RE: BDSM Definitions?

RE: BDSM Definitions? (Full Version)

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

Message

bignipples2share -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/28/2006 3:47:31 AM)
*quote:* It was concurred that two of the biggest issues were that we would all have to be able agree, at least by a majority on something, well on anything for a start and that we needed to be able to give recognizable (within reason, allowing that there are many subgroups) definitions to some of our terminology." You mention the watered down BDSM thread, and it gives me pause as to what these labels can can end up doing. I see the validity of both labeling and not labeling. Nobody has to define themselves to anyone, but not having any labels does makes it hard when you’re looking for a partner. The problem I see when slapping on the definitive label is also being thrown in the category of 'just', or the grey area of watered down BDSM. You’re just this and therefore you’re not worthy. We have labels here, you don't fit, get out. Who cares if someone is into this 24/7/365? Ah, but maybe it’s totally for sex. Ha, they aren’t really into this, they are kinksters 24/7/365. Every focus from food, to watching porn on the TV, taking a walk together, tying up their partner..it’s all about sex to them. They don’t belong..oust them out, they’re not really real BDSMers, they don’t fit our labels. To me, I don’t care if someone is only tying someone up on the weekends. They fall under the umbrella of BDSM. They are real, they are just as valid in what they do as the person who does TPE. They may have been using real ropes on the same real partner for 20 years by gawd and if they’re Master of the rope and the other person, so be it. Ahhh, but it could be said the other person who is doing it 23 hours a day has only been doing it for 6 months, so they must be the true BDSMers, it’s not about sex for them. They only have sex once a day and no BDSM while they're having it. Wait, since it’s only 23 hours a day, that means they’re vanilla. Gotta be 24 hours a day or nothing, they’re back to just being kinky. Wait…what’s kinky, does that always involve sex? hmmmm. Never having the need before to slap on a BDSM label on what it is that I do, until I got here, I may have changed that label a bit, not the basis of who I am. Once I find a partner, maybe that label will morph into something different, don’t know. Maybe I’ll just throw that little sticker on my forehead back over my shoulder and walk out and forget the damn labels and just enjoy my partner for whatever the relationship is, not what I've had to label it. So for the sake of putting labels on stuff: Master: Someone with knowledge behind them. Could be they teach groups of people, maybe not, just that they’re capable. May, or may not own a sub, or slave at the moment, yet still has some awesome skills. Doesn't matter if they're teaching anyone anything at the moment either, just that they are capable. I don’t think someone gets to be a Master just because they now own something. Maybe the person never owned anything in their life besides a lamp. Just because a person wants to be owned by them, doesn’t make them any kind of Master. Master of one, Dom of one: Someone who is Dominant and has someone who they Master/Dominate Dom: A dominant person who may, or may not have anyone in their life at the moment. Maybe they have some skills, maybe not, they're still dominant. I agree with your description as well here and with Domme. Domme: Okay, so some people don't think this is a word, maybe it should be, it's just saying that the person is female. I don't see the big deal in making a word that implies a male and a different word for female. Sub: I agree with your description. Slave: I agree with your description, but to be a slave you have to be owned? I just don't get this one. I think a slave is a slave, they are just not owned by someone at the moment, the mentality is still there, they're not morphing into anything that they aren't at the present. So maybe one is a slave (owned) and one is a free slave, or uncollared slave. (not presently owned). Switch: I think if I could wish to be anything at all, it would be this. I think they’ve explained themselves and their variances quite well in the switch area of the forums. Someone says they’re a switch and the response is, “Oh, and how do you switch?” Seems so simple huh. They’re actually gonna talk about it. It’s a given. There is no right, or wrong way. Each different way is okay. They just talk about it. Gotta love it. Top, bottom, Sadist and Masochists: What you said, but I think that any of the above labeled can do any one, or combo of these if they choose, or are told to do so. Now for TPE: I don’t think you’re any less real if you’re not doing this as a 24/7/365 relationship. If you love tying someone up, for whatever reason, you ARE doing Bondage and that’s under the umbrella of BDSM. If you have complete power over someone else, yet that other person enjoys spanking you and you enjoy being spanked, big deal. That just happens to be how the two of you enjoy the kink in your BDSM relationship. One is demanding pain and the other is complying. I also think that many vanilla relationships are based on TPE and they’d vehemently deny being any part of the BDSM community. Personally, I think they’d be right. ~Big

twicehappy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/28/2006 4:12:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy 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. There already is a word that defines the elephant completely, pay attention it is; ELEPHANT If you take a picture of an elephant and ask every citizen of the United States who is old enough talk they will tell you that picture is of an elephant. Granted there are many breeds of elephants but to start with they are all elephants. And yes those who do not speak English will give you a different word, but it will still translate to elephant. With the exception of a few collarme residents who may either tell you it is a lizard or instruct you to find the creature whose photo you have and ask the creature what it is comfortable calling itself. Dear Slave Sinergy, you persist in calling this creature you have described an elephant, why? Did you sit down and have a conversation with it and it told you it liked being called an elephant? Or are you using a term that was given by one person at some point in time that a later group of people got together and agreed accurately defined this creature?

twicehappy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/28/2006 4:23:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: justheather 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. Master justheather, i get it, definitions have no useful purpose and i cannot get anyone to agree because it is too varied. What i really do not get is why you insist in one post that i am attempting to coerce my family's definitions on everyone then in another claim that is not what you are doing, you are right, we will never agree.

twicehappy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/28/2006 4:26:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros I've been unable to sit for more than a minute or two for a few days due to a pinched sciatic nerve from some aggressive mountain biking, so I missed the progression while trying to score some painkillers and muscle relaxants - great minds think alike! Thank you for letting it stand, it really was a good post. Sorry to hear about your back, i can sympathize on the pain at least, i've spent the last week on painkillers and antibiotics due to an old jaw injury getting reinfected. Hope you feel better soon.

twicehappy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/28/2006 4:31:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: joyinslavery These 'definition' posts are so much fun!! Lets do it again! NOT.. hee he You mean as a transvestite switch you do not enjoy these battles?

LadyHugs -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/28/2006 6:51:22 AM)
Dear twicehappy, Ladies and Gentlemen; Just contact me off forum and I'll send it out to a mailing addresss that you provide. No money required on anybody's part. Just be aware, that Windows XP Home Edition's Microsoft's Works-Word Processor seems the only format to open these, as there are embedded full scale color illustrations. Respectfully submitted for consideration, Lady Hugs

Sinergy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/28/2006 7:09:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble If I had to pick one regular poster who I thought had already read this book, it would have been a coin flip between you and LA. Ok, personally, I do believe it's one of the most important novels of the 20th Century and should be mandatory reading to be allowed to graduate from high school, but the last 5 minutes of the Breakfast Club is probably just as good and much easier to swallow on the whole. ::chuckles:: Celeste Hello A/all, I agree with you. The ideas stated in that book are insightful and valuable, I just found it to be rather long winded and a trifle dull. The fact that I hiked up Mount Baldy once does not necessarily imply to me that I need to do it again. Been there, done that. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/28/2006 7:22:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: twicehappy Slave Sinergy Hello A/all, See, your strident insistence on using definitions has already failed the first test. You look at me and what I do, and then call me a "slave," your definition fails by any reasonable definition, including those listed by the original poster. See the problem you will have attempting to force somebody to adhere to defined standards you try to impose on them? Enjoy your day, Sinergy

OhReallyNow -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/28/2006 8:50:42 AM)
quote: my Daddy defines our dynamic.. no one else... *perfectly stated [:)]* this slave thanks you Miss Julia for your kind words. For her, they are quite humbling in regards to the fact that this slave often finds herself AT A LOSS OF WORDS when trying to debate with you [:)]

agirl -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/28/2006 9:16:27 AM)
The people debating this have an outline label on their profiles........what further is needed? You extend the slave definition as under roof ..... which is a FURTHER refined definition of your own. Not all slaves live under roof and this must then mean they are not owned property?....oh come on. agirl

twicehappy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/28/2006 9:26:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: twicehappy Slave Sinergy Hello A/all, See, your strident insistence on using definitions has already failed the first test. You look at me and what I do, and then call me a "slave," your definition fails by any reasonable definition, including those listed by the original poster. See the problem you will have attempting to force somebody to adhere to defined standards you try to impose on them? Since by your own argument WIITWD is too complex to be shackled with definitions; quote: Sinergy "The point I was trying to make is that I personally feel that WIITWD is too complex a subject to shackle it with definitions." And as far as you are concerned people can call things what ever they want quote: Sinergy Far as I am concerned, people can call things whatever they want I decided today I wanted to call you a slave. If you do not care for the term I have used to define you perhaps you might want to try giving me a clarified, codified, nailed down definition of what you think of yourself as but the problem I see with that is; quote: Sinergy In my experience, limited though it might be, the people who most insistent on clarified, codified, nailed down, types of definitions tend to be the most insecure in their own interactions in the lifestyle. To me, they seem inordinately concerned with whether I consider them a True Dominant or True submissive or True Republican or whatever, leaving me to wonder why the hell they care what I think. I would not want you to feel insecure though you could use a BASIC, GENERAL, definition as a STARTING POINT (I see no need to flesh any definition out for the sake of a simple conversation) but since you believe; quote: Sinergy 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) Actually I do disagree, you could say " I am a dom" and I would have a basis to work from rather than choosing my own which you seem to find inappropriate and offensive.(Could be you are reading a specific example here) But since; quote: Sinergy whether or not the people who post on these boards agree on a definition for the "slave." We cannot agree on a definition for slave I decided today I felt like it could be used to describe someone who has a female who calls him Daddy. quote: Sinergy I don't 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 don't think any of us "share" a perception, because everybody has their own greater or lesser amount of confirmation bias in favor of what they themselves think which adds or subtracts from objective reality. You may have something with that above statement, my perception of you today based on all the information I have led me to conclude I can use the term slave to define my perception of your role in WIITWD. That is ok because that is how I perceive it and that is what I am comfortable with. quote: ORIGINAL ScooterTrash 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.

Amaros -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/28/2006 9:38:49 AM)
Slave: an advanced form of roleplaying in which a submissive gives blanket and tacit, rather than episodic and explicit consent to his/her role in interactive scenarios over an indeterminate time frame. Nobody?

OhReallyNow -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/28/2006 10:02:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros Slave: an advanced form of roleplaying in which a submissive gives blanket and tacit, rather than episodic and explicit consent to his/her role in interactive scenarios over an indeterminate time frame. Nobody? *this slave could not go with that definition either. She does not 'roleplay' at any time; she is a slave 24/7, whether she lives with Master or not.* this slave understands why you chose the word roleplay, she read it in the first post that you brought up with this. However, despite wanting to use the word because of the legalities attatched to slavery, this slave would still have to argue the point. While in the eyes of the law, Master's ownership of this property may not be seen as legal; WE view it as binding. Granted, going into a court of law to try and defend our stance would be futile, yet, as long as both Master and his slave VIEW it within themselves as a binding contract of ownership, that, in this slave's eyes, means more to her than what is written into laws. ( And for those that are sure to bring up the arguement that this slave would disregard laws just because she chooses to view them differently; try to remember that we are focusing on an issue of 'consent between two MATURE and mentally fuctional adults' ) *with all that being said, this slave could not hold with that definition. She does not 'roleplay' at being a slave.*

Amaros -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/28/2006 10:38:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OhReallyNow quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros Slave: an advanced form of roleplaying in which a submissive gives blanket and tacit, rather than episodic and explicit consent to his/her role in interactive scenarios over an indeterminate time frame. Nobody? *this slave could not go with that definition either. She does not 'roleplay' at any time; she is a slave 24/7, whether she lives with Master or not.* this slave understands why you chose the word roleplay, she read it in the first post that you brought up with this. However, despite wanting to use the word because of the legalities attatched to slavery, this slave would still have to argue the point. While in the eyes of the law, Master's ownership of this property may not be seen as legal; WE view it as binding. Granted, going into a court of law to try and defend our stance would be futile, yet, as long as both Master and his slave VIEW it within themselves as a binding contract of ownership, that, in this slave's eyes, means more to her than what is written into laws. ( And for those that are sure to bring up the arguement that this slave would disregard laws just because she chooses to view them differently; try to remember that we are focusing on an issue of 'consent between two MATURE and mentally fuctional adults' ) *with all that being said, this slave could not hold with that definition. She does not 'roleplay' at being a slave.* Well yes, I anticapted that this sould be your response, the appeal to identity, i.e., "I am a slave" - this is all well nad good, but this owrd already has a well established meaning by global, historical consensus, so whatever personal, subjective definition you may cherish, it may or may not conform with the objective consensus reality. To recap the entire original post (slightly edited for clarity): quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros So anyways, if I were to be the one to define "slave" in terms of the BDSM community it would go something like this: An advanced form of roleplaying in which a submissive gives tacit, rather than explicit consent to his/her role in interactive scenarios over an indeterminate time frame. Feedback? Most consent in this hyar thang does tend to be tacit, at least within the confines of an established dyad, untill such time as explicit objections are expressed, but the term "slave" is explicitly defined, historically at least, as strictly non-consensual - the word has no place in a consensual dynamic if it isn't expressly and unambiguously defined as a form of roleplay - whatever subjective, personal associations you might have for this particular designation. i.e., otherwise, where is the difference between the lovely ladies in here who have proudly refined their submission to an art form and some 14 year old Somolian girl raped repeatedly at gunpoint? Plan B might be to blame it on the Goreans. Is that a guy picking his nose or flipping the bird? Savvy? the term "Slave" is highly inflamatory, the subject of international law, and to settle on a common defintion that defuses the term w/regard to BDSM might come in handy in the eventuality for those of us whose heads may end up on the chopping block of political expedience, your beloved master included. Meanwhile, it doesn't neccessarily have to have anything to do with your identification with, or fondness for this designation, for you personally, or withing the confines of your dyad, your defintion means whatever you want it to mean - and correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the one that wasn't worried what "everybody else" thought? In light of that, your objection is duly noted, and further rebuttal is available on demand, although I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it.

OhReallyNow -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/28/2006 10:56:12 AM)
quote: the term "Slave" is highly inflamatory, *for some, yes, the term slave is highly inflamatory; for others, it is a term of endearment.* this slave works at a hospital; her co-workers are a mix of ethnic and racial backgrounds. Yet, not one of them find it highly inflamatory when this slave describes her relationship with Master; nor do they find the word 'slave' to be insuting when she uses it in regards to herself. Some are curious as to the 'why', and those that are question this slave about it. However, they are intelligent enough to understand and see that this slave is perfectly happy with her description of herself; and open minded enough not to be insulted by what she chooses to call herself. quote: and to settle on a common defintion that defuses the term w/regard to BDSM might come in handy in the eventuality for those of us whose heads may end up on the chopping block of political expedience, your beloved master included. *and why would your head end up on a chopping block? Are you going out in public, beating and whipping your girl/boy, and then claiming that you have that right to ?* Personally, Master does not need to flaunt his property in the public eye to make a point. If this slave goes to a doctor with bruises covering her from head to toe, she does not NEED to tell the doctor of her relationship. She can choose to, but she does not NEED to. If the doctor feels there is reason to bring in the law, then that is HIS CHOICE to do so; but without this slave pressing charges, the law has no standing. If in public Master demands that this slave get on all fours and crawl like a dog, then this slave will do so. If curious onlookers ask why she is doing it, this slave will happily tell them why. In this slave's life, 99% of the people that she has met in her 38 years have been sufficiently intelligent enough to recognize that happiness comes in many forms for many different people. *You made your point perfectly clear. There was no reason for you to try and restate it. This slave is quite capable of comprehending the written word.* *You asked for comments on your definition, this slave responded with her own comments.* *Agree to disagree.* *End of discussion.* [:)]

Amaros -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/28/2006 11:03:47 AM)
I'm sure that Somolian girl will be comforted by your identification with her exalted position. One question, can you walk away? Ah, wait, you already answered: If the doctor feels there is reason to bring in the law, then that is HIS CHOICE to do so; *but without this slave pressing charges, the law has no standing.*** So, anybody else? Expansion, redefinition, elucidation? Too much? Not enough? Plain stupid?

Tikkiee -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/28/2006 11:18:00 AM)
Some very nice dictionary definitions. However, I am with the rest who agree that forcing your own definitions on others will never work, no matter how hard you try. Personally I find it extremely funny that you and your owners can find no other topic of discussion other than ones that try to ram your own opinions down the throats of others.

Amaros -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/28/2006 11:19:09 AM)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to goad or challenge you into testing the theory as to how far no limits actually means, "no limits", or taunt you with hypotheticals, I'm glad you're in a happy place, and do not wish to disturb you - just trying to convey to you that the word means different things to different people, and it has a legally binding definition in domestic and international law, outside your social circle. There is a line, and informed consent constitutes that line.

twicehappy -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/28/2006 11:26:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros Slave: an advanced form of roleplaying in which a submissive gives blanket and tacit, rather than episodic and explicit consent to his/her role in interactive scenarios over an indeterminate time frame. That is a very good definition with the exception that, for me at least, i do not consider it role play. But as a basic definition i would find it quite acceptable, especially considering you took into account all the factors involved. I would naturally flesh it out when speaking to someone about me personally. Thank you Amaros for contributing.

OhReallyNow -> RE: BDSM Definitions? (9/28/2006 11:34:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to goad or challenge you into testing the theory as to how far no limits actually means, "no limits", or teasing you with hypotheticals, I'm glad you're in a happy place, and do not wish to disturb you - just trying to convey to you that the word means different things to different people, and it has a legally binding definition in domestic and international law, outside your social circle. There is a line, and informed consent constitutes that line. *LOL yes you are [8D] But that's ok, because this slave enjoys a good spirited debate in which both sides can remain calm and rational [:)]* quote: - just trying to convey to you that the word means different things to different people *this slave does not try to infer that she has NEVER run up against those who do take offense; only that the majority have shown her that they are capable of understanding her stance on it.* quote: and it has a legally binding definition in domestic and international law, outside your social circle. *this slave is aware that the United States banned slavery. She understands and comprehends that in the eyes of the LAW, Master has no right to claim ownership over her.* *When Master and this slave first started talking, these were all things that were discussed. His ownership, LEGALLY, is only contingent on IF this slave allows it [:)]* However, in her discussions with Master, she made a conscious, and clear decision to enter into what many see as an illegal relationship. Our commitment to this relationship is only as good as our words are to each other. This slave offered herself to Master. Master claimed his property, as was his right under the terms of our own negotiations. Once this slave accepted his ownership, that was it. She made a conscious and clear decision to abide by the rules and laws that Master set down for US. this slave understands that the contract she and Master has has no legal standing outside of our OWN relationship. And that is ok with this slave. She can accept that most of the world is not ready to embrace such a commitment.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875