RE: BDSM Definitions? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message


BlkTallFullfig -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/2/2006 1:53:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BOUNTYHUNTER
TO theses I would like to add"WHAT EVERRRRR"  its a word I hate and DIANE  knows it well,so she will flip her hair as she walks away and over her shoulder I hear ..what everrrrrr.it that southern draw of hers..BH
I'd just like to say that "What everrrr" would never be permitted by me to be uttered from my sub.  
It would probably turn me so violently angry, that I'd have to leave or kick him out.  It sort of carries the same weight as an ill word about my dad (may he rest in peace).   M




OhReallyNow -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/2/2006 3:32:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BOUNTYHUNTER

TO theses I would like to add"WHAT EVERRRRR"  its a word I hate and DIANE  knows it well,so she will flip her hair as she walks away and over her shoulder I hear ..what everrrrrr.it that southern draw of hers..BH

if this slave was to ever use that phrase with Master, it would be the last words she ever speaks to him. Master would not tolerate such from property of his; nor would this slave think to ever insult him in such a way.




twicehappy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/2/2006 3:59:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros


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:

ORIGINAL twicehappy

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..


quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros

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.


WOW!
Probably the best description/explanation of what i was attempting to do i have seen in 17 pages, thank you.
 
I think quite a few folks entirely missed my asking everybody to post their definitions, how they defined or described the list of terms so we would have a wider view of how the posters on cm used those words.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros


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.

 
I think you are right, naturally the role i am most familiar with is going to contain more than a little bit of me within my definition, i think this will be true for most folks definitions. Which is another reason to ask for everybody's perspective on the terms listed, if we put them all together eventually there would be a list of generally defined terms suitable for use as a basic starting point, something we could even present to the vanilla public that they could grasp.
 
If those who practice or live this lifestyle wanted to begin mainstreaming it the way the gay and lesbian movement did this list of basic terminology would be vital. They do not need to grasp the infinite nuances that exist in every relationship, only the basics. The same could be said of a new person just learning about the lifestyle.
 
I've belonged to a number of lifestyle groups, attended quite a few events, the thing most of them had in common is that when you attended or registered they asked your orientation. Some color coded the name tags so the others in attendance could identify your chosen role within reason at a glance. Those who chose to inquire as to your status (owned etc) or your desire to play could then make further inquires personally.
 
 




twicehappy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/2/2006 5:06:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL Sinergy


As you stated, calling me names was not exactly the most appropriate or effective method to prove her point that we need terminology to define WIITWD


quote:

Original KnightofMists

You called Synergy, slave synergy.  He obviously took exception to it.

It was not exactly the most appropriate way to prove your point that how one labels another affects a person. 
 

Since Sinergy took exception to being called a slave, he made my point, words do have meaning.

This exchange of salvos had very little to do with needing a general basic definition for the terms for WIITWD, only that in fact words do have meaning and that contrary to his arguments Sinergy obviously does care what people call things.
 
As to either of your comments on the appropriateness of my behavior, this is an open forum board; for the most part I treat everyone with respect irregardless of their title. Whether or not either of you found it appropriate is irrelevant; the relevant word here is OPEN forum, if all who post here are to be constrained by the status of those whose posts they are replying too it would be noted in the TOS that proper protocol was in order.  
 
In none of my posts did I label any one person in the manner that I was labeled by both Sinergy and his girl with the exception of the word slave which was strictly used to make my point. (Note here; Julia I did take notice of your apology, odd thing is I had already apologized to you on page 9, post #169, four pages prior to your apology yet no one, including yourself, noticed this).
 
To address both your objections to the manner in which I made my point, if you wished to follow protocol you could have applied to either of my owners for redress if you felt it was in order. You both see fit to state you felt like I violated protocol yet you both violated it yourselves.
 
One further note to Julia; I really do understand why you got as upset as you did, I would have been more surprised if you did not. Sub/slave/daddy's little girl, whatever we may be, our natural instincts are to defend that which we care for, much like the proverbial momma lion with her cubs.
 
I shall not respond to any further posts that do not stick to the topic at hand(with the exception of important subjects like fashion, lol); any one and everyone who wishes too posting or discussing the definitions of the terms for WIITWD and attempting to come up with basic general definitions that would be useful for both new folks coming into the lifestyle and the vanilla public. In the end they may be similar to those I started out with or they may be totally different but hopefully they will be acceptable for use by at least the majority.
 




justheather -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/2/2006 5:34:32 AM)

Oh crimeny it's an even day and I forgot.
Never mind.




juliaoceania -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/2/2006 6:32:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: justheather

Oh crimeny it's an even day and I forgot.
Never mind.



You are such a sweetie heather...




angelic -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/2/2006 8:32:25 AM)

One word that keeps coming to mind (and maybe this should be another thread, if so i apologize)... how does the word 'honor/honour" come in to WIITWD? 




Frank01 -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/2/2006 8:54:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: angelic

One word that keeps coming to mind (and maybe this should be another thread, if so i apologize)... how does the word 'honor/honour" come in to WIITWD? 


In serving self interest, from a purely practical pov.




raevyntc -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/2/2006 9:34:14 AM)

quote:

Original KnightofMists

You called Synergy, slave synergy.  He obviously took exception to it.

It was not exactly the most appropriate way to prove your point that how one labels another affects a person. 
 


Greetings, I am Raevyn and a fellow countryman of yours Knight, I am a psychiatrist and well known on the Toronto scene, I am also a friend of Twice's.
 
I do occasionally read these boards, though I keep no open profile here, and have never bothered to post before, i post on my own groups site, but this irritated me. I keep in touch with the girl on a regular basis, of which her owners are aware. As to how I know her, we met years ago though her prior Master. I have since attended gatherings with her as her partner and I have has occasion to play with her. If she would have accepted I would have offered her my collar, fine piece of slave flesh that one.
 
I pointed out to her after reading the fiasco this thread became that if your or your pet (I am assuming some relation there why else would you be defending a grown man) Sinergy found her at fault for violating protocol than both of you were guilty of the same, but after reading her statement I felt the need to come and finish the statement she made.
 
Unless Sinergy is a sub to you I do not understand why you were attempting to correct this girl, if you wish to follow protocol then you should have contacted her current owners and addressed them. If he is not your property then you violated protocol by correcting her at all, unless unbeknownst to me you and her owners are of a sect of Goreans that allow this.
 
 




KnightofMists -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/2/2006 2:13:41 PM)

lmao




Tikkiee -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/2/2006 2:42:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: raevyntc

quote:

Original KnightofMists

You called Synergy, slave synergy.  He obviously took exception to it.

It was not exactly the most appropriate way to prove your point that how one labels another affects a person. 
 


Greetings, I am Raevyn and a fellow countryman of yours Knight, I am a psychiatrist and well known on the Toronto scene, I am also a friend of Twice's.
 
I do occasionally read these boards, though I keep no open profile here, and have never bothered to post before, i post on my own groups site, but this irritated me. I keep in touch with the girl on a regular basis, of which her owners are aware. As to how I know her, we met years ago though her prior Master. I have since attended gatherings with her as her partner and I have has occasion to play with her. If she would have accepted I would have offered her my collar, fine piece of slave flesh that one.
 
I pointed out to her after reading the fiasco this thread became that if your or your pet (I am assuming some relation there why else would you be defending a grown man) Sinergy found her at fault for violating protocol than both of you were guilty of the same, but after reading her statement I felt the need to come and finish the statement she made.
 
Unless Sinergy is a sub to you I do not understand why you were attempting to correct this girl, if you wish to follow protocol then you should have contacted her current owners and addressed them. If he is not your property then you violated protocol by correcting her at all, unless unbeknownst to me you and her owners are of a sect of Goreans that allow this.
 
 

Dayum, now I am confused.
 
I hate when that happens




KatyLied -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/2/2006 3:26:43 PM)

Wow, you should take some time and read profiles.  If you did you'd have a much clearer picture of the people you are attempting to talk about.  It is good for a laugh though --  Sinergy as sub to KoM.




swtnsparkling -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/2/2006 3:42:03 PM)

I think what he meant was, unless singery was KOMs sub KOM really has no right to tell twice she did not speak in the most appropriate way to prove her point. Following protcol  Only twices, Master/Mistress should correct her.

I could be wrong




happypervert -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/2/2006 3:46:52 PM)

This is definitely a joke, either as satire at it's highest level or because this guy is serious.

quote:

I am a psychiatrist

Physician,  heal thyself!!!




Sinergy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/2/2006 5:13:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: raevyntc

I do occasionally read these boards, though I keep no open profile here, and have never bothered to post before, i post on my own groups site, but this irritated me. I keep in touch with the girl on a regular basis, of which her owners are aware. As to how I know her, we met years ago though her prior Master. I have since attended gatherings with her as her partner and I have has occasion to play with her. If she would have accepted I would have offered her my collar, fine piece of slave flesh that one.
 
I pointed out to her after reading the fiasco this thread became that if your or your pet (I am assuming some relation there why else would you be defending a grown man) Sinergy found her at fault for violating protocol than both of you were guilty of the same, but after reading her statement I felt the need to come and finish the statement she made.
 
Unless Sinergy is a sub to you I do not understand why you were attempting to correct this girl, if you wish to follow protocol then you should have contacted her current owners and addressed them. If he is not your property then you violated protocol by correcting her at all, unless unbeknownst to me you and her owners are of a sect of Goreans that allow this.
 


Thank you for posting, Raevyn.

I am a bit puzzled.  I did not attempt to correct anybody.  That is not my place.  I simply stated my opinion about a person's behavior on these boards.  I was
under the impression that internet message boards were appropriate places to
express one's opinion.  But then, I have been wrong before.

If you are referring to juliaoceania, she and I have a connection in real life.  She made a comment in my defense, which she then apologized for having made as it was simply doing the same thing back at twicehappy that she felt twicehappy was attempting to do to me.  An eye for an eye makes the world blind.

If you are referring to twicehappy, she either attempted to publicly insult me, or failed to read any of my posts about what side of the flogger I identify with, or profile prior to calling me "slave sinergy," which I found odd coming from somebody whose profile states they are submissive / slave / bottom / whatever.  It did not make sense based on my own education and experience in the lifestyle, but I cannot speak for other people's interpretations of BDSM and D/s protocols or their definitions.

A number of other posters thought I was angry, upset, or even marginally interested in her opinion of me, but I have no cause to speak for any of them.  twicehappy is entitled to her opinion, her interpretation of D/s protocols, or whatever.  I have been called worse.  I will probably be called worse in the future.  As I have stated previously, My emotional well-being is not contingent on what other people think of me.  I also made the point in another post that I would be horrified if somebody I was connected to publicly insulted other people.

A number of posters have made vague comments about feeling juliaoceania has been insulting.  I have asked for examples of this, and none are forthcoming.  So again, I have no cause to speak for what other's post about her or their feelings about them.

As a psychiatrist, perhaps you would be willing to comment on the psychological danger of somebody vesting their emotional stability in the opinions of others.

Regards,

Sinergy




OhReallyNow -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/2/2006 5:44:31 PM)

quote:

As a psychiatrist, perhaps you would be willing to comment on the psychological danger of somebody vesting their emotional stability in the opinions of others.

Regards,

Sinergy

Oh dear
[&:]
[&o]
 
Ok, this slave can not hold it back
[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]
 
Well said Sir lol
 
Even Master chuckled over that one [8D]




marieToo -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/2/2006 6:09:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: happypervert

This is definitely a joke, either as satire at it's highest level or because this guy is serious.

quote:

I am a psychiatrist

Physician,  heal thyself!!!



lmfaoooooooo.




mistoferin -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/2/2006 7:23:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
I simply stated my opinion about a person's behavior on these boards.  I was under the impression that internet message boards were appropriate places to express one's opinion.  But then, I have been wrong before.


Yes, that is what message boards are for. But you have to be very careful when expressing that opinion or you may just be accused of calling for people to be put out of their misery, convening a Kangaroo court to sentence people to Abu Graibh or Gitmo....or it may even be alluded to that you are an internet bully.

quote:

A number of posters have made vague comments about feeling juliaoceania has been insulting.  I have asked for examples of this, and none are forthcoming.    


Maybe it's because what anyone finds "insulting" is a matter of personal opinion.....to which, by the way, you just said we are all entitled to have. Maybe that is because the words are here and anyone who really wants to find them can and they are really not worth the time to go dig up, especially to me as I was not the one insulted by them in the first place. Maybe it's because you ridiculed any attempts to quote those instances that you "thought" were going to be forthcoming...or at least that is how I perceived this:
quote:

p.s. I imagine your next post will be digging up every word she has posted, quote it out of context, fail to provide any empirical data to support your position, and indicate that you feel it is nasty as if your opinion is the Gold Standard by which A/all should live.   Good luck with that.
 
But now here you seem to be asking for those quotes....so I guess I'm confused as to what it is you want.

You seem to be making far more of this than is necessary. At the very least you seem to be taking things out of the context that they were intended, reacting to them....and even after people have clarified their intent you seem to insist upon responding from your intitial perspective. For the record, I never once said that I have a personal issue with julia. I made an observation that some have found her interactions with them insulting. At least one other poster affirmed that observation. I'm even fairly certain that if you asked julia if she felt that anyone on these boards has ever appeared to be insulted by something she said, her answer would most likely be yes. I did what I did solely to show the irony of the comment you made on twicehappy's behavior to Scooter.

It is not a personal thing on my end and in fact I have shared an email in the past with julia to clarify something I had said and to offer her support at a time when she was taking some hard hits. We discussed at that time how we both have very strong opinions that can be important to us on an emotional level...and sometimes we post from that perspective....and sometimes we both take hits for it. I will not share direct quotes but that was the general subject.

In closing I would like to say that I think it is admirable how the two of you keep coming to each other's defense. I will also say though that I have never viewed julia as someone who needed anyone to do so....she seems completely competent in that department to me.




juliaoceania -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/2/2006 8:05:00 PM)

I will just say neither of us need to defend one another, it is my nature to defend those I care for to the ends of the earth...

Yes people are insulted and offended by me because I phrase things in a way that is matter of fact. I have been taught to defend my findings without giving one inch, and I have much toned down my style in the general forum as opposed to the off topic one. I do not apologize for taking no prisoners... it will get me where I need to go one day.. but, I will say that I do not call people names... the times I crossed my own snark threshold I apologized...

If someone said to me "You know I feel you called me a name, and that was over the line" .. I would apologize. I have done so many times. Sinergy apologized on this thread for any percieved insult, as did I. Some people have an easier time apologizing than others.. hey.. that is the way the cookie crumbles. I do not think people should apologize unless they want to.

If I demanded an apology for every snarky thing ever posted in my direction, whether someone made a thread about my perceived faults, like my high post counts, or my failure to keep from beating dead horses, I would find very little enjoyment in CM.. I prefer mostly to take the high road...although I am not perfect mind you. No none of us are perfect, some of us are just less direct about it.

I have read this thread, and I wrote a long post I was going to make into a new thread relating to what I see as some of the ideas that keep getting totally twisted and taken out of context here in an attempt to "win" a debate at any cost.. the helll with the truth of what the person you are debating said ... I find that quite something.. so I am going to go and post that new fresh thread.. which has nothing to do with defining people

BTW, part of it has to do with your painslut newbie thread, and the danger of not COMMUNICATING about labels and ASSUMING you know what someone means when they tell you who they are....





FancySeatCover -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (10/2/2006 8:12:43 PM)

i would agree these basic terms are very simular to my understanding.




Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.882813E-02