|
Amaros -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/1/2006 9:56:08 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: teamnoir
I taught a class on this at the Citadel, (San Francisco), last month. Here's the summary of what I taught.
Top and bottom refer to the roles in an SM interaction. An SM interaction is defined as being an interaction who's primary focus is sensation. It could be sensation which is produced by psycho-emotional means, but it's focus is on sensation.
Dominant and submissive refer to the roles in a d/s interaction. A d/s interation is defined as being an interation who's primary focus is on power or control. It might be a power exchange, or it may simply be a naturally occurring power differential.
Master and slave refer to the roles in an m/s interaction. And M/s interaction is defined as being an interaction who's primary focus is on ownership of a person. Many people consider M/s to be a subset of d/s, some consider it to be a completely separate thing.
These terms are not mutually exclusive and often overlap. There's nothing to prevent one participant from seeing the interaction as SM while the other sees it as d/s. So long as the behaviors involved are consensual, the interaction can be just fine.
I use the word "interaction" here because all three can happen on either a scene-by-scene basis or on a relationship-by-relationship basis.
Pretty much my take roughly speaking.
Here's a recap of the OP, and I think quite a bit of the problem, other than my use of words like "roleplay", that are connotative of playacting, seem to revolve around the notion that these definitions, or any definition, is a cage, written in stone, etc., when in fact any relationship is what it is, regardless of external definition, and secondly, the fact that on person can be any of these things, or none of them at a given time, isn't being tacitly assumed: i.e., the overlap, and the fact that these are essentially roles, which can be, theoretically at least, assumed or shed as necessary.
The definitions below, from the OP, are more finely grained than the general definitions posted above, and refer more to expectations of how a person so designated is expected to behave, in a general sort of way.
The ambiguous phrase here is "expected to", because this can mean either 'predicted to', or 'required to' - or face being called a 'fake', etc., and the ambiguity here, I think, reveals the underlying dichotomy between those who think of this as something they do, and those who think of it as something they are.
I wouldn't quibble with either, but when defining something for mass consumption, one is generally obligated to defer to the greatest common denominator.
This is not intended to denigrate those whose identities are more fully immersed in wiiwd, but rather to avoid the mistake of making these definitions exclusionary to the point that the community becomes static because a given acolyte cannot meet these expectations from a cold start, and instead of having fun, learning and growing, is stuck trying to meet perhaps improbable or impossible (at whatever stage they may be) expectations, like hamster on a wheel.
We all have to start somewhere, and grow into into what we eventually become.
quote:
Here are my definitions of these words.
Top; one who controls the scene for play only.
Bottom; one who submits during the scene only
Sadist; one who enjoys inflicting pain
Masochist; one who enjoys receiving pain
Dom/Domme; the one who dominates, the one who is in control of, is responsible for, gives orders and direction to the sub/slave. This is something they are, a personality type, not just something they do only in the bedroom. A Dom/Domme is what they are whether or not they currently own a sub or slave.
Master/Mistress, is one who is dom/domme and currently owns a submissive or a slave. It is a title bestowed on them by virtue of such ownership. It also goes much deeper than the Dom/Domme relationship on the spiritual, emotional and physical levels in regards to the depths of the power exchange and the responsibilities involved.
Switch; one who can either top or bottom during play or a scene.
Submissive; one who yields power or control to the dominant on a limited basis both during day to day life and during scening or playing. Or one whose nature is submissive, one may be a submissive whether or not they currently are submitting to a dominant, it is what they naturally are.
Slave; one who yields control of all aspects of their existence to the dominant within the limits agreed upon prior to being collared (these are generally agreed upon moral limits, not to be confused with" I get it my way or I leave or Sam type behaviors). One who is considered to be owned by another as their sole property. One whose submission to their owner/s is total, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in and out of any scenes or play..
I think this outlines a reasonable contiuum, The above definitions of 'Top' and 'Bottom', I think were found objectionable because they seem to imply a lack of seriousness (i.e., scene only) - an interpretation that ignores the possiblity or probability that a top might also be a Dom, Master, Mistress, etc., that it doesn't mean they stop being dominant or submissive once the scene is over.
In other words, that the terms 'Top' and 'Bottom' are not 'titles' per se, like Master or Mistress, but scene specific designations or descriptions for the actors in a given scene.
Also, I would be hesitant to interpret continuum as meaning that it's hierarchial, i.e., you start as a top or a bottom and progress to Master or Slave, but rather each would seem to be a self sufficient level unto itself, though of course one does tend to make the assumption that these titles are generally assumed or granted due to greater levels of experience, and/or commitment.
Master and Slave, as defined above would seem to be somewhat overdefined, describing more accurately how this particular slave defines her role rather than a looser, a narrative, rather than a more general description of what sort of behavior might be expected from one designating themselves as a slave.
|
|
|
|
