RE: terminology (Full Version)

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



Message


WhiteRadiance -> RE: terminology (10/27/2006 9:04:27 PM)

I agree


quote:

ORIGINAL: Morrigel

Domme--a dominant female.  Her personal character and the role she enjoys in BDSM determines the use of the term, regardless of whether she is currently in a relationship.

Mistress- An honoriffic term, it is how most dommes are addressed in a scene or in a relationship by a submissive or slave.  Also generally one who owns a slave. 

Slave- Owned property, male or female.  High degree of power exchange with dominant partner, male or female.  Most "slave" relationships are 24/7, and many are denoted by the wearing of a collar, a piece of ceremonial jewelry or a tattoo.

Submissive- A person who enjoys the submissive role in BDSM.  The exact nature and details of the type of submission they practice is highly individual.

Top--A person who performs action on another.  Being dominant is not necessary, but heavily implied.  A dominant wielding a whip on a bound victim and a submissive giving a massage to a relaxed dominant are both technically performing actions, and thus "top", but people will only think of the whip-wielder, usually, when they use this word.

Bottom- A person who enjoys being on the receiving end of physical sensations.  Being "submissive" per se is not necessary, although heavily implied.  Technically, a person being massaged or receiving oral sex is the "bottom", because they are receiving sensation, but they may be dominant.  See above--most people will think of the bound victim when they use this word.

This is how I generally use the terms.

--M




mysteryshopper -> RE: terminology (10/27/2006 10:44:06 PM)

What does "never inside" mean?
When femdoms say, "I enjoy: ____, ____, never inside, ____"




ownedgirlie -> RE: terminology (10/27/2006 11:20:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

I was referring to this

I don't get it, LaM.  I tend to reference the dictionary for clarity of terms, but I'm inferring from your posts that you frown upon that.  The irony in your dislike of Websters is that once I was belittled on a thread for using Websters as opposed to Oxford.  But other than that, I do not understand your commentary on those of use who do use them.

I actually fit definition #2 as stated in the post you are referencing.  I'm confused as to what is wrong with it.  Is it because it is exclusive?  I'm serious when I say I am perplexed.

I guess I have an affinity for dictionaries, having been raised in a home where English was one of my parents' second language.  So, often times in my house the wrong words were used to define something.  To this day I often second guess what word I want to use, so I go to the dictionary for help, rather than say something foolish.

Well, I must admit, the dictionary doesn't always stop me from that [;)]

Edited because I used the wrong word and had to look it up, lol, seriously!




ineedotk -> RE: terminology (10/27/2006 11:32:19 PM)

Lordandmaster, this book you mention, "Great Book of All Things", are you suggesting that this book contains the official definitions of BDSM terminology?  If so, where can this book be found?  Also, is there not some other book in existence that could be considered the "Bible of BDSM"?  In other words, an anything-you-ever-wanted-to-know book on the subject.




Lordandmaster -> RE: terminology (10/28/2006 12:00:14 AM)

I use the dictionary all the time.  Probably more than anyone on Collarme, to be honest, because I write constantly and precision is crucial to my work.  I own about 130 dictionaries.  Truthfully.  But you have to know the purpose of your tools.  You don't use a screwdriver to hammer in a nail.  You don't use an orbital sander to lay a carpet.  And you don't use a dictionary to tell you what "slave" means.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

I don't get it, LaM.  I tend to reference the dictionary for clarity of terms, but I'm inferring from your posts that you frown upon that.




ownedgirlie -> RE: terminology (10/28/2006 3:24:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

I use the dictionary all the time.  Probably more than anyone on Collarme, to be honest, because I write constantly and precision is crucial to my work.  I own about 130 dictionaries.  Truthfully.  But you have to know the purpose of your tools.  You don't use a screwdriver to hammer in a nail.  You don't use an orbital sander to lay a carpet.  And you don't use a dictionary to tell you what "slave" means.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

I don't get it, LaM.  I tend to reference the dictionary for clarity of terms, but I'm inferring from your posts that you frown upon that.



But....Why??

No seriously.  If you go to KoM's thread about saying what we mean, you'll see that I think very literally and as a result, communication is sometimes difficult for me.  While I understand that some words have flexibility in their meanings and one can not be too literal with their interpretation, I also believe the dictionary provides a good basis or outline from which to start.  Having said that, I do believe "slave" means what Webster's says it means (I'm not sure which dictionary was used in the thread you are referring to, but this is what I see in Websters):  1) A person held in servitude as the chattel of another; 2) One that is completely subservient to a dominating influence; and 3) a device that is directly responsive to another.

Now, while there are variations to exactly what one's "servitude" is, or what that "dominating influence" is, I honestly do not see how these definitions do not somehow describe what it is we talk about when we say "slave."  Not trying to be argumentative here, but my literal mind can not wrap around why the above definitions do not describe slave, or why they shouldn't. 

I believe the confusion comes when we pick and choose what words we'll accept common definitions from, and which we won't. 


Edited for spelling error




MsKatHouston -> RE: terminology (10/28/2006 6:34:50 AM)

Perhaps it means she never allows a sub to penetrate her?  I dunno.  Ask.




MisPandora -> RE: terminology (10/28/2006 7:54:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: livinincincy

I was informed that there is only one correct definition of the terms used by the D/s BDSM community.
So the textbook definitions are ?



*on cranky rant of the morning*

Oh jesus, there is not "one twue way" to do anything! 

This lifestyle is what YOU make of it, period. 

The definition only matters if it's consistent for all of the folks IN the particular relationship.




MisPandora -> RE: terminology (10/28/2006 7:56:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: livinincincy

I have been playing devils advocate to see what the Collarme.com community would reveal.


Interpreted: I've been playing games to fuck with you all.  That's otherwise known as "wasting your time, people". 

Go about your normally scheduled daily activities, folks.  Nothing to see here.




Lordandmaster -> RE: terminology (10/28/2006 9:07:45 AM)

Dictionaries call their entries "definitions," but they don't, in fact, define terms; they merely describe them.  There is a world of difference.  "Slave" happens to be an extremely complicated word even in the vanilla world; in BDSM usage, it's even more complicated.  (And let's not get to Gor.)  A dictionary can't possibly reflect all the complexity.  For one thing, "slave" has a long and varied history; it has meant different things at different times and in different cultures.

But above all, what we call "slave" is a matter of identity; it's not--unlike in the past--a legal or social term.  What slavery meant in Roman times, or in the antebellum South, or in whatever sources a dictionary is going to use to construct its definition, have little bearing on the way we use and understand the term in a BDSM context.  Even within the BDSM world, as we see virtually every day on Collarme, there are radically different understandings of the essence, nature, and obligations of a slave.  Why would you go to a dictionary for guidance about THAT?  A dictionary tells you how a word is generally used; a good dictionary tells you how a word has been used in the past.  No more, no less.  It does not tell you about life.

Edited to add: By the way, if you're serious about dictionaries, it's worthwhile to look into the lexicographical principles on which they're based--and how those have changed.  I recommend Sidney I. Landau's Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography (Cambridge University Press).  The second edition is available in a reasonably priced paperback.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

I use the dictionary all the time.  Probably more than anyone on Collarme, to be honest, because I write constantly and precision is crucial to my work.  I own about 130 dictionaries.  Truthfully.  But you have to know the purpose of your tools.  You don't use a screwdriver to hammer in a nail.  You don't use an orbital sander to lay a carpet.  And you don't use a dictionary to tell you what "slave" means.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

I don't get it, LaM.  I tend to reference the dictionary for clarity of terms, but I'm inferring from your posts that you frown upon that.



But....Why??

No seriously.  If you go to KoM's thread about saying what we mean, you'll see that I think very literally and as a result, communication is sometimes difficult for me.  While I understand that some words have flexibility in their meanings and one can not be too literal with their interpretation, I also believe the dictionary provides a good basis or outline from which to start.  Having said that, I do believe "slave" means what Webster's says it means (I'm not sure which dictionary was used in the thread you are referring to, but this is what I see in Websters):  1) A person held in servitude as the chattel of another; 2) One that is completely subservient to a dominating influence; and 3) a device that is directly responsive to another.




ownedgirlie -> RE: terminology (10/28/2006 9:44:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Dictionaries call their entries "definitions," but they don't, in fact, define terms; they merely describe them.  There is a world of difference.  "Slave" happens to be an extremely complicated word even in the vanilla world; in BDSM usage, it's even more complicated.  (And let's not get to Gor.)  A dictionary can't possibly reflect all the complexity.  For one thing, "slave" has a long and varied history; it has meant different things at different times and in different cultures.

But above all, what we call "slave" is a matter of identity; it's not--unlike in the past--a legal or social term.  What slavery meant in Roman times, or in the antebellum South, or in whatever sources a dictionary is going to use to construct its definition, have little bearing on the way we use and understand the term in a BDSM context.  Even within the BDSM world, as we see virtually every day on Collarme, there are radically different understandings of the essence, nature, and obligations of a slave.  Why would you go to a dictionary for guidance about THAT?  A dictionary tells you how a word is generally used; a good dictionary tells you how a word has been used in the past.  No more, no less.  It does not tell you about life.

Edited to add: By the way, if you're serious about dictionaries, it's worthwhile to look into the lexicographical principles on which they're based--and how those have changed.  I recommend Sidney I. Landau's Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography (Cambridge University Press).  The second edition is available in a reasonably priced paperback.


LaM, I sincerely appreciate your replies.  I guess I have a simple mind, and like to keep things simple.  To me, the dictionary provides the basic foundation of what a word means and leaves the rest up to us. 

Example:  I'm putting lawn in my yard.  When I say that, you (collectively) have a picture in your mind of what I'm talking about.  Everyone tends to know what a lawn is.  From there, conversation can ensue - Am I laying sod?  Planting seeds?  What kind of lawn (my poor Dad experimented with Dichondra once - what a disaster)?  Where in the yard - front, back, side strip?  As you can see, there are so many variations from there.  The word "lawn" gives us a foundation from which to work.  Conversation allows the details and personalizes it.

I can see we are coming at this from two different angles, and do not see it the same way.  But I do appreciate your replies, as I was a little thrown by your words on the subject in both this thread and the other.  Thank you for sharing your point of view in a...um...less critical way [:)]

PS:  Thank you for the Landau reference :)




Lordandmaster -> RE: terminology (10/28/2006 9:47:56 AM)

I guess, to put this in a nutshell, the difference between us is this.  We both agree that for two people to understand each other, they have to have a shared sense of what words mean.  The extent to which their understandings of terms overlap determines the extent to which they will communicate effectively.  Now you seem to believe that dictionaries determine that shared sense of words' meanings.  I believe dictionaries merely describe it.  After all, people certainly communicated before someone invented the first dictionary.  Dictionaries were invented because they are useful tools, not because they are indispensable to communication.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

Example:  I'm putting lawn in my yard.  When I say that, you (collectively) have a picture in your mind of what I'm talking about.  Everyone tends to know what a lawn is.  From there, conversation can ensue - Am I laying sod?  Planting seeds?  What kind of lawn (my poor Dad experimented with Dichondra once - what a disaster)?  Where in the yard - front, back, side strip?  As you can see, there are so many variations from there.  The word "lawn" gives us a foundation from which to work.  Conversation allows the details and personalizes it.




ownedgirlie -> RE: terminology (10/28/2006 9:53:48 AM)

I think you summed up our differences on the subject extremely well.  Again, thank you for sharing your views.  The conversation has opened my mind to understanding other points of view, and I have taken something worthwhile away from it.  Thank you for your patience; I appreciate it.




MistressDolly -> RE: terminology (10/29/2006 10:30:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsKatHouston

You were informed incorrectly.  Check some of the threads on definitions and terminology recently posted.  People who have been in the scene for years and years still argue over "proper" definitions.  Get an idea of what the general consensus is but be open to the possibility that your definition may not be someone else's.




Good advice.    Definitions, particulary in the "lifestyle" are often arbitrary and will always remain open for other's view points.   Obviously we  need definitions for expression and communication, but I just  think it's futile to argue over them, as you will see taking place in certain threads - -  what's your relative view point may not be mine.  Being open and receptive, or as you put it:  "...be open to the possibility that your definition may not be someone else's." is smart.  After all, who wants to think alone? There's much to learn from oppossing viewpoints and even criticism.  If it were otherwise, we would never grow.




xunderyoux -> RE: terminology (10/29/2006 11:16:21 AM)

Dictionaries call their entries "definitions," but they don't, in fact, define terms; they merely describe them.

why would the dictionaries call them definitions, then?

I'm confused. [8|]




mnottertail -> RE: terminology (10/29/2006 11:29:18 AM)

How could we go about calling these books descriptionaries?.  Hell, allota folks hereabouts are having trouble being 'Domiate' let alone spelling, pronouncing or sharing any agreement to what a 'Dominance' is......................(are they verbs? adverbs?  nouns?  pluperfect participles?)  There is no such thing as a no-limits slave; discuss....

You can read the dictionary's description of green all day long, but you are only going to learn any overlap (Lam just knows how to say shit, don't he?) in our shared definition of it by getting a couple examples together and hoping I catch on.  At some point we will come to disagreement on whether it is green, blue-green or blue.  The color blind will assert that it is brown.........I would, like Einstein; be rather reticent to say that anyone is somehow wrong.........

LOL,

Ron
(yes, folks, my faults are legion,  but I can't pass it up)




xunderyoux -> RE: terminology (10/30/2006 1:09:23 PM)

descriptionaries!

LMAO




undergroundsea -> RE: terminology (10/31/2006 5:20:17 AM)

I think the applicability of terms like slave and top rests not so much on the relationship status of a person but how that person identifies. A person can identify as a slave based on the relationship desired even if single, just as a gay man can identify as being gay even if single.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Morrigel
Top--A person who performs action on another.  Being dominant is not necessary, but heavily implied.  A dominant wielding a whip on a bound victim and a submissive giving a massage to a relaxed dominant are both technically performing actions, and thus "top", but people will only think of the whip-wielder, usually, when they use this word.

Bottom- A person who enjoys being on the receiving end of physical sensations.  Being "submissive" per se is not necessary, although heavily implied.  Technically, a person being massaged or receiving oral sex is the "bottom", because they are receiving sensation, but they may be dominant.  See above--most people will think of the bound victim when they use this word.


Indeed one may find a dominant masochist or a submissive sadist or top, and such roles assumed maybe transitory or regular.

I am wondering how I would fare if I took a new approach to offer a footrub to a domme at the next party; would you like to bottom to me and have your feet rubbed? ;-) I bet I could do it in a manner where I would have some degree of success!

Cheers,

Sea




MsKatHouston -> RE: terminology (10/31/2006 6:12:02 AM)

If my bottoming to you only entailed me getting my feet rubbed, where do I sign up.  I'll even call ya Sir ;)




undergroundsea -> RE: terminology (10/31/2006 6:24:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsKatHouston

If my bottoming to you only entailed me getting my feet rubbed, where do I sign up.  I'll even call ya Sir ;)


May I please humbly request that instead you kindly call me Mr. Sub? ;-)

Here is a post I made elsewhere.

Cheers,

Sea

**************
I recently encountered a thread asking subs to share their rebellion fantasy. I had never had a rebellion fantasy but came up with one for the occasion!

So one day I say to a domme, "ROARRR...I am turning the tables." She looks away from the book she is reading to respond and says to me, "Speaking of tables, go set the table for dinner and then you can do whatever you want with tables." I say, "Negative! I am not setting any tables. I am now in charge. Now we do as I say. And I wish to be addressed as Mr Sub." She doesn't look at me and says, "Whatever." I say, "Aha! You have accepted the situation for what it is. I am delighted by your compliance and willingness to address me in whatever manner I wish. And I am pleased that you kept your eyes lowered and averted eye contact." She continues to read the book. I say, "I am delighted that you defer to me with silence and that you don't argue or talk back to me." Then I say, "You must do as I say and accept whatever I dish out. And now I shall exert my physical dominance and subject you to a footrub." I proceed to reach for her hand to lead her to a chair. She pulls her hand away and grabs me by the hair and puts me on the ground. As I try to rise, she pushes me down with her foot on my chest. Then she stands on my chest, hands on her hips, looking down at me and says, "I'm sorry, what were you saying?" I say in a wheezing voice, "Must I have to correct you? You left out the Mr. Sub...it should have been, I'm sorry, what were you saying, Mr. Sub?"

And then we hear the TV and go off to watch Seinfeld or something.

Cheers,

Sea




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

Valid CSS!




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