm not a slave and I don't currently own one, so my take on it is necessarily abstract - but there does need to be a meta-definition that explains the dynamic to outsiders in an unambiguous way that will avoid misunderstanding.
quote:
ORIGINAL: thisishis
Any relationship, in which both (all) parties enter into consensually, can end at the discretion of either (any) of those who share the relationship. The problem is the label. The problem is the word slave and the Webster definition vs how it has been borrowed and then redefined by BDSMers (i know BDSMers is not a real word, and i loathe the word 'lifestyle'.) There is a huge difference between Webster's definition of a slave vs the BDSM adoption of the word slave as a label of orientation.
Yes.
quote:
ORIGINAL: thisishis
The selection of common labels are limited and with none providing a more clear reflection of who i am in this relationship, i make use of the word slave with an understanding that the label will help others in understanding what my place is in this relationship. i'd prefer the label 'property' or even 'consensual-slave'. The name/label is not what is important in this O/s relationship .... it's the WIITWD and our places/roles in the relationship that are of importance. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet and more importantly would still be what it is.
Subjective, internal definition, vs. objective, external definition.
quote:
ORIGINAL: thisishis
It's a fine line for some perhaps, but there it is - if you walk away and they don't hunt you down and kill you or drag you back, you are not a slave in the larger objective consensus definition of the word.
Well then, isn't it silly of collarme to include the labels of slave and submissive as a choice for orientation? Both of the words are silly, to me. There is the word slave, which with it's original definition brings up images of people who where held captive to tend the cotton fields, & plantations with their only hope for freedom being the underground railroad. There is the word submissive which everyone (hopefully) knows is an adjective. i'd really love to know who the first person was to announce that they are/were a 'submissive' because i'd like the opportunity to ask them if they never had the joy as a child of watching SchoolHouseRock on Saturday mornings or simply didn't pay attention in English class.
Not at all, the term has a fairly well defined meaning within the BDSM community, this meaning, however, is informal and implicit, not formal and explicit. In other words, when I'm in here, on these boards, and I hear somebody use the word slave, to describe themselves or somebody else, I do have a pretty good idea what they mean, closely conforming to the examples provided both in the OP and by ORN - i.e., it give me a vague, general idea of how they envision their role in a relationship, which I can't really speculate on further until I've talked to them - for all I know they might turn out to be a passive-aggressive top pretending to be a bottom.
Unfortunately, the law only works with explicit definitions, for the most part, and contrary to ORN's belief, most places now, if the police are called, see a woman being beaten, and a man admitting to beating her (or vice versa), they have no choice but to make an arrest for domestic violence, they're required by law to do so, whether the "victim" is pressing charges or not - the city, county or state simply file charges on their behalf, theoretically, to prevent the abuser from threatening the victim to prevent charges from being filed(so keep it down!) - some officers may accept the explanation, others will go by the book, there is no way of telling.
quote:
ORIGINAL: thisishis
i don't identify as a submissive. Every submissive whom i know has a place in their relationship which may have similarities to my own yet is a whole lot differently than the place i identify with.
Both labels suck, to put it plainly, and yet are the labels that we have been provided with which most who do WIITWD, are quick to recognize. There will always be someone who will wonder why some choose to say, "No thank you. i don't want a label.". i'm not among that group.
Again, this is an internal dispute which I have no expectation of resolving - as far as I can tell, submissive is an attitude, slave is more of a full time role.
quote:
ORIGINAL: thisishis
In short, formally the same word cannot be used in a formal sense to describe both consensual and non-consensual relationships. The term, by definition, describes a non-consensual form of violently enforced servitude. i don't agree with non-consensual anything. The word is being used in either sense, and accurately in either case (anyone who thinks that there is no one out there in a non-consensual situation/relationship would have to be pretty naive) and has been for a good amount of time. i didn't choose nor define the label. i'm not responsible for the blurring of any original definition. So it would make sense to suggest that the labels of slave and submissive be 'reinvented' rather than defined. Until they are, i'm not answering to anyone calling me an adjective. i'd prefer to be known as 'property'.
Again, I have no wish to define, or redefine, anybody or what they want to call themselves or others within the context of the BDSM community.
There appears, however, to be a movement afoot, not necessarily just in here - (see the Folsom Fringe thread) - to clean up the lingo a bit, settle on some more formalized consensus definitions, and the term "slave" is in there. My major concern here is that unless the term "slave is first defined objectively in such a way as to differentiate it from it's objective dictionary definitions as they currently stand, then the community is leaving itself open to attack from without, from a variety of sources with a variety motives.
quote:
ORIGINAL: thisishis
Maybe just me, but I think you'd probably be able to tell the difference. i do and always have known the difference. The labels slave and submissive were the labels of common use among BDSMers long before i came along.
I was referring to the difference between the BDSM tacit definition, and the one the rest of the world understands.
quote:
ORIGINAL: thisishis
This is not an attempt to "relabel" you, or prevent you from using whatever terms you desire to describe yourself, or question your devotion - it's strictly a meta level definition. i'm not one to take offense when a respectful debate of opinions if offered.... --thanks, appreciate it... right back at you.
Not bad, a bit redundant perhaps, though you did include the tacit consent and escape clauses, but I'm not sure all persons designating themselves "slaves" would agree with your definition in detail, which is sort of the problem with trying to include subjective parameters into an objective definition.
i understand that some will identify with the definition and not all. The definition may seem redundant to some, and omitting any portion of the definition which i'd provided would likely lead to some other inaccurate label being assigned. i just might be mistaken for being an adjective.
So you are ORN? I think this definition works fine as an internal definition, the enounces of which you'll have to debate with KOM
Slave:
Slavic people: first used of captives of Slavic orig. in SE Europe6
1 a human being who is owned as property by, and is absolutely subject to the will of, another; bondservant divested of all freedom and personal rights
2 a person who is completely dominated by some influence, habit, person, etc. !a slave to fashion"
3 a person who slaves; drudge
4 SLAVE ANT
5 a device actuated or controlled by another, similar device
As you see, my out of date popup Webster’s includes 5 distinct definitions of the word - yours and mine might constitute 6 and 7, in no particular order.
quote:
ORIGINAL: thisishis
This term, as I defined it, describes the legal status of your relationship within the context of the BDSM community, not you or how you choose personally to define your identity.
The relationship is consensual. Even so, i doubt that there are many, who are responsible for determining what is legal and what is not, who would not take issue with a good portion of the wiitwd part of this relationship and the wiitwd plays a big part in defining the relationship.
my Owner and i have a certificate of marriage which defines the legal status of our relationship, well enough, for either setting.
At this point, i can't help but wonder:
Did this topic turn into a debate of what is legal and what is not?
Did it turn into a discussion of whether the label 'slave' is acceptable and realistic at all, regardless of the definitions assigned?
"White", for example is explicitly defined as being of Caucasoid descent, including Hispanics and Semitics, but usually excluding Arabs and Mediterranean peoples with Swarthier skin - but it's also a role that people adopt, and it can mean different things to different people - the Caucasians are actually in the Near East, and Arabs are classic, archetypical Caucasoid. The Aryan plain is in Persia, or modern Iran, and Europe was settled by a mixture of Indo-Europeans and Mediterranean Caucasians, with maybe a few Chinese and Africans thrown in, and god knows what else - "races" are nothing but regional variations, adaptations to particular climatic zones Africanoid morphology is the most recent variation of all, not an atavism, but an advance in some respects - but try telling that to a White Supremist.
i won't participate in any debate which involves the subject of race. my Owner is Jewish and i am the mother of an 'unmentionable' for whom i tick off the box which reads, 'other'. Nothing personal, i don't care to go there. i understand what you are saying just fine and i don't agree.
Intriguing, as I'm wondering what you don't agree with - that "race" is a role? It is, when wat we really man is culture, wherein there are distinct differences, genetically, there really isn't any such thing as "race".
quote:
ORIGINAL: thisishis
I knew the identification of it as roleplaying was going to stick in a lot of craws - I hate to pull rank and apprise you that the "cult of authenticity" is a common Narcissistic construct, an attempt to seek external reification and approval through some standard of "genuineness" ('real' men don't eat quiche, 'real' cowboys wear a certain hat, etc. - most of which when boiled down is just a test of your knowledge of current fashion). Truth is we all play roles, it's our nature, we can't escape it, we're all slaves to cultural abstraction - 'authenticity' - no matter what it is - is just another role.
You'd have to assume that you fill the role of a superior position in order to possess the ability and advantage of pulling rank. While i can appreciate your taking the time to explain, you've not apprised me of anything i don't already know.
Meaning your attachment to authenticity is an illusion, a delusion, psychologically speaking, there is not objective empirical basis for it, except your subjective belief in it. The higher authority here is objective reality.
quote:
ORIGINAL: thisishis
There is nothing wrong with it, it doesn't make you any less real - actions speak louder than words, and there's nothing wrong with identifying so strongly with a role that you cannot imagine living outside of it, provided it's done in an ethically balanced way - i.e., you aren't dragging a bunch of innocent bystanders into it with you.
i understand the definition of the word 'role'. No idea though why you come across on my end as being under the impression that i do not. i know that i'm real, this relationship is real, and that if actions can be described as loud everyone around me should be suffering from hearing damage by now.
And yet your back gets up the second you hear the term "roleplaying" - I get it - your defense is based on a presumed attack on your authenticity and the genuineness of your sincere adherence to whatever it is that you imagine your role to be, which is not of overwhelming interest to me.
quote:
ORIGINAL: thisishis
If anyone participating on these forums knew me at all, they'd know that there isn't reason to doubt my understanding of what is concrete vs imagined, and would realize that i don't need anyone else's approval based on their definition of what they have decided is real, imaginary, wrong or right.
i am a : consensual-slave aka owned property, wife, sister, daughter, mother, aunt, masochist, artist, geek, freak, teacher, student, cook, maid, chauferre, launderess, barber, manicurist, hairdresser, webdesigner,
i identify strongly with the reality of all of that which makes me who i am. i have no desire nor time for living outside of myself nor within anyone else's reality.
Well there ya go, for not caring, you're making a monumental effort to replace objective analysis with your personal opinion, it seems to me, out of some misguided fear that that somebody might accuse you of "faking it". I have no reason, or desire to do so - all I can do is repeat that, louder still.
I guess what I'm trying to explain to you, is that as admirable as you may be as a human being, and as devoted you may be as a slave, this isn't all about you.
Savvy?
|
|
|
|
