RE: The End of Slavery

RE: The End of Slavery (Full Version)

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

Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: The End of Slavery (2/17/2005 9:25:59 AM)
quote: (I suppose I need to state that I use the term bottom and top as generic descriptors of the two sides of the power exchange, not in any specific way. All subs, slaves, masochists, servants and pieces of property are "bottoms.") The way I see it, bottoms (and of course the inverse holds true for tops) are drawn to this lifestyle by one (or more) of four basic desires. The desires are "being controlled" (physically or mentally), "being owned" (short-term or long-term, with limits or without), "serving", or "sensory excitement" (pain play, body mods, etcc.). well, Taggard, this just divides the bottoms for you into two distinct types, those that are permissive about when, where, for how long and at what intensity they will allow their counterpart "top" to physically or mentally control them, own them, serve them or participate in any type of sensory excitement(pain play, body mods, etc.) then there are those that are submissive in that they submit themselves wholly to their counterpart "top" as to when. where, for how long and at what intensity the "top" decides. the control is maintained by the "top" in each, but a certain level of control is maintained by the permissive, as they are permitting _________________(fill in the blank). quote: Your permissive/submissive paradigm might work well for you and others who share your desires in a relationship, but it leaves little room for those who don't quite sync up with your ideals. just trying to remove the ever-so-stigmatized "slave" label, that's all, with a suggestion for a more descriptive and lesser controversial title. there is plenty of room in this suggested paridigm for you to "own" a permissive for a short time under a certain set of circumstances; doesn't that work well for you? quote: This is just another attempt at getting the slave vs submissive debate going again. actually, no, Gloria, it was an assignment from Master to share her thoughts with the group here about ending that debate and doing away with the whole "slave" label altogether with no hidden agenda to beat anyone's dead horse.

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: The End of Slavery (2/17/2005 9:51:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth well, Taggard, this just divides the bottoms for you into two distinct types, those that are permissive about when, where, for how long and at what intensity they will allow their counterpart "top" to physically or mentally control them, own them, serve them or participate in any type of sensory excitement(pain play, body mods, etc.) then there are those that are submissive in that they submit themselves wholly to their counterpart "top" as to when. where, for how long and at what intensity the "top" decides. the control is maintained by the "top" in each, but a certain level of control is maintained by the permissive, as they are permitting _________________(fill in the blank). Oh sure, it is a different way to slice the pie. What we are really looking at is a way to describe and categorize a set of people. If we look at this in terms of set notation, we have a group of people we will call "bottoms" The set of bottoms can be defined by their desires (bottoms = controllees + servants + masochists + pieces of property) or by the duration and extent of their bottomness (bottoms = submissives + permissives). The problem I find is that defining people by degrees of interest, as opposed to the actual interest is rather meaningless. When one says (using your definintions) I am a "submissive" it means that they want to give up all control, but to someone doing what??? When one says I am a "permissive" it means that they have limits and durations, but for doing what??? I suppose for most in this lifestyle, there is probably enough of a foundation for what most bottoms like, that the interests are just assumed. If you are a bottom, you will like the spanking and flogging and whips and chains. It really might then just be a question of degree. I suppose my kinks are a bit out of the mainstream, so it becomes much more important to me to understand the actual desire, more than just the degree to which you are looking to submit to that desire. So, I guess what I am saying is that for those who are looking for a lifepartner who is inclined to BDSM, your terms might really work. A permissive is one who wants limits (of both time and intensity) on the BDSM activities in their relationships, while a submissive is one who allows the dominant in the relationship to decide the limits. For those who seek something different, be it play partners or property, your terms are not very useful. Taggard

Voltare -> RE: The End of Slavery (2/17/2005 10:14:32 AM)
Gosh, if we ended the sub vs slave debate, where else could we go to yell at the top of our lungs??? Seriously, I don't think the problem is a lack of terms or definitions, but rather trying to group people who generally have strikingly different reasons for their interests in BDSM. In short, all submissives (including slaves) are not alike. Submissive Angela may be excited by the sensations that heavy bondage (verbal and corporal) give her, while submissive Brandy has no real interested in kink related activities, but has an overwhelming desire to be 'owned' by her relationship partner, deferring all major decisions to him. Both might consider themselves slaves, but clearly for very different reasons. Even more numerous would be the different events in their life that have incited their interests in the first place - Angela, for example, may have grown up with aggressive and domineering parents who emotionally abused her, while Brandy's parents were exceedingly lax, and often didn't actually live up to their parental responsibilities. Obviously, these are fictional examples - real life is far more complicated. To lump these two characters into the same box makes a strong generalization - both are interested in BDSM, but the similaraties seem to end there. In reality, we could make the same distinctions with the various sorts of interests that vanilla people enjoy - Angela likes pottery, while Brandy is an avid gardener. Both are leisure activities, and other similarities exist (both enjoy getting their hands dirty, doing natural types of activities) but anybody could rattle off a hundred differences between their activities. Instead of focusing on why differences cause individuals not to be part of a certain group or classification, it would make more sense, I think, to try to understand the individual and what motivates them. Trying to ascribe quasi-psychological characteristics on BDSM activities and interests gives me the feeling of astrologers three thousand years ago trying to decide which gods in the stars are at war with, cheating on, giving birth to, and generally using people to war with each other. Stephan

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: The End of Slavery (2/17/2005 10:31:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Voltare Trying to ascribe quasi-psychological characteristics on BDSM activities and interests gives me the feeling of astrologers three thousand years ago trying to decide which gods in the stars are at war with, cheating on, giving birth to, and generally using people to war with each other. So you are saying that you do not see any similarities at all in the things people do enjoy? That each and every person enjoys their own thing, and can not be likend to others in the lifestyle? While I do agree that slave vs sub or permissive vs submissive are far too broad to be really useful, I also thing that there are some basic desires that are shared by those who are bottoms. I am always looking for ideas and comments on the desires I have identified. Of course, I take great delight in categorization and labels...but that is just me. Taggard

Voltare -> RE: The End of Slavery (2/17/2005 10:46:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty So you are saying that you do not see any similarities at all in the things people do enjoy? That each and every person enjoys their own thing, and can not be likend to others in the lifestyle? Naturally, there are similarities in the things we enjoy. My post is more to suggest that it really isn't worth getting into a verbal brawl over armchair psychology. quote: ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty Of course, I take great delight in categorization and labels...but that is just me. Actually, in my own mind I do the same thing. It gives me a sense of how to relate to the world. By all means, label away - I'm not saying they are wrong, just that they aren't likely to be any more right then anyone elses labels. N stuff. Stephan

EmeraldSlave2 -> RE: The End of Slavery (2/17/2005 10:53:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty I also thing that there are some basic desires that are shared by those who are bottoms. I am always looking for ideas and comments on the desires I have identified. Of course, I take great delight in categorization and labels...but that is just me. Taggard Other than feeling yummy by having someone top them for awhile, I don't. There's just too much variety out there. Are there things that most bottoms enjoy? Yes. But there's no one thing that all bottoms enjoy, nor enjoy for the same reason.

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: The End of Slavery (2/17/2005 11:01:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EmeraldSlave2 There's just too much variety out there. Are there things that most bottoms enjoy? Yes. But there's no one thing that all bottoms enjoy, nor enjoy for the same reason. That, quite simply, hasn't been my experience. I have been interested in this very topic for about 9 years now. So much so that off of my webpage I have a checklist that is broken into the 4 desires I mention above. I have found that there are some basic desires that seem to be shared. I have identified them by their unique ability to be the focus of some submissives kink. In otherwords, I have found that there are 4 extremes of bottom. The "property" whos kink is being owned. The "controllee" who desires to be forced. The "servant" who simply wants to serve. And the "masochist" who wants to experience painful pleasure. While most people blend all four desires, there are people who gravitate to just one of these extremes. That data has lead me to think that there is something basic about those desires. Just a theory, but I do have some data to back it up... Taggard

sub4hire -> RE: The End of Slavery (2/17/2005 11:05:32 AM)
Stephan, has anyone told you that you're brilliant yet today?

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: The End of Slavery (2/17/2005 11:07:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Voltare My post is more to suggest that it really isn't worth getting into a verbal brawl over armchair psychology. But then what would be get into a verbal brawl over? Taggard

Hawkins -> RE: The End of Slavery (2/17/2005 12:18:19 PM)
I love the semantic argument to tiny little pieces. I do think there are other considerations. Just as 'nigger' and 'queer' have been reclaimed by certain elements of communities once describable by those terms in polite company, just as 'gay' can be claimed to an extent its original meaning is very rarely used nowdays, just as bent as a descriptive term for a sexual pervert probably spawned (by means of a pun) 'kinky' as an in-term for the sexually different (kinky is less bent than bent, as bent is old-man-in-flasher mac potentialy dangerous pervert, not happy well-adjusted perverts), so too can 'slave' be appropriated. The OED doesn't have a police force. [;)] And with the grammar police, the pen has to be mightier than the sword as they have no swords... just well-thumbed style guides. Although I love the simplicity of your idea, I know people who are proud to describe themselves as slaves, or as trying to be slaves. And ironically, it is something they will probably be quite unsubmissive about giving up. [;)]

knkywch -> RE: The End of Slavery (2/17/2005 1:39:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty Hmmm... It still seems to me that you are trying to define what I see as (at least) 4 distinct bottom-like desires into two words. In addition, I see you really as using those two words simply to describe degrees of only one desire. The way I see it, bottoms (and of course the inverse holds true for tops) are drawn to this lifestyle by one (or more) of four basic desires. The desires are "being controlled" (physically or mentally), "being owned" (short-term or long-term, with limits or without), "serving", or "sensory excitement" (pain play, body mods, etcc.). (I suppose I need to state that I use the term bottom and top as generic descriptors of the two sides of the power exchange, not in any specific way. All subs, slaves, masochists, servants and pieces of property are "bottoms.") Your permissive/submissive paradigm might work well for you and others who share your desires in a relationship, but it leaves little room for those who don't quite sync up with your ideals. Taggard, I like that you propose bottom as the top level category and phrase sub-categories in terms of desires. Prompts me to think about whether there are any other sub-categories in addition to (and not fitting into) the quadrant you perceive under "bottom". My guess is that anything I come up with would either fit neatly into one of your quadrants or possibly overlap two or more. For example, what if a bottom was into resistance play? That could count for "control me" as well as "give me sensory excitement". Contrary to what some believe, I don't think the debates over how to slice the terminology pie ever get too old to stir up people's passion and desire to share their perceptions. I am enjoying this thread. Peace, kw

outlawrider -> RE: The End of Slavery (3/2/2005 10:14:47 PM)
at the extreme risk of being boo'd....... a rose by any other name... outlaw

Leonidas -> RE: The End of Slavery (3/3/2005 4:23:30 AM)
Holy shit! I'm a slave owner, and a permissive! Fancy that. Seems to me that I permitted my slave to buy new shoes just yesterday. I granted my consent or leave for her to fly out here and visit while I'm away on business the week before that, and a few months ago I afforded her the opportunity to leave where she was living, take a new job, and live where I chose for her to live. Now I understand why I've always butted heads with submssives a little bit. They're trying to be like me! quote: You are probably correct! But beth's retort was; "well then, they could just look it up in the dictionary!" Could just look slave up in the dictionary too. As I've pointed out a couple of times lately, the definition works just fine. Nothing in the definition about racism or the force of law. It's just a condition of bondage. quote: Speak to anyone from the Sudan, Indonesia, or even some parts of Gibraltar apparently, and the dictionary version of 'slave' is still very much in practice. The dictionary definition is very much in practice at my house too. Do you have a dictionary that defines slavery in such a way that brutality, racism, or ethnic hatred is required? The slavery that I practice stands up to historical reference. You'd just have to go back a bit farther in history. quote: I don't expect universal or even majority agreement, but I am proud of beth's research and work. I kind of like it too. She threw into sharp relief where power actually, usually, lies in the scene. I don't think that's what she was intending to do, but she did it rather well.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.21875