Labels [mini-rant]
Tobie
-=- kajira hill -=- wrote:
>
> [disclaimer: i am *very* touchy about the label "slave." i say this,
> because said touchiness belies everything i'm about to write.]
>
> Why are labels so important to everyone? Why, for instance, in the
> discussion between Tobie and Dreamer, did it come down to "you may be
> M/s but you're not TPE."
Labels are important for discussing *some* issues. They may
have no real value at all past that. But when you're talking
about a particular issue, if the daffynitions don't match, it's
certainly harder to understand each other. Then one needs to
decide if it's worth trying to understand each other's
daffynitions. *I* find Dreamer, bright, able to articulate well
and in fact, rather charming ( sorry Dreamer ::grin:: ) He's
also able to openly discuss this without feeling personally
attacked. There are *very* few people that I would try to hold
*this* conversation with ( speaking on the one between Dreamer
and I. ) Few people are able to be probed so deeply and deal
well with it, I have found Dreamer to be positively wonderful
at this rare trait. His honesty, and willingness to continue
make him a font of information to me and I'm not going to let
that kind of chance slide by easily.
He has willingly agreed to this and said he was enjoying the
exchange.
Also note I've said that he wasn't TPE by *my* understanding of
it. *That* means nothing other than for discussion purposes, if
we wish to continue this, the he and I have to find out just
how we see it, each of us.
>
> Do we all really care? It sounds so kindergarten. We all are what we
> all are, and if we are happy, isn't that what matters?
I care only for the purpose of discussion.
> i puzzled for a long while (for me) trying to find a "what the hell am
> i?" label wrt "masochist, sadist, pain player, service slave, etc." i
> embarked upon this because people seemed to be stating with such
> certainty their particular labels at the time. i ended up with
> "sadistic slave" (which is one hell of a conundrum). i would never
> have given myself such a label a year ago, just as i'd never have
> thought i'd fall into this vice-grip of a sadist. *grin* But i truly
> doubt i'll remain with that label, as i think i'm always evolving.
> i'm *still* puzzling on masochism. It's a great inner debate.
Yup, I've been doing the masochist debate for a while now. What
one calls them selves really isn't important, *unless* one is
trying to hold a discussion about it. If a tea cup was telling
you about being a saxophone, then there are going to be
different sets of questions. Perceptions are very important,
but this conversation isn't going to change those, it isn't
meant to, it's exploring those, a different thing entirely.
As for other conversations stemming from this, Dreamer seems to
be a very bright man, I'm quite sure he's capable of posting
back to those folks that he doesn't care to continue the
conversation with them if it's gets too accusatory.
>
> But why-oh-why do we need these labels? It doesn't go on much in meat
> life. (IME) Just as i've never had occasion to say, "Hi, boy i've
> missed you! It's really been too long! Oh, this is your new slave,
> nice to meet you. BTW, were either of you ever abused as a child?" i
> have also never had occasion to say "How do you think of yourself?
> What are you? What label do you go by?" Well, heck. my label is
> "slave." *shrug*
Sure, in meat life we're *doing* this stuff, here we talk about
doing it. That means we're going to have to talk about
daffynitions at some point when it's clear that we're seeing
something really differently.
Tobie
the red cabbage
CountV
> But ya'll be sure, when you refer to me, to remember i'm not a sub or
> a subbie or a subly or anything like that. i am slave.
I just find it slightly odd that you would choose _this_ paragraph to end a
rant about how labels are all wrong.
IMNHO, definitions need to be hammered out, especially when there is no
dictionary that covers these things (at least not in any authoritative
manner), and I usually read these debates with interest.
No one can dictate what a word is going to mean to everyone, but hearing how
different people interpret things is good, because it gives you an idea of
how the term will be interpretetd shouls you choose to use it. For instance,
many people seem to take a _much_ looser attitude to the term TPE than I do,
even if I'm no Jon Jacobs on the issue.
Labels are shortcuts for communication, and that's their main purpose. They
can become oppressive (and, I think, a bit dangerous) when they become
avatars for some ideal state (i.e. the occasional 'you ain't no true slave'
crap that appears here from time to time).
CV/John
--
Fear only complacency.
design by Coercion; http://www.m-ideas.com/coercion/index.htm
Roger
<odal...@iols.net> wrote:
>Ah! Thank you! But you see, it is the label that makes everyone
>stop!
Kajira,
Yeah, but see, it isn't the label's fault. [g] It's a problem built
into people, not the concept of classification.
IMX, the annoying stuff arises when you find yourself embroiled in a
discussion of labels with people who have adopted some term of art as
they would a child... they nurture it, dote upon it, and defend it
with a white-hot passion. At some point, they begin to see the label
as an extension of Who They Are, rather than as a simple description
of same. Love Me, Love My Label... that kinda thing.
Roger
--------------------------------
section12.com
free online discussion
http://www.section12.com/