|
OhReallyNow -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/30/2006 7:23:34 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thisishis
quote:
ORIGINAL: Amaros
You are confusing roleplaying, as a discrete and seperate 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 consesual 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
Maybe just me, but I think you'd probobly 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.
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. [;)]
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 Semetics, but usually excluding Arabs and Medditerranian 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, archtypical Caucasoids. The Aryan plain is in Persia, or modern Iran, and Europe was settled by a mixture of Indo-Europeans and Medditeranian 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.
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.
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.
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. [;)]
Wow. This slave commends you. Beautifully said [:)]
|
|
|
|
