RE: definitions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master



Message

ProtagonistLily -> RE: definitions (2/2/2005 7:40:40 AM)

quote:

I may just have to do a Noah Webster and write my own...

Taggard


But then, that's exactly what it will be....your own. I can't, in all fairness and good faith, accept how you define submissive and slave. Just because you make a dictionary, doesn't mean it will become codified in the vernacular and that all will abide by it.

I think I'll just stick my head in the honey pot and wait for Christopher Robin to knock some sense into Tigger....

L



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: definitions (2/2/2005 7:42:14 AM)

Oh goody...a play mate!!! (And I mean that seriously, I love the back and forth of internet debate.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirTyson

quote:

Did a mojority of people agree on the definitions as penned by Noah Webster?


That very much sound to me like you are implying they were his definitions, and they weren't. They were words that already had meaning just being used improperly or pronounced differently.



I used the word "penned" for a reason. If I had said he "wrote" them, it would be possible to confuse my meaning and assume I was suggesting that he invented the definitions himself (which, funny enough, happened anyway). As I hope you understand now, I was saying Webster simply put to paper the most common definitions for words as he knew them at the time. You can't possibly think he knew all uses of all words, or that he even knew all words, can you? The man made liberal edits and sometimes made shit up...*smile* That is why people who write dictionaries write them...they love the power.


quote:


quote:

Nor did I ever suggest that we make up words to describe the roles in BDSM.


Ok, lets look at one of your earlier posts...

quote:

If there wasn't a word that described what they did, they wouldn't use an already existing word and have it mean something else. They would use a combination of other words, or they would create a new word.


So you are contradicting yourself now?


You are confusing my pronouns. The "we" in the more recent post refers to the authors of the BDSM dictionary. The "they" in the earlier post refers to those who feel they have something for which there is not already a term. In other words, if someone shows up who likes to have leaves insterted anally, and there isn't a word to describe their fetish, they can make one up. If that word gets into use by enough people, a dictionary writer may choose to include that word in the next edition of his dictionary.

The dictionary author doesn't make words up, but people do.

quote:


quote:

So having no definitions is going to make them feel welcome?


I not having definitions or trying to label people and telling them that those words or what you make them, what you and your Dom/Domme...Sub/Slave..agree upon.


Huh? I am not really sure what you are saying, but I will respoond with the following:

Dictionaries don't label people. People label people. Dictionaries are tools by which label can be more accurate and useful, but they don't assign words to people.

Two people in a room can agree to call themselves Tom and Jerry for all I care, but if they do it on an Internet message board, they better not hope people know what they mean. I, for one, like to be understood. I like to use words with a precision that most do not appreciate (as shown in the "penned" example above). I would like a reference book which shows the same care and precision...it does not currently exist. I suppose I will have to write it myself.

Taggard



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: definitions (2/2/2005 7:53:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ProtagonistLily

But then, that's exactly what it will be....your own. I can't, in all fairness and good faith, accept how you define submissive and slave. Just because you make a dictionary, doesn't mean it will become codified in the vernacular and that all will abide by it.


Who do you think wrote the first dictionary? How do you think words come to be standardized and accepted? Why do you think many dictionaries are named after people?

You have to start somewhere... The Deviant's Dictionary you linked to was written by someone (or maybe a group of someones). It has no more meaning or truth value than anything you or I compile.

A dictionary will be accepted if it is good, if it fills a need, and/or if it is a better resource than anything else. Websters dictionary was just Noah Websters before it was accepted by American culture as a valid reference book.

Taggard



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: definitions (2/2/2005 7:55:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirTyson

It doesnt say anything about you being in the lifestyle. I can post my information on the web also, doesnt mean Im out.


Dude, I am out:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=taggard+andrews+bdsm&btnG=Google+Search

Taggard



topcat -> RE: definitions (2/2/2005 8:22:54 AM)

Okay, okay-

I have the permission of the cabal to reveal the following, from the BlackBook:


quote:

Dominant - One who is given the control in a consensual exchange of power between two people.

Submissive - One that gives their control to another.

Top - Generic term for Dominant or a Partner that plays the Dominant role in a scene without psychological exchange of Dominance and submission.

Bottom - Generic term for submissive or a play partner that takes the submissive role without psychological exchange of Dominance and submission.

Master- A] revered individual, one who has mastered the skills we use in the scene. B] the owner of a slave C] a jerk off who thinks he can get easy sex by introducing himself as master D] ‘Master’ is often used to describe women, many of whom dislike the term ‘Mistress’

Slave- A] a submissive who submits not for their own pleasure, but to please another. B] an owned or ‘collared’ submissive. C] A revered individual who takes their submission very seriously, and masters the skills we use in the scene D] a ‘submissive’ gives consent on a case by case basis- a slave gives it once, and only retains the option of serving or leaving



darkinshadows -> RE: definitions (2/2/2005 9:00:04 AM)

quote:

I used the word "penned" for a reason. If I had said he "wrote" them, it would be possible to confuse my meaning and assume I was suggesting that he invented the definitions himself


quote:

Two people in a room can agree to call themselves Tom and Jerry for all I care, but if they do it on an Internet message board, they better not hope people know what they mean. I, for one, like to be understood. I like to use words with a precision that most do not appreciate (as shown in the "penned" example above).


If You are so fond of definitions, then You would see that its not hard to misunderstand you. 'Penned' or 'to pen' means to write something, to be the author...

But then I am just being pedantic (you can look that up if you like) [;)]

But it does prove the point that, no matter what one is called, or what one believes they are saying, someone-somewhere will always think it is, or you are saying, something else.

But why are you so hung up in grouping everyone together? Why do people have to belong... why cannot they just exist as they want. And most importantly... why must they fit your ideal? Why try and dictate and force your idea onto others. I can understand the need for definitions... soup is soup and noodles is noodles... but theres so many types and kinds and flavours, and one persons soup is another persons noodles. Ain't dat jus grand?[:D]

Black maybe black... but there are so many different shades. Maybe this colour isnt black... maybe to someone else, its just a very dark grey...

hmmm...[8|] can a synaestesist smell a megalomaniac?






TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: definitions (2/2/2005 9:11:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dark~angel
But why are you so hung up in grouping everyone together? Why do people have to belong... why cannot they just exist as they want. And most importantly... why must they fit your ideal?


Why are you so hung up on the mistaken notion that I am trying to do anything with people and belonging? In this forum, I don't care what people do or don't do. I don't care if they belong or don't belong. I don't care if they call themselves Master/Mistress/Monkey/Moonshine.

In this forum, I care about the words, not the people. I like words...I like people who use words well. In the online experience, words are all we have. I like words to have a meaning, and for that meaning to be known. I like knowing that when a person says they are a school teacher, it means the same thing when another person says it.

I really don't care if people belong...I certainly am not trying to belong anywhere. I just want words to mean something...and I can't stand the relativism of "everyone decides what a word means to themselves."

In addition...I love debating and discussing words, so even if I got my dream of everyone using the same objective meaning to BDSM words, I'd still find new words to discuss and debate.

Taggard



darkinshadows -> RE: definitions (2/2/2005 9:18:46 AM)

quote:

I really don't care if people belong...I certainly am not trying to belong anywhere. I just want words to mean something...and I can't stand the relativism of "everyone decides what a word means to themselves."


ah... but if you love words so much, then you will understand that all words come from somewhere... thats how words develop. Then You can fit the word into how you want. If someone doesnt understand, then they can discuss it. If they 'can't be bothered'... then maybe you havent lost out anyway?

Words are beautiful, but alone, they are empty unless you have tasted, or felt, or seen in your own eyes.



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: definitions (2/2/2005 9:38:04 AM)

Ok, I might be engaging in blasphemy, but I really want to discuss some of the base notions in those definitions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: topcat
quote:


Slave- A] a submissive who submits not for their own pleasure, but to please another.



How does motivation change a person's role? If someone is submitting, how can they no longer be a submissive? Is slave, in this definition just a subset of submissive?

quote:


quote:


B] an owned or ‘collared’ submissive.



Why does the person have to be an owned submissive. What if the owned person isn't submissive at all? Does that make them any less a slave?

quote:


quote:


D] a ‘submissive’ gives consent on a case by case basis- a slave gives it once, and only retains the option of serving or leaving



I think this definition is the one that irks me the most. Consent is implied in all BDSM activites. Negotiation of consent does not make one a submissive, any more than lack of negotiation makes one a slave.

I guess the true issue is that my primary kink is slavery, not submission. In my mind, almost all of the definition I see of slavery relate it in some way to submission, yet they are not, at least for me, in any way connected.

My primary desire, in this lifestyle, is to own a slave. Dominating her is not all that important to me. I am a service top, I like to pamper those I care about. So when someone describes a slave in terms of submission, it disregards my kink...and perhaps the kinks of others as well.

Taggard

Being submissive 24/7 does not make you a slave.



darkinshadows -> RE: definitions (2/2/2005 9:51:46 AM)

quote:

My primary desire, in this lifestyle, is to own a slave. Dominating her is not all that important to me. I am a service top, I like to pamper those I care about. So when someone describes a slave in terms of submission, it disregards my kink...and perhaps the kinks of others as well.


By Your definition there Taggard, as a service top as you describe it, I would be a slave.[:)] But, I am not. And if You met me, I may not meet your criteria as a slave, more a submissive... or maybe not even that.

No One is disrearding any kink... but each kink is unique and you just cant define it. Nor can you describe it. You can try, but at the end of the day, It Doesn't Matter. Only the people involved in the specific kink understands it because of the sensations involved.



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: definitions (2/2/2005 10:09:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dark~angel

By Your definition there Taggard, as a service top as you describe it, I would be a slave.[:)] But, I am not. And if You met me, I may not meet your criteria as a slave, more a submissive... or maybe not even that.


Are you owned? If you are, then I would consider you a slave. Do you enjoy submitting to another? If you do, then I would consider you a submissive. Do you enjoy performing services for others? If you do, then I would also consider you a servent. Do you like pain? If you do, then I would consider you a masochist.

Quite honestly, I really don't care what you consider yourself. Your definitions have no meaning in my life.

I'd be happy to latch on to other's definitions of roles (I am pretty lazy as a matter of course), but all of the definitions I have read are inadequate to describe my reality.

quote:


No One is disrearding any kink... but each kink is unique and you just cant define it. Nor can you describe it.



That is simply not true. Some people have a latex kink. Pretty easy to describe and define. Some like rope bondage. Again, pretty easy to describe and define. Some like to be owned. Some like to submit. Some like to serve. It should be pretty easy to describe and define those kinks as well, but, instead, we get people who define ownership as some sort of deep submission.

Taggard



darkinshadows -> RE: definitions (2/2/2005 10:40:36 AM)

You can believe whatever you wish, Taggard. Your thoughts about me have no relevance to me. But that doesnt stop You thinking whatever You wish.[;)]

I disagree. You cannot define a kink. Someone may have a latex kink... but it may be specific to a person... or a piece of clothing... doesnt mean they have a full on latex kink ... which is what the description may insinuate. Only talking to the person can help the outside understand the specifications to the kink. Rope bondage may mean to you... play involving several cords bound together being used. To someone else, it may mean trickplay or decieving... depending on the country. The bondage may be susspension... shibari... or cuffs... cupping has numerous connotations... the word kink itself as different meanings. Talk to someone outside the Ls that you like kinks and they may assume you like twirls and curls....

BDSM isnt about just definitions and descriptions. Some things are beyond all that. Its about being yourself... and being allowed to be who you are without fear, without reprisels and without judgements.

[:D]But then, It may not be that for You[:D]



mistoferin -> RE: definitions (2/2/2005 11:09:37 AM)

My Sir calls me His slave.

I tend to identify myself as being submissive.

I have had people tell me I am nothing more than a bottom because I actually LIKE some of the evil things Sir does to me and that is self serving.

Some people tell me they think I would make a great Domme. (NOT!!!!)

These terms are all a matter of how the person saying them perceives things. They do not change who I am or how I act. I am much more than a label. I am who I am, nothing more, nothing less.



mistoferin -> RE: definitions (2/2/2005 11:44:52 AM)

Wow I got it.....my new self "label" will be masoslub!



proudsub -> RE: definitions (2/2/2005 1:56:42 PM)

quote:

Wow I got it.....my new self "label" will be masoslub!


LOL, that's me too, a masoslub.[:D]



SirTyson -> RE: definitions (2/2/2005 6:10:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty

quote:


quote:

Nor did I ever suggest that we make up words to describe the roles in BDSM.


Ok, lets look at one of your earlier posts...

quote:

If there wasn't a word that described what they did, they wouldn't use an already existing word and have it mean something else. They would use a combination of other words, or they would create a new word.


So you are contradicting yourself now?


You are confusing my pronouns. The "we" in the more recent post refers to the authors of the BDSM dictionary. The "they" in the earlier post refers to those who feel they have something for which there is not already a term. In other words, if someone shows up who likes to have leaves insterted anally, and there isn't a word to describe their fetish, they can make one up. If that word gets into use by enough people, a dictionary writer may choose to include that word in the next edition of his dictionary.

The dictionary author doesn't make words up, but people do.


Im not confusing your pronouns at all. You said you are not suggesting words be made up, then you said make new words in the second post.

quote:

Two people in a room can agree to call themselves Tom and Jerry for all I care, but if they do it on an Internet message board, they better not hope people know what they mean.


As people have stated, they dont care what others think about what they call themselves and whether they agree with the meaning of the word they use for themselves or not.

quote:

I'd be happy to latch on to other's definitions of roles (I am pretty lazy as a matter of course), but all of the definitions I have read are inadequate to describe my reality.


In your first post you said "I have started pushing these definitions of slave and sub, and the difference between the two", because you said there was no standardization of the definitions. Why does there have to be one specific meaning to slave and sub? Most words in the modern day dictionary have multiple meanings.

Well people have given you links to some BDSM dictionaries and because you dont agree with those dictionaries, you want to create your own dictionary with your own meanings. Why should yours be the standard over others that are out there?

Noah Webster's dictionary didn't catch on over night and it will take a long time for any dictionary, to become a standard in this lifestyle if it were to happen.



ruffnecksbabygir -> RE: definitions (2/3/2005 7:06:08 AM)

hmm, has the thread moved over here? lol

i remembered my first Master, i met him when i was very new to the lifestyle and he guided me by teaching me many of his ideals and concepts of this lifestyle. I remember he would always say this, " The difference between a submissive and a slave is that a submissive will submit each and every time she chooses to obey her Master, a slave on the other hand only submits one time, and that is when she accepts her Masters collar she then surrenders herself to him and does not question whether or not she will submit, she simply submits from that moment forward" ...or something to that affect, that stuck with me, along with many other of his interpretations of the lifestyle, perhaps because i was so new to it and it formed the first impressions which became intergrated in my beliefs and views of bdsm relationships in a way.



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: definitions (2/3/2005 7:30:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirTyson

Im not confusing your pronouns at all. You said you are not suggesting words be made up, then you said make new words in the second post.


I will try this again using short words and one sentence paragraphs.

People should make words up.

Dictionary authors should not make words up.

They = people.

We = dictionary authors.

Clear?

quote:


In your first post you said "I have started pushing these definitions of slave and sub, and the difference between the two", because you said there was no standardization of the definitions. Why does there have to be one specific meaning to slave and sub? Most words in the modern day dictionary have multiple meanings.


Most dictionaries have multiple definitions because they are meant to be general purpose reference books. A reference book that is designed for a particular audience or practice area will instead have much more precise definitions. I think BDSM terms deserve very specific and precise definitions.


quote:


Well people have given you links to some BDSM dictionaries and because you dont agree with those dictionaries, you want to create your own dictionary with your own meanings. Why should yours be the standard over others that are out there?


It isn't that I don't agree with the definitions provided. It is that the definitions provided do not adequately describe the reality I experience. I believe my dictionary will adequately describe reality in a way that others do not.

quote:


Noah Webster's dictionary didn't catch on over night and it will take a long time for any dictionary, to become a standard in this lifestyle if it were to happen.


As should appear obvious from the volume of my responses, I have the time. *wink*

Taggard



mistoferin -> RE: definitions (2/3/2005 7:43:39 AM)

quote:

I think BDSM terms deserve very specific and precise definitions.


Even if we did come up with precise definitions, the fact is that they would still not encompass everyone. We all have subtle nuances that make the way we serve/Dominate just a bit different than the next. There would still be people that just didn't fit in the "box".

We would have to develop sub categories(pardon the pun) or levels. Say that a Level 1 slave agrees to submit for a short time period as you suggested one can do and specifically work up to a Level 10 slave who agrees to permanently give up all rights to property and children. The same could be done for submissives, Dominants etc. However, I think you would still find that people would still be debating over whether they were a Level 3 or a Level 5. I think that is just an intrinsic part of human nature.



ruffnecksbabygir -> RE: definitions (2/3/2005 7:51:16 AM)

Quote:
Even if we did come up with precise definitions, the fact is that they would still not encompass everyone. We all have subtle nuances that make the way we serve/Dominate just a bit different than the next. There would still be people that just didn't fit in the "box".

Isn't that already the case? aren't there people who just don't fit in the box? so, when someone says that those seeking labels or definitions are afraid of not fitting in isn't it really that they, themselves, are afraid not to fit in if definitions were given to these words?



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875