RE: BDSM Definitions?

RE: BDSM Definitions? (Full Version)

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

Message

twicehappy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/27/2006 1:44:27 PM)
Bita, i may not agree with all yours but as always i loved most of what you wrote. Some of them had me choking on my coffee. CreoleCook, thank you for taking the time to post your definitions as well, at least you had the courage to post them, well done. Erin, glad to see you back and thank you for the support, hoping we will see you for Halloween. BrutalAntipathy, most excellently said on all counts, my thanks to you as well. Lilaintbehavin, at this point i am standing behind a firewall, jump over, the beer is cold. NinaSharp, your clean insights as always are welcomed. Spankmepink, thank you for your support as well. To any i have missed (i just woke up) please forgive me for my oversight and a hearty thank you to you all, i appreciate all your posts.

justheather -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/27/2006 2:22:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: twicehappy Instead of coming back with your varied an oft contradictory responses, why not, if you do not care for the definitions presented thus far, take the time to write out your definitions? I have already attempted to explain to you why it is that my answers were not contradictory. You either can not or will not see that. So be it. Your asking me why I dont write out my own definitions just proves to me that you don't get what Im saying at all. Which is fine. The alternative I came up with already is that people communicate with one another instead of handing out labels. You dont see that as an alternative, apparently. And that's fine, too. It never crossed my mind that you needed my permission or approval to do anything. That would just be silly. I do agree that there does not seem to be much of a chance that you are getting what Im saying or that I will agree with what you are saying. Maybe I just don't get what you are saying either. Apparently you think you hear me and you could not be missing my point any further if you tried. It's possible it goes both ways.

Amaros -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/27/2006 2:25:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania You bring up and important point. When in different classes we have had common words redefined in the context of what we were studying. For example, in biology a culture can refer to a sample of bacteria that one is growing, in anthropology it refers to a group of people living a certain lifeway, it can further be dissected in other anthropology classes by different professors. In fact no two textbooks I have used defined "culture" the same way. If you are communicating with a group of people about something such as this, we can come up with a working definition, but that is really only good for that interaction at that point in time. Excellent point - I interpret these labels strictly in term of my situation, which is that of one who has not yet found my ideal 'fit' in a partner, and I don't place a great deal of stock in them. To me, it's more of an indicator of how the prospective submissive views herself, it speaks to her own sense of identity - i.e., a "slave" is one who is either willing or accustomed to 24/7 submission to single dominant, whereas a "submissive" is one who has discovered and seeks to explore her submissive nature to see where it leads - I gleaned these defintions mostly from reading profiles, blogs, etc. Other labels, like "pain slut", etc., are fairly self explanatory. quote: Wannabe dom - an intelligent insightful person new to bdsm who either threatens the hell out of the existing tribal order or is a budding DM Hey! I resemble that remark! Seriously, it easier when a person simply describes themselves and what they are looking for, labels only go so far, and when you're actually in a relationship, it sort of defines itself, and it matters littel to me what you call youself - it's safest and esiest to simply refer to 'doms' and 'subs', i.e., in terms of the dynamic, rather than whatever Byzantine identity labels a given individual may or may not prefer, Kajira, etc. I think it's an interesting excercise, and might lead somewhere eventually, i.e., some kind of consensus may eventually emerge, but I think if you're startign with D/s, then som and sub is where it starts, the basis for all the other defintions whose meanings seem to vary to some degree with the individual. "Top" and "bottom" for instance, to me, have very much explicit sexual connotations which "Master/slave" doesn't neccessarily have for all of it's implicit connotations of complete surrender of control - Dom/sub being in between. I suppose I tend to thing of these identity labels in terms of levels of submission: a bottom may only be submissive during the scene, a submissive is submissive for at least some of the time between scenes, whereas a slave is submissive virtually all the time. It would still be a mistake to assume one who labels herself (or himself) "slave" is incapable of stubborness or rebellion, or lacking a personality or identity entirely or any of that power fanatasy abstraction, but the label does imply a certain willingness to completely immerse oneself in the submissive role. Again, this is possible without labelling oneself a "slave", with the abrogation of consent and control this implies - which is why all such terms appear to become more ambiguous in meaning when applied directly to a specific dyad. A lot of it, as Crappydom suggests, is mostly indicitive of roleplaying fantasy, and there's nothing wrong with that if it get's your motor runnin' - I'm rather more against, than for, politicizing human sexual interaction as a matter of policy. It is of course, possible, even common, for a single term to have more than one level of meaning.

thisishis -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/27/2006 2:40:00 PM)
[quote="twicehappy"] I do understand you had not read the entire thread...........This is not nor is it intended to be a popularity contest. [/quote] The portion of my reply which you'd selected and quoted was posted in reference to the OP, and not the entire thread, nor any reply which followed that OP. To be specific, when it is understood that after a week or so you will add up the ones that are similar and see how it came out then post the ones who were the most repeated or agreed with ......... & that ........ this is an experiment to see what the general consensus is , these statements bring to mind, for me, the terms "general, favorite, approved, liked, common, current etc etc. All being synonymous to the word 'popular'. i read the word 'vote'. When subjected to any voting process, the majority is not likely to prevail, unless the majority of that majority skips the polls, or .... the state of Florida is put in charge of tallying the votes. [;)] Of all the threads which have existed on these forum boards, the threads which often receive the most interest, and heated debates ..... many times, revolve around labels, differences due to labels, differences between how some do what it is they do, vs how others do what it is that they do ..... and the differences between the labels affixed to each/either. i am not and was not dumping on your thread topic (nor the intent of it etc), or your definitions. i had simply stated the obvious. While i am quite aware that may have been misread, i was simply expressing that i suspected that it would be reasonable to expect that the thread would prove to be quite interesting. my agreement and/or disagreement with the definitions being put aside, it has. my comments regarding 'the minorities': True or not, part of the general consensus or not, .... a lazy statement on my part, due to the amount of time which i was allowed, for posting that reply, being quite limited. i am, however, certain that most definitions provided by others on this forum will be inaccurate if applied to me, and for that reason will find me in the minority .... just as it is so pretty much almost anywhere that i go, be it online or offline. i am limited in how much time i have to post, due to my role in the custom-defined and generically labeled relationship [;)] which i am a part of. i may have changed my mind as the idea of subtitles and redefining the definitions which you have provided, has, for whatever reason, added to my interest in this thread. Perhaps if i have time, and am feeling a bit more energetic at another time ... i will provide the edited-definitions and any additional details etc which my Master and i apply to the relationship which He and i share.

CreoleCook -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/27/2006 3:14:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BrutalAntipathy *I get the feeling that people are intimidated by mutually agreed upon definitions, but I have trouble understanding why.* We label, define, and compartmentalize by way of comprehension. It is not a way for one defined group to feel superior to another, but a way in which multiple people can comprehend what everyone else is talking about. *The whole " Let everyone write their own definition " idea is counterproductive. Definitions don't constrain, they clarify.* in the simplest terms I can type, BA... my definitions are from a subjective viewpoint, having been trained first to be a submissive, then later coached to be dominant, following my natural tendencies. The dilemma with defining specific terms within this Lifestyle is simple: individuality and uniqueness are not only accepted, but encouraged. example: If you love feet, you are not scorned for your fetish, nor is it uncommon to find other individuals who also love feet. Perspectives and the openness of the mind... are you willing to accept my beliefs, even if you do not necessarily agree with them? Most in this Lifestyle would say yes, but again... this is where individuality and uniqueness enter the fray... CC

thisishis -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/27/2006 3:19:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble quote: After a week or so i will add up the ones that are similar and see how it came out then post the ones who were the most repeated or agreed with. If the purpose is to get a consensus, then at best the those who think outside the box or are a lone voice will not be heard. At worst, mob mentality will form (think Tooey from The Fountainhead) and the dissenters will be stoned or something. ::laughs:: quote: If your vote is "labels or definitions are what they mean to you " this will be counted as a non vote. This is an experiment to see what the general consensus is. It seems to me that such should be absolutely counted otherwise you skew the results. If the vast majority agree that labels are as individual as the people who wear them and that it is only through enhanced communication that you can define yourself anyway, then what we have in place (the dictionary) is already a very general basis with which to start. The rest is subtle flavoring based on individual taste buds. Exactly. my thoughts. i agree.

twicehappy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/27/2006 4:12:14 PM)
Amaros, i hope you do not mind but i found this post to be so well written as well as pertinent to the subject of this thread that i copied it and brought it here. Wonderfully said. quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros Part of the cohesiveness of a community revolves around it's language, i.e., terms need to have meaning across the various subcultures that make up a community this large and diverse (and growing). In short, after reading through this thread again, it strikes me that we primarily have a language problem. Words, and/or phrases are symbolic representations of concepts - these may change over time: "marriage" was originally a term used in metallurgy to describe the creation of alloys, i.e., two disseperate elements combined into a cohesive whole - in the current vernacular, it means a legal contract between to individuals for mutual advantage: permanence , in the metallurgical sense, is implicit, but no longer explicitly included in the definition. I've concluded that this thread, and similar ones, have at their core, a concern over the dilution of the language itself, making it difficult to communicate without lengthy explanations and qualifications, and blur the lines between what it is you do, and whatever it is that they might be doing. It might be useful to simply start with a list of common terms that connote certain aspects of the practice of BDSM - nearly every term that is taxonomic in nature, rather than descriptive of a specific practice has such connotations, including D/s, Master, Slave, Top, Bottom, etc., and well as "lifestyle", "Old School", etc. Some practices of course, imply a certain level of intensity, "single tails", etc. I think it does no-one any good to blur these terms to the point that they lose their specific meanings, it only leads to confusion and irritation. My two cents, but I think it's the language itself that's getting watered down, and it might be fun to just lay these terms out there from time to time, and see what develops, with a mind to maintaining the original meanings as closely as possible, and perhaps inventing new terms as apporopriate. more hedonic implications, whereas SM has distinctly agonistic ones. Beat me to it: http://www.collarchat.com/m_604021/tm.htm Lol, thank you for noticing. I took the liberty of highlighting a few statements i found to be of direct interest to this thread, thank you again.

ShiftedJewel -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/27/2006 4:15:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble It seems to me that such should be absolutely counted otherwise you skew the results. If the vast majority agree that labels are as individual as the people who wear them and that it is only through enhanced communication that you can define yourself anyway, then what we have in place (the dictionary) is already a very general basis with which to start. The rest is subtle flavoring based on individual taste buds. Exactly. my thoughts. i agree. Ok twicehappy... everything will be counted... for those that choose not to post any definition you should put down the number of people that choose not to state a definition just so that things are not screwed up. I mean lets be realistic here... even the polls taken by national news shows post how many called in with no opinion so it's on fair that we do the same thing here. *Come on people... it's not like the results of this little survey are going to be hidden!! It's all right here... count them yourselves!! duh* *Jewel*

LadyHugs -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/27/2006 4:18:33 PM)
Dear NINASHARP, I do have written works, presentations given on a CD-Rom. But, as far as "Labels" go; I do round table discussions occassionally, where this very thread discusses, e.g. labels, definitions and doormat submission. Respectfully submitted, Lady Hugs

BrutalAntipathy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/27/2006 4:32:36 PM)
Calling in a vote of no opinion is counted in polls, but not calling in one is not. Those whose feelings are so vague or uninterested as to not even cast a ballot of None Of The Above are generally discounted in polls. Polls also take in only a fraction of a population normally. Discounting national polls, most statistical polls are aimed at a set number of people, usually in several cities. In this instance, twicehappy is being more fair than those pollsters, as she is giving everyone in this community the chance to respond to a poll, rather than selecting 5,000 participants in Chicago and 2,000 in Houston.

Sinergy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/27/2006 4:35:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble Interesting thread. I'd suggest to the thread dwellers to go read Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" and then come back here and post again. tic & [;)] Celeste Hello A/all, I am not really into self-abuse and torture. I slogged my way through that book several times already in this life, and I am not overly interested in doing it again. Just me, etc. Sinergy

swtnsparkling -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/27/2006 4:37:30 PM)
I'll chime in............ The definitons you posted- Check me in Agreement

twicehappy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/27/2006 4:39:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHugs Dear NINASHARP, I do have written works, presentations given on a CD-Rom. But, as far as "Labels" go; I do round table discussions occassionally, where this very thread discusses, e.g. labels, definitions and doormat submission. Sooooo........my dear Lady, are you going to tell all of your followers where we can get this stuff? Big smiles.........

Sinergy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/27/2006 5:00:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: twicehappy This statement is true, how do you describe something without a term to describe it? If you are speaking of your foot you simply say foot and everybody knows what you mean. Scooter was speaking generally; we are very secure in the terminology we use and extremely at ease giving a fuller definition of it to those who ask. 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 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

BrutalAntipathy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/27/2006 5:17:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: twicehappy This statement is true, how do you describe something without a term to describe it? If you are speaking of your foot you simply say foot and everybody knows what you mean. Scooter was speaking generally; we are very secure in the terminology we use and extremely at ease giving a fuller definition of it to those who ask. 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 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 Not meaning to be contrary, and believe me, you will know when I am meaning to, but I think that we have the diametrical opposite perspective from the blind men here. We are a group looking at the larger picture, and agreeing that all these terms fall under the umbrella of BDSM. We are looking at the whole elephant, and giving descriptions of the individual parts. The tail of the elephant is not construed by us to be it's sum, but rather as a specific part connected to the greater whole. This allows us to look at a seperate part and say that is the tail of an elephant, not the sum of an elephant. We are again trying to clarify, rather than have one person point ot the trunk and claim that it is the tail and another point to the leg and claim that it is the tail. I think that we all agree on the elephant, but we are now trying to narrow down the terminology used to describe different portions of the elephant. If the zoo keeper tells his assistant that the elephant needs it's teeth cleaned, he is going to be a little annoyed if the assistant defines teeth as anus and gives the elephant an enema, all the while whining " But you SAID to clean it's teeth! "

twicehappy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/27/2006 5:38:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BrutalAntipathy If the zoo keeper tells his assistant that the elephant needs it's teeth cleaned, he is going to be a little annoyed if the assistant defines teeth as anus and gives the elephant an enema, all the while whining " But you SAID to clean it's teeth! " ROTFLMMFAO.......such an apropos description of the confusion that occurs when everybody refuses to accept the general definition of a given word. Not to mention how the elephant is going to feel about the mix up........ You made my evening!!!!!!!

thisishis -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/27/2006 5:46:10 PM)
Life is not a one size fits all situation. The neat little boxes, much like the definitions, are far too often presented as one size fits all, and fail to fit every single person perfectly.

ScooterTrash -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/27/2006 5:48:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I also think that all slaves are submissives, but not all submissives embrace being a slave. Not all slave are submissives (assuming you were using this as a noun), totally different dynamics. I might agree that all slaves may be submissive however. quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Our dynamic is what it is, it really doesn't matter how others view it, it matters how we view it. I do not mind being called a submissive, I mind being called a slave..... At the moment you don't think it matters, at some point it may (see end of post). NOWHERE did I ever state you were a slave, nor does the definition suggest it...you're very confused. quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie quote: ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash To me, no dynamic is clarified solely by the mindset..it is the physical relationship as well. For the sake of argument, what of a married couple that must live apart?........ I may have misunderstood your post, however. If the emphasis is on the word solely, then that would mean simply that some form of physicality must exist, rather than a requirement somehow being that they must live under the same roof. Nodz...if they only met once, I would say that changed the dynamic. If they were together and are forced apart, I don't see how that changes their relationship (except for physical contact). Having that physical aquaintance brings it from being only in the mind to being much more of a bond. I still insist that a slave must be under roof, but a D/s relationship would have more latitude. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash But when speaking with someone openly, wouldn't it be handy to have a name for what it is? Without a descriptive term, it seems like it would be rather awkward to explain any relationship. Hello A/all, I apologize if you feel awkward explaining what you do in the lifestyle. I am not sure I can recommend any way you can overcome this, but I do wish you well. While your comment is a nice ideal, I cannot help but think you want precise definitions to deal with your own feelings of awkwardness in explaining it to other people. But that is just me, and I could be wrong. Sinergy No need to apologize Synergy, I have absolutely no trouble at all explaining my relationship, to anyone usually, it's rather easy actually. I'm 1/2 of a Dominant (M/F) couple, who practice a BDSM lifestyle, who have a 24/7 female slave and we are referred to pubic and private as Master and Mistress by said slave. See..not hard at all! I have no issues with labels and definitions..obviously some of us do (points finger). But that is just me, I could be right. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy 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. Universal infinitive definitions have not ever worked for any group of people who have attempted it in history (feel free to disagree, but please cite SPECIFIC EXAMPLES) and I personally do not think this is likely to change. Sinergy NO..you do NOT have the liberty of making up your own definitions, that's the whole problem. You are going to do it anyway, I can't stop you, but it's wrong. Any yes, definitions have been defining many many things throughout history. NO, I won't cite examples, partly because I don't want to, partly because I don't have to and partly because you can surely open your own eyes and look around (maybe I'm overstating your abilities...not sure). Every single thing you touch or interact with has a definition and someone or a group of someone’s had a lot to do with that. But that is just me, I could be right. quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom The above quotes will offend some, make others laugh, and hopefull a couple of you think. I agree with some of it, some I think is or should be true, others were included just to shake things up. YMMV Bravo CD...I will give you one thing...at least you have the balls to say (or quote..lol) what you think...not what others necessarily want to hear. quote: ORIGINAL: OhReallyNow *However, this slave does not agree with the idea or theory that a select group of people has ANY right to decide what definition should be used by whom, and how.* your desire to come up with a generally accepted code of definitions as it pertains to the lifestyle is foolish at best for the simple reason that individuals are diverse and unique in how they interpert certain things. To adopt a 'code of definitions' that are 'generally' accepted by 95% of the populace will not eradicate the confusion of newcomers to this lifestyle. It will only force them to either enter the mainstream of thinking, or become outcasts when their own interpertations differ from that of the mainstream. *this slave see's no reason to force that on anyone; not even for the sake of 'easier' communications.* You and whoever is claiming to be Merriam Webster these days would certainly make an interesting pair. So you are so high and mighty you don't have to accept anyone's definition of anything huh? Who do you think you are fooling, apparently yourself? I need boots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is the biggest crock of crap I think I have ever seen. You get 1 point. quote: ORIGINAL: OhReallyNow *and what happens when they come to the same conclusion that they had originally come to? What then? Do you label them as outcasts because they still refuse to conform to YOUR idea of what should be?* It’s not my idea, it’s THE idea. From what I have seen and the goddamned ignorance I have read from some people…I’m thinking toss them out on their can and tell them to find another clubhouse. For the established, if they don’t know what they are at this point, I’ve lost have patience for them as well. For the newbies..I only hope I can protect them. OK..I admit, I got to within the last two pages of this thread and simply gave up. There appears to be 2 sides to this. There’s those who either agree or can intelligently offer alternative definitions/labels, and those who are scared to death of definitions &/or labels. Well I hate to break it to you folks, the undecided and I won't do it group, but if you don’t pick something that categorizes your relationship, don’t be all pissed off when someone labels your ass with something you don’t like. It’s like they say…you are either part of the solution, or part of the problem and a whole lot of people who don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings (yes those oh so close folks you know so intimately over the internet (rolls eyes)) are definitely part of the problem. Do I have a personal interest in this…damned right I do! I am in a BDSM relationship and I give a damned how other people, nilla or otherwise view it. To those who don’t want to be tied down to a definition or a label….fine, have it your way AND remember me when you are trying to explain to the cop hauling your lame ass off to jail, or the judge that sentences you, that it was consensual bondage and you are in a D/s relationship. Without definitions…he won’t have a clue. May you rot in peace…PS…don’t call me for bail money. We either get it together or we are doomed to fail. From what I have seen, and to count at this point, we have a decent chance at this point for survival.

Sinergy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/27/2006 6:10:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BrutalAntipathy *We are looking at the whole elephant, and giving descriptions of the individual parts.* I disagree. We are a group where many of us honestly believe we are looking at the whole elephant and demanding we find a word that defines the elephant completely. I was reading an article today which was talking about vision. Apparently, the human eye has both rods (which are useful for seeing in low light conditions) and two types of cones (which allow us to see the color spectrum we perceive) giving us our visual field. Most other animals, like dogs and cats and birds and many insects have a 3rd set of cones. These cones allow them to perceive things in the ultraviolet spectrum. Humans lost this 3rd set of cones thousands and thousands of years ago. It is theorized these were lost because early on in our time we spent our time not going out at night, and furtively hiding from animals trying to eat us. So if you and a bird look at an elephant, you might believe deep in your heart that you are looking at the whole elephant, but you are not seeing nearly as much of that elephant as a bird sees. Does this mean you are wrong? No. It simply means that what you perceive has limitations and aspects which enhance your perception that are not shared by others. I have talked to over a thousand women in great detail about their experience as a woman. It is my job. Do I think I understand what being a woman is all about? No. I dont think I could possibly understand what being a woman is all about. Do I want to sit a bunch of women down and hammer out a definition of what being a woman is all about? Not really. I personally think the word "woman" is too confining a term because it lumps the Secretary of State of the United States with a Burkha clad woman in Iran, as well as a abalone diver in Japan, etc. Does calling all three of them by one name give any of us some sort of intrinsic understanding of who or what they are? Not really. Looked at one way it could be said to be dismissive of each of them to try to label them all on such a surface level. A woman can share her story and their life with me, and if something they say doesnt make any sense I will ask for clarification. 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. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy

Amaros -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/27/2006 6:13:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash OK..I admit, I got to within the last two pages of this thread and simply gave up. There appears to be 2 sides to this. There’s those who either agree or can intelligently offer alternative definitions/labels, and those who are scared to death of definitions &/or labels. Well I hate to break it to you folks, the undecided and I won't do it group, but if you don’t pick something that categorizes your relationship, don’t be all pissed off when someone labels your ass with something you don’t like. It’s like they say…you are either part of the solution, or part of the problem and a whole lot of people who don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings (yes those oh so close folks you know so intimately over the internet (rolls eyes)) are definitely part of the problem. Do I have a personal interest in this…damned right I do! I am in a BDSM relationship and I give a damned how other people, nilla or otherwise view it. To those who don’t want to be tied down to a definition or a label….fine, have it your way AND remember me when you are trying to explain to the cop hauling your lame ass off to jail, or the judge that sentences you, that it was consensual bondage and you are in a D/s relationship. Without definitions…he won’t have a clue. May you rot in peace…PS…don’t call me for bail money. We either get it together or we are doomed to fail. From what I have seen, and to count at this point, we have a decent chance at this point for survival. Lol, well, there is that practical aspect to it yes... Slave might not be best term to assign an explicit and "official" meaning too - then again, maybe it's the opposite, it being easily the most heavily baggaged, and hence most qualitatively nuanced term in the vernacular: political hay for the picking. I'd hate to get blindsided by that one, I can see the Lifetime special already...

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875