quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I get this, you called me slave julia

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank01

It's interesting that people simply explaining alternatives can get pegged as elitist.

I have never said that my viewpoints are superior to anyone else's ways of doing things-only different. And yet, I keep getting dismissed as "mr one twue way." I wonder why that is?

quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo


General Reply:

This is to no one in particular. Just my own thoughts that melded between this thread and the other one that was started on the same basic topic about labels and definitions. 

I think relationships are impossible to define with a word, because they are subjective, no matter how much we wish they weren't.   I am not going to hold up marriage and ms to be synonymous.  I am going to hold them up as analogous....  

History proves that relationships like marriage and master/slave have and  continue to evolve and change. Furthermore both have been and continue to be practiced differently in varying countries, therefore, there can never be a precise, ever-lasting, universal criteria for either type of relationship. 


Slavery for instance, used to be non-consentual and legal, now it's just the opposite...its consentual and illegal.  That's no small change...thats a polar opposite.  We, as bdsmers,  have completely changed the criteria of what slavery used to be,  while we sit here and try to say that it has a pure meaning that has stood the test of time. 

Id like to know where the leather collar came in.  When did that become symbolic of  slavery? Is that somewhere in the world encyclopedia?   Did the black slaves on plantations wear them?  Did the Roman slaves wear them?  Or are they a symbol created by the bdsm leather community?  My guess is that they are symbolic of what probably started out as a puppy (pet) fetish and somehow it evolved to hold it's present meaning of "commtiment".  

Marrieds use a diamond ring. Bdsmers use a piece of leather.  Some other culture might use a lip disc.  Yet to each of them the word 'commitment' still has the same definition.  Or does it?  Even the word commitment is subjective.  Am I commited to forsaking all others?  Or am I commited to staying in a marriage even if my husband fucks around? 

What exactly are we commited to as masters, slaves, husbands wives, parents, friends?  If we cant analogize MS DS to some other relationship or entity, what do we use as the fulcrum to base any discussion on?  There is no way to define with anything more than generalities what master slave, dominant submissive, husband wife, boss employee, parent child,  etc are.   

There is no way to even come close to fine tuning what any relationship should be, especially something like "master and slave".  Because, it IS something we re-created, and we choose it because we like the way it feels. I mean...who are we kidding???   Just like we choose any other relationship in our lives. 

Yes, theres a power exchange involved, yes its awesome, it's passionate, its devotion and love and all kinds of wonderful things.   But how can we further reduce it??  A slave has no limits?  Then we have to discuss what a limit means.  And everyones take on a limit is different.  We would have to sit here a qualify every possible question and scenerio to come up with an exact definition.   Of course we all have our ideas of what type of power exchange we want,  and we choose the word (label) to associate it with,  and we use it loosely to help us communicate with others, but we cannot expect others to see it the same exact way.  I cant tell someone what a real marriage is any more than I can tell someone what a real PE is.  I can tell them what *I* think it should be, how *I* think it should be defined, but I'm no more correct than the person next to me, who disagrees.  It's not absolute. 

No relationship under the sun, that involves human beings with desires, feelings, needs, ideals, delusions, and differences can ever be contained under a set of finely tuned criteria.  I doubt even the old time slave owners were all the same or treated their slaves all the same.  I bet even they would've disagreed about what a slave is and should be.   I think the more important question is Why we (Bdsmers) in general,  have to slice, dice, toss, organize, catagorize, re-toss and re organize again in this continuous circle of insanity in order to be in touch with our self identities.  

Who else does this?   We aren't a specialized people.  Our relationships cant be bottled and labeled as 100% pure and placed on a shelf above all bottles with labels that say "diluted".   We aren't better, we aren't able to have cut and dried relationships any more than Mr and Mrs Apple Pie, who go to sleep every night thinking about more important things than "hey Honey, is our marriage real?".   

Why do bdsmers try to force their identities and relationships into a neat little package?   Is it so we can rest assured that we are "real", because deep down we don't want to believe that at the end of the day, we're just twisted fuckers?  I mean...Am I drinking water out of  a bowl on the floor because Im a "slave", or am I doing it because Im one seriously 'kinky bitch'?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros

quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo


General Reply:

This is to no one in particular. Just my own thoughts that melded between this thread and the other one that was started on the same basic topic about labels and definitions. 

I think relationships are impossible to define with a word, because they are subjective, no matter how much we wish they weren't.   I am not going to hold up marriage and ms to be synonymous.  I am going to hold them up as analogous....  

History proves that relationships like marriage and master/slave have and  continue to evolve and change. Furthermore both have been and continue to be practiced differently in varying countries, therefore, there can never be a precise, ever-lasting, universal criteria for either type of relationship. 


Slavery for instance, used to be non-consentual and legal, now it's just the opposite...its consentual and illegal.  That's no small change...thats a polar opposite.  We, as bdsmers,  have completely changed the criteria of what slavery used to be,  while we sit here and try to say that it has a pure meaning that has stood the test of time. 

Id like to know where the leather collar came in.  When did that become symbolic of  slavery? Is that somewhere in the world encyclopedia?   Did the black slaves on plantations wear them?  Did the Roman slaves wear them?  Or are they a symbol created by the bdsm leather community?  My guess is that they are symbolic of what probably started out as a puppy (pet) fetish and somehow it evolved to hold it's present meaning of "commtiment".  

Marrieds use a diamond ring. Bdsmers use a piece of leather.  Some other culture might use a lip disc.  Yet to each of them the word 'commitment' still has the same definition.  Or does it?  Even the word commitment is subjective.  Am I commited to forsaking all others?  Or am I commited to staying in a marriage even if my husband fucks around? 

What exactly are we commited to as masters, slaves, husbands wives, parents, friends?  If we cant analogize MS DS to some other relationship or entity, what do we use as the fulcrum to base any discussion on?  There is no way to define with anything more than generalities what master slave, dominant submissive, husband wife, boss employee, parent child,  etc are.   

There is no way to even come close to fine tuning what any relationship should be, especially something like "master and slave".  Because, it IS something we re-created, and we choose it because we like the way it feels. I mean...who are we kidding???   Just like we choose any other relationship in our lives. 

Yes, theres a power exchange involved, yes its awesome, it's passionate, its devotion and love and all kinds of wonderful things.   But how can we further reduce it??  A slave has no limits?  Then we have to discuss what a limit means.  And everyones take on a limit is different.  We would have to sit here a qualify every possible question and scenerio to come up with an exact definition.   Of course we all have our ideas of what type of power exchange we want,  and we choose the word (label) to associate it with,  and we use it loosely to help us communicate with others, but we cannot expect others to see it the same exact way.  I cant tell someone what a real marriage is any more than I can tell someone what a real PE is.  I can tell them what *I* think it should be, how *I* think it should be defined, but I'm no more correct than the person next to me, who disagrees.  It's not absolute. 

No relationship under the sun, that involves human beings with desires, feelings, needs, ideals, delusions, and differences can ever be contained under a set of finely tuned criteria.  I doubt even the old time slave owners were all the same or treated their slaves all the same.  I bet even they would've disagreed about what a slave is and should be.   I think the more important question is Why we (Bdsmers) in general,  have to slice, dice, toss, organize, catagorize, re-toss and re organize again in this continuous circle of insanity in order to be in touch with our self identities.  

Who else does this?   We aren't a specialized people.  Our relationships cant be bottled and labeled as 100% pure and placed on a shelf above all bottles with labels that say "diluted".   We aren't better, we aren't able to have cut and dried relationships any more than Mr and Mrs Apple Pie, who go to sleep every night thinking about more important things than "hey Honey, is our marriage real?".   

Why do bdsmers try to force their identities and relationships into a neat little package?   Is it so we can rest assured that we are "real", because deep down we don't want to believe that at the end of the day, we're just twisted fuckers?  I mean...Am I drinking water out of  a bowl on the floor because Im a "slave", or am I doing it because Im one seriously 'kinky bitch'?

The collar may derive from Keltic culture, which used a collar to identify slaves, called a "Torq" -  eventually adopted by the Romans to soem degree I believe. Very cool looking artifacts, I've been fascinated with the Torq since childhood.

And yeah, heh, you sound like a kinky bitch to me!

Oh, I edited your post, that one big paragraph thing is a hard limit for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: twicehappy

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania


Well, I DO have a label and I still get labelled otherwise...strangely enough, not from people who haven't explored this but from within it.

You are correct; you have labeled yourself a submissive, so i apologize for changing your title.
 
But ugly or not, i made a point, a label or term does not need to define your entire relationship, only those involved in that relationship can define their personal dynamics. But there DOES need to be a general basic term that most can read or hear that gives them a starting point from which to ascertain how you define yourself within the scope of WIITWD.
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo

I was mostly stoned through history class and I know that things like chains and shackles were common.  But I dont have much memory of slaves being collared, leashed and led around like barking dogs.  I really do believe the leather collar thing is a fetish. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros

quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo

I was mostly stoned through history class and I know that things like chains and shackles were common.  But I dont have much memory of slaves being collared, leashed and led around like barking dogs.  I really do believe the leather collar thing is a fetish. 

Yes, probobly so, not much of a jump from training dogs or horses to training people, imagination wise anyway. Slaves were usually chained for transport, Triumphs and so forth, otherwise probobly only as necessary.

Do a Google image search on torq, or better yet, celtic torq, and you'll see several specimens - I like the big, thick ones.

The figure in the Statue, "Dying Gaul" is wearing one.

http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~cmw/1995/Pergamon1.jpg

quote:

I never really had much trouble communicating what I wanted to a prospective dominant type person

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

still remains catty, petty and altogether childish to make a point to do so...

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Sinergy is not a slave, nor did he label himself that... so therefore you actually made his point... people should label themselves,..

quote:

ORIGINAL: agirl

There ARE basic terms that people use as a starting point...........and most people use them.

quote:

Sinergy
Forcing me to define my Dominance by somebody else's yardstick is problematic.  What if the most Dominant thing I can possibly conceive of involves spearfishing with my submissive in Fiji?  Am I likely to encounter another Dominant with a similar bent.  No. 
Does this mean my definition is wrong?  No.  It simply means that I choose to define my existence in this lifestyle a certain way.

So in my opinion, people have to sit down and figure out what definition works for both of them within the context they are talking about.

quote:

Hello A/all,

I apologize if what I wrote upset you.  So I will attempt to re-explain my meaning.

The problem with attempting to define things reminds me of the Zen parable about the 5 blind men describing an elephant.

Blind man #1 feels the tail and states emphatically "An elephant is like a snake."

Blind man #2 feels the leg and insists "No, an elephant is like a tree."

Blind man #3 feels the ear, considers blind men #1 and #2 idiots and states "You are both wrong, an elephant is like a drape."

Blind man #4 feels the tusk and yells "No!  An elephant is like a tree branch."

Blind man #5 feels the side of the elephant and screams "YOU ARE ALL INSANE!  AN ELEPHANT IS LIKE A WALL."

None of the blind men are technically wrong, but none of the blind men are technically right, either.  The problem has to do with the limitations in perception of the 5 blind men.

Apply that to this discussion.  Any term we are able to come up with will either be too broadly defined to be applicable.  Consider as an example us going up to the arctic, point at the white stuff on the ground and call it snow, and the local Inuit, who have 260 or so different words for snow, think we are ignorant nitwits.  What ends up happening is everybody stands around arguing about what the word "is" is and the president gets impeached.

Wait, wrong thread.  Sorry.

Or the term will be too narrowly defined and will marginalize and ostracize people from WIITWD.  You will have those who define the elephant as being like a wall screaming at or picking on or arguing with anybody who doesnt agree that an elephant is like a wall.

The point I was trying to make is that I personally feel that WIITWD is too complex a subject to shackle (adding here in pink, he did not say we cannot define things... he said shackle) it with definitions.  Far as I am concerned, people can call things whatever they want and if it interests me to know what they mean by the word "foot," I will ask them.  Then they point at the oblong shaped object at the end of their leg and say "I am using the word foot to describe that thing."

Just me, could be wrong, but there you go.

Sinergy

edited for clarity

quote:

I do wish you success in your attempts to nail down an all-inclusive definition of a diverse population of humans, although it reminds me of the myth of Sisyphus

quote:

Do you have any idea how many individual groups or subgroups who identified as whatever have been torn apart by the internecine conflict about how to define whatever there have been in the history of people?

I disagree with your second statement as well.  I dont think we share common perceptions.  There is a concept found in psychology known as "confirmation bias."  Confirmation bias is the tendency of an individual to take in all information at their disposal, and then discount information which does not agree with their conclusion, and give added weight to information which does agree with their conclusion.  Taking this into consideration, I dont think any of us "share" a perception, because everybody has their own greater or lesser amount of confirmation bias in favor of what they themself think which adds or subtracts from objective reality.

5 blind men, each insisting that what they themselves allow themselves (consciously or unconsciously) to fully perceive is
reality.  They all think they can perceive the whole elephant, but do any of them really?

But that could just be my own confirmation bias in play.  I tend to be extremely dubious of anybody who has strong opinions about anything.  This includes my own opinion.  I learned this in debate class where the professor spent an entire semester forcing us to actively debate principles we did not agree with, and graded us on how effectively we proved the assigned principle.  So now I spend my entire life considering the whole idea of "what is the complementary principle to this" about anything I believe.

Just me, could be wrong, but there you go.

Sinergy