sub vs bottom
Virginia Dare
politely (and for which correction I do thank them) pointed out that I
frequently use the term "sub" when what I really mean is "bottom" or
"masochist".
So in the hopes of straightening myself out (so to speak), I went back
and re-read the FAQ, and now I find myself even more confused than when
I started - so I'm throwing a question out to the group:
Under the FAQ question:
"How can I learn to be a good bottom?"
Part of the answer reads:
"Some tops get off on bottoms who are defiant or subtly disobedient, and
use it as an excuse to punish; but for other tops, especially
inexperienced ones, it can be anything but fun. Making your top feel
like they don't know what they're doing is no fun for either of you; I
know, I've been there, as the pushy bottom. The solution? The next time
you play, tell yourself that you are the top's property, that their will
is yours, and that your deepest desire is to please them. Before, if
they did something you didn't like, you might have suggested they try it
another way; now, they are doing exactly what they want to be doing, and
you are grateful they're doing it. Let go of your urges to be in
control; surrender to them, and let them have their way with you."
My reaction to which is:
Hmmm.... "you are the top's property" ... "their will is yours... your
deepest desire is to please them" ... "surrender to them" ... Huh? So
if those are characteristics of a good bottom, how is that different
from being a good sub?
I don't mean this in a smart-ass way. I'm honestly confused. Maybe the
difference is somewhat similar to Justice Stewart's statement about
pornography: "I know it when I see it". Maybe people who are one but
not the other understand the difference, even if it's difficult to
define?
"Masochist" is much easier to get a handle on; obviously, not everyone
who enjoys submission/bondage/whatever is going to get off on pain.
And, yes, of course there's a great overlap in Real Life between the
three - sub, bottom, masochist.
But would anyone like to take a shot at explaining the (apparently
subtle?) differences between "sub" and "bottom"?
Thanks in advance for any wisdom you can toss my way!
Virginia
SilverOz
Virginia Dare <darevi...@hotspotmail.com> wrote:
>My reaction to which is:
>Hmmm.... "you are the top's property" ... "their will is yours... your
>deepest desire is to please them" ... "surrender to them" ... Huh? So
>if those are characteristics of a good bottom, how is that different
>from being a good sub?
>
Long time ago, there was no distinction.
I think the distinction happened as more people discovered both the
liking of D&S more than masochism, and masochism more than D&S.
Some folk use "bottom" as the generic, and "sub" as a specific, STella
used "pitcher" and "catcher' as generics, which works for me.
The language is in flux, there's no Oxford Dictionary of Scene Terms.
I tend to use sub when I mean someone whose play is mainly about D&S
who might use pain as a tool, and bottom for someone whose play is
mainly about pain who might use D&S as a tool. And pitcher and
catcher when it doesn't matter.
SilverOz
Janet Miles
As I see it, "bottom" is a catch-all term including (but probably not
limited to) masochists, bondage bunnies, submissives, and people who
combine two or more of those aspects.
I think the description in the FAQ describes one *sort* of "good bottom",
but not all sorts. In particular, I get the impression that it's aimed at
someone who is by nature pushy or aggressive, and who might be finding zir
playpartners turned off by that. Thus the suggestion, "the next time you
play, tell yourself that ..." with the implication, "and see if it works
for you". Of course, I could be wrong in my interpretation.
When I bottom, personally, I don't approach it from the point of view of
being property, of desiring only to please the top, or of letting him have
his way with me. I look at it as a cooperative enterprise, where I want to
have fun, and want my playpartner to have fun, and want both of us to want
to do it again in the future. In some ways, I do surrender to the scene,
but I don't surrender my *self*, if that makes sense.
Spectrum sometimes phrases this in terms of strategic vs. tactical control:
I get to decide where I'm willing to go, and he gets to decide how we're
going to get there.
JanetM, who hasn't read the FAQ in way too long, and should probably do so
again soon
--
Posted by Janet Miles <janetmiles at chartertn dot net>
adrian...@hotmail.com
>
>After some of my previous posts, a couple of people very gently and
>politely (and for which correction I do thank them) pointed out that I
>frequently use the term "sub" when what I really mean is "bottom" or
>"masochist".
"Bottom" is a general term. "Masochist" refers to a specific kind
of bottom who plays with pain. "Submissive" refers to another kind
of bottom, who plays with power. There are bottoms who play with
both. There are also bottoms who don't play with much of either,
who might like to just get tied up for sensual play.
>So in the hopes of straightening myself out (so to speak), I went back
>and re-read the FAQ, and now I find myself even more confused than when
>I started - so I'm throwing a question out to the group:
>
>Under the FAQ question:
>"How can I learn to be a good bottom?"
>
>My reaction to which is:
>Hmmm.... "you are the top's property" ... "their will is yours... your
>deepest desire is to please them" ... "surrender to them" ... Huh? So
>if those are characteristics of a good bottom, how is that different
>from being a good sub?
Good subs are also good bottoms. But not necessarily the other way
around. If you're in Virginia, you're in the United States. But it
doesn't work the other way around. States have formal boundaries,
drawn on maps and legally enforced. Ideas (especially weird ideas
about why a person might want another person to spank him) and words
don't really have standardized boundaries. Individuals and small
groups can make up their own jargon ... it leads to all kinds of
confusion when local dialects clash.
>I don't mean this in a smart-ass way. I'm honestly confused. Maybe the
>difference is somewhat similar to Justice Stewart's statement about
>pornography: "I know it when I see it". Maybe people who are one but
>not the other understand the difference, even if it's difficult to
>define?
Nope. It doesn't have anything to do with what you are or what you
like to do. It's just a language problem.
Adrian Turtle
sidewalk radical
Technobarbarian
"Virginia Dare" <darevi...@hotspotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns922E903FE9217da...@65.82.44.7...
> After some of my previous posts, a couple of people very gently and
> politely (and for which correction I do thank them) pointed out that I
> frequently use the term "sub" when what I really mean is "bottom" or
> "masochist".
>
> So in the hopes of straightening myself out (so to speak), I went back
> and re-read the FAQ, and now I find myself even more confused than when
> I started - so I'm throwing a question out to the group:
While there is no official perv's dictionary, this is probably as
close as you'll find: http://www.queernet.org/deviant/frames.htm
As I use these terms a sub or submissive is a person who submits to
the control of another, while a bottom is the recipient of pain or other
stimuli in a scene. Thus it's possible to bottom without submitting or top
(the pitcher so to speak) without being given near complete control. As
noted elsewhere there no firm agreement on these terms and others use them
differently.
Dennis
Christopher
> "Bottom" is a general term. "Masochist" refers to a specific kind
> of bottom who plays with pain. "Submissive" refers to another kind
> of bottom, who plays with power. There are bottoms who play with
> both. There are also bottoms who don't play with much of either,
> who might like to just get tied up for sensual play.
I think that's the best summation I've heard to date... to illustrate:
TOP
-- Sadist
-- Dominant
-- Master (as in, one who keeps slaves)
BOTTOM
-- masochist
-- submissive
-- slave
I think that clears some shadowy places up for me, too. =1
-- Christopher
Janet Hardy
Virginia Dare wrote:
> After some of my previous posts, a couple of people very gently and
> politely (and for which correction I do thank them) pointed out that I
> frequently use the term "sub" when what I really mean is "bottom" or
> "masochist".
This distinction -- what my esteemed co-author would call "creeping
binaryism" -- is one that I dislike a lot. There are those who get the
greater part of their charge from controlling or being controlled; there
are those who enjoy giving or receiving sensation. There are also those who
enjoy the presence of a fetish item or attire... those who like to attain
or give extreme emotional states... those who enjoy role-playing as other
ages, genders, races or species than their own... and a rainbow of others.
Why must we all attempt to plot ourselves along some Procrustean vector of
"bottom/top" and "sub/dom"? It's not a good fit for me, nor for most of the
other players I know.
RazorJAK, the Once & Future Crankygoth
wrote:
What about the Doms (not switchs) who are masochists to a degree?
Hope that cloudies the waters a bit more.
RazorJAK
( a drunk's worst nightmare ... a masochistic Bouncer )
--
Would the boy I used to be follow the teacher I am today?
http://www.pagans.org/~razorjak
ICQ 5300005 ~~~ AIM, YAHOO MSN & IRC RazorJAK
Cyrain Of Ash
> Part of the answer reads:
> "Some tops get off on bottoms who are defiant or subtly disobedient, and
> use it as an excuse to punish; but for other tops, especially
> inexperienced ones, it can be anything but fun. Making your top feel
> like they don't know what they're doing is no fun for either of you; I
> know, I've been there, as the pushy bottom. The solution? The next time
> you play, tell yourself that you are the top's property, that their will
> is yours, and that your deepest desire is to please them. Before, if
> they did something you didn't like, you might have suggested they try it
> another way; now, they are doing exactly what they want to be doing, and
> you are grateful they're doing it. Let go of your urges to be in
> control; surrender to them, and let them have their way with you."
The FAQ's wrong and should be corrected.
It is a source of considerable irritation to me as a masochist and a
bondage-fetishist but NOT a submissive, that so many BDSM people presume
all bottoms are subs.
Twice in the past month I have posted things, clearly and expressly
about masochism, only to have someone respond with suggestions how to
"submit" to my "dom".
---
Cyrain_of_Ash Butterfly ISO spider. Stuff ISO artist. Code
@fastmail.fm ISO hacker. Object ISO subject for verbing.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Cyrain Of Ash
<razo...@pag-mycodpiece-ans.org> wrote in message
news:6fnnguglsqmvnkbn3...@4ax.com
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 17:17:53 -0600, spy...@xmission.com (Christopher)
> wrote:
>
> ><adrian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >TOP
> > -- Sadist
> > -- Dominant
> > -- Master (as in, one who keeps slaves)
> >
> >BOTTOM
> > -- masochist
> > -- submissive
> > -- slave
> >
> >I think that clears some shadowy places up for me, too. =1
>
> What about the Doms (not switchs) who are masochists to a degree?
>
> Hope that cloudies the waters a bit more.
No, these are AND categories not OR categories.
What's so hard to understand? Someone can be a masochist AND a dom AND
a
submissive AND a bondage-top. Or a sadist AND a masochist AND a dom AND
likes roleplaying being an anteater.
You can belong to as many categories as you like.
It's the use of "submissive" to mean "not a masochist", and vice versa,
which is what gets people into trouble. So don't do that. It's NOT
that one is EITHER a masochist OR a submissive. It's NOT that one is
EITHER a bottom OR a top.
It's that one (IS or IS NOT a submissive) AND (IS or IS NOT a dominant)
AND (IS or IS NOT a masochist) AND (IS or IS NOT a sadist) AND (IS or IS
NOT a bondage-top) AND....so forth and so on.
And further more one can be a whole lot one thing and a little bit
something else. And each of these different modalities has its own
subcategories (no pun intended): e.g. this bondage-bottom is into
handcuffs and that bondage-bottom is into mummification and that other
bondage-bottom is into wearing cool-looking restraints and this other
bondage-bottom is into being chained to the radiator and this little
bondage-bottom went all the way home going "wiieeek! wiieeek!
wiieeek!"...
Here are definitions for you, based on the usage I've observed in
practice:
A sadist: someone into causing pain, or into the pain of others (usually
but not always reserved to mean physical pain)
A masochist: someone into feeling pain (usually but not always reserved
to mean physical pain)
A submissive: someone into the emotional feeling of being in the power
of another.
A dominant: someone into the emotional feeling of being in power over
another.
A bottom: someone who likes being done to (often but not always reserved
to mean recipient of a physical sensation); sometimes used (ostensibly)
to encompass "sub" and "masochist" too.
A top: someone who likes doing things to another (often but not always
reserved to mean causer of a physical sensation); sometimes used
(ostensibly) to encompass "sub" and "masochist" too..
A bondage-bottom: someone who like to be restrained.
A bondage-top: someone who likes to restrain others.
Please note that none of these properly encompass:
* non-pain sensation play for its own sake (not as a psychological tool
of domination), e.g. enema play, tickling, etc. -- usually by default
gets lumped under "top/bottom".
* humiliation, exhibitionism, role play -- usually gets lumped into
"submissive/dominant".
Robin Lawrie
> Under the FAQ question:
> "How can I learn to be a good bottom?"
> I don't mean this in a smart-ass way. I'm honestly confused. Maybe the
> difference is somewhat similar to Justice Stewart's statement about
> pornography: "I know it when I see it".
Yup. You can have two people standing next to each other watching a scene.
One sees a top and a bottom, the other will see a slave and a master. The
people involved could call themselves a masochist and a sadist, or any
number of permutations of these things.
I know how *I* can learn to be a good bottom *for my girlfriend*. For me,
that may include levels of submission at times, or it may not. To be a good
bottom for my toppy friends may involve something completely different. What
I try and do is be the best bottom I can be for myself first, that way at
least one of the people involved (me <g>) gets satisfied. I am unhappy with
myself if I know I haven't put in my best effort, regardless of how much
fabulous topping energy the top may have put into the scene. Anyway, I
digress. I guess to start with, you have to think about what you want out of
bottoming and how you can go about getting it.
> But would anyone like to take a shot at explaining the (apparently
> subtle?) differences between "sub" and "bottom"?
My personal call on this is to do with the headspace I am in at the time. I
can feel very submissive by doing very little obvious bottoming (eg, a hand
grasping my wrist firmly). I can bottom to a hot flogging that has very
little to do with feeling submissive to my top, apart from letting her wack
me and have fun with it. I've bottomed to a flogging at the request of the
girlfriend at which point I was indirectly submitting to her, while
bottoming to the woman doing the flogging. A real mix and match that worked
quite nicely for me! I've topped people who needed to feel submissive
towards me in order to have a good time. I'm happy to have them kiss my
boots afterwards, but did not require that.
As for other people, I know a Mistress here in Sydney who calls all the
people she tops "subs" irrespective of the amount of their submissive
feelings. And that's a matter for them. If they're happy with that, good
on'em. I don't get bent out of shape if people call me a sub or a bottom.
I'm not precious about it. I don't insist on being called Ma'am or Sir
either when topping, although sometimes it's nice <g>. People will work this
stuff out between themselves and the people they love, like and play with. I
guess the only part where it comes to grief is when assumptions are made
because of these preconcieved lables. But have an open mind and chat with
people, and most things can be worked out ("Oh, you're *my* kind of bottom!
Cool!")
Robin
Cyrain Of Ash
news:3D0BD9C2...@greenerypress.com
> Virginia Dare wrote:
>
> > After some of my previous posts, a couple of people very gently and
> > politely (and for which correction I do thank them) pointed out that I
> > frequently use the term "sub" when what I really mean is "bottom" or
> > "masochist".
>
> This distinction -- what my esteemed co-author would call "creeping
> binaryism" -- is one that I dislike a lot.
With all due respect, Janet -- and that is considerable respect -- I
think that is because you've misunderstood what we're talking about.
Because those of us making that distinction AREN'T making *binary*
distinctions.
Nobody's proposing those terms as EXCLUSIVE ones. They're AND terms,
not OR terms.
If someone is into pain, they're a masochist. Saying they're a
masochist doesn't mean they aren't also a submissive. In fact saying
they're a masochist doesn't mean they aren't also a SADIST. It doesn't
make any negative statement at all. It is only a positive statement
about one thing they do like.
It doesn't even mean that they aren't *more* into being a submissive.
That someone is even more a submissive doesn't mean they aren't a
masochist. Saying someone is a masochist ONLY means they're into pain.
It doesn't tell you what else they like or don't like.
Differentiating between, e.g. masochism (liking being the recipient of
pain) and submission (liking being the recipient of psychological
domination) just gives us a richer vocabulary to describe ourselves. It
allows someone who is into submission but not into pain to say "I am a
submissive but not a masochist". And vice versa. And it allows someone
who is both to say "I am both a submissive and a masochist."
Which, frankly, is something which would make ssbb a much easier place
to have a basic conversation in.
I can't BELIEVE how many times I had to explain the apparently novel
idea (last month) of a "dom+sadist", and that someone who was *both* a
dom *and* a sadist might well have a very different style of play from a
dom who wasn't also into causing pain. (Why is this not obvious to
everyone else?)
I return your "creeping binaryism" with a charge of "collapsing praxis".
That's the tendency I've observed of an unwillingness to acknowlegde the
full spectrum of diversity in BDSM (by sweeping it under the rug with an
airy hand wave of "oh, it's all so complex" as you do in your post)
resulting in large numbers of people getting the impression "Oh, it's
all the same BDSM underneath, we really are all the same" and then
*generalizing from their experience to everyone else*.
Which results in *subs* telling *me* I have it all wrong. After all,
they know what's true for them, and the (erroneous) idea that all BDSM
is the same underneath merely tells them they can generalize from their
experience to all other BDSMers.
It's also what results in the phenomenon of every time a Dser tries to
post about their relationship dynamics, an SMer feels the need to post
back how their relationship dynamics are nothing like that; and vice
versa. It the BDSM-tug-o-war. Can't let someone's personal
observations possibly be misconstrued to represent the whole of BDSM,
now can we? Oh, no, we must chime in to make sure everyone knows that's
not the only way it's done, even if that doesn't contribute in the least
to the conversation at hand.
It also results in posters *insisting* that "BDSM is sex", because *for
them* it is, and no matter how often it's pointed out that other
people's experience differs, "all BDSM is really the same underneath",
so they know they must be right.
The solution to all this is not to rant at every newbie to the scene
about tolerance and diversity and keeping an open mind in the
*abstract*. Tolerance is best taught by example, and the best example
we can show is "Well, it sounds like what you're talking about is
sadism, and what I was asking about was strictly Ds." and "I can
understand where you're coming from, but I'm not a masochist like you,
I'm a bondage-bottom." etc.
It's being able to have a discussion about dominance, or about bondage,
or about sadism, or whatever, without it being about "generic BDSM",
which allows people to chill out and say to themselves "Oh, that's *that
other thing* I don't do, and them describing themselves that way doesn't
rule my way of playing out of the big BDSM tent."
Good terminology makes good neighbors.
Patti Beadles
RazorJAK, the Once & Future Crankygoth <razo...@pag-mycodpiece-ans.org> wrote:
>What about the Doms (not switchs) who are masochists to a degree?
If you sometimes are a top (subspecies dom), and sometimes a bottom
(subspecies masochist), then why wouldn't you consider yourself a
switch?
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles |
pat...@gammon.com | Never ever argue with a clown.
http://www.gammon.com/ |
or just yell, "Hey, Patti!" | The clown ALWAYS wins.
SilverOz
Cyrain Of Ash <cyrain...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>I return your "creeping binaryism" with a charge of "collapsing praxis".
>That's the tendency I've observed of an unwillingness to acknowlegde the
>full spectrum of diversity in BDSM (by sweeping it under the rug with an
>airy hand wave of "oh, it's all so complex" as you do in your post)
>resulting in large numbers of people getting the impression "Oh, it's
>all the same BDSM underneath, we really are all the same" and then
>*generalizing from their experience to everyone else*.
>
Which is why STella's "pitcher and catcher" can be useful.
They are still not helpful when you have a situation where a dominant
masochist orders a submissive to hurt them and how, who is pitching
and who it catching then?
SilverOz
Patti Beadles
Cyrain Of Ash <cyrain...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>It is a source of considerable irritation to me as a masochist and a
>bondage-fetishist but NOT a submissive, that so many BDSM people presume
>all bottoms are subs.
I've been fighting this battle for about a decade now. Sadly, the
problem seems to be getting (much) worse, rather than better.
I attribute part of this to the book _Different Loving_. They chose to
use the terms dominance and submission to describe the entire spectrum
of BDSM activities, even those that had absolutely no element of power
exchange. In arguing this with one of the authors on a.s.b many years
ago, he repeatedly stated that it's almost all power exchange, even
though sometimes the participants won't admit to it. <spit>
A bigger factor seems to be the prevalence of online BDSM roleplaying.
Though I don't frequent them, there seem to be just tons of "chatrooms"
and other online chat areas that feature BDSM roleplaying. These seem
to have evolved into an entire culture, wherein doms capitalize their
names, and subs never do, and a sub who is "owned" has their owners
initials in their name. There seem to be elaborate rituals and
protocol so that these psuedo-doms and subs know their places, and
everybody can tell who is who.
For better or worse, a lot of people seem to be coming into the scene
via this route. Definitely for worse (at least from where I sit), even
more people seem to be coming into what they THINK is the scene through
chatrooms. But the only world they know is the online world, where
everybody is a dom or a sub (sorry, a Dom or a sub), and it all centers
around kneeling at someone's feet and calling them Sir and being a
proper slavegirl.
That's all well and good for them, if that's what they get off on, but
it's not most of the scene, and most people don't fit into their tidy
little predefined roles.
I'm blown away by how prevalent this has become. If you go to alt.com,
an online alternative lifestyles personals site, you have the option of
identifying yourself as a dom, a sub, or a switch. I picked switch,
because nothing else fit, and made it clear in my ad that I was NOT
into DS at all. I still get tons of mail addressed to Mistress.
SilverOz
Patti Beadles <pat...@rahul.net> wrote:
>
>
>I'm blown away by how prevalent this has become. If you go to alt.com,
>an online alternative lifestyles personals site, you have the option of
>identifying yourself as a dom, a sub, or a switch. I picked switch,
>because nothing else fit, and made it clear in my ad that I was NOT
>into DS at all. I still get tons of mail addressed to Mistress.
That may not be alt.com as much as it is idiots.
When I had a profile up there for a bit, it said I was sub, I still
got mail addressed to Mistress.
SilverOz
--
========================================================================
Control, Dominance, Submission: Thoughts and controversies
http://peter-masters.com
====
Australian BDSM Information http://www.master.webcentral.com.au/abis/
========================================================================
Janet Hardy
Cyrain Of Ash wrote:
> "Janet Hardy" <jha...@greenerypress.com> wrote in message
> news:3D0BD9C2...@greenerypress.com
>
> > Virginia Dare wrote:
> >
> > > After some of my previous posts, a couple of people very gently and
> > > politely (and for which correction I do thank them) pointed out that I
> > > frequently use the term "sub" when what I really mean is "bottom" or
> > > "masochist".
> >
> > This distinction -- what my esteemed co-author would call "creeping
> > binaryism" -- is one that I dislike a lot.
>
> With all due respect, Janet -- and that is considerable respect -- I
> think that is because you've misunderstood what we're talking about.
>
> Because those of us making that distinction AREN'T making *binary*
> distinctions.
>
> Nobody's proposing those terms as EXCLUSIVE ones. They're AND terms,
> not OR terms.
>
> If someone is into pain, they're a masochist. Saying they're a
> masochist doesn't mean they aren't also a submissive. In fact saying
> they're a masochist doesn't mean they aren't also a SADIST. It doesn't
> make any negative statement at all. It is only a positive statement
> about one thing they do like.
I think where we run into problems is when we try to label what we *are*,
instead of what we *do*. It's very easy for me to list the things I like to
do: giving and receiving many (well, most) kinds of erotic pain, certain
role-plays, taking sexual control but not outside-world control, etc. It is
less easy to put a simple label on them: "Well, I'm a masochist and a sadist,
and I'm generally dominant but I don't enjoy giving orders except under
certain very particular circumstances, and sometimes I'm a gay male dom but
other times I'm not..." Well, you get the idea. There may be some people in
the world who feel that the label "submissive" or "masochist" or whatnot is
an exact description of their kink, but if so, I've met few if any.
> It doesn't even mean that they aren't *more* into being a submissive.
> That someone is even more a submissive doesn't mean they aren't a
> masochist. Saying someone is a masochist ONLY means they're into pain.
> It doesn't tell you what else they like or don't like.
Yet I know of no masochists who enjoy pain _per se_. Some masochists will use
pain in self-play -- lubricated by a liberal dose of fantasy -- when no
sadist is available. Yet for me and for every other masochist I've talked to
about this, being given pain with intent and meaning, by someone with whom we
feel some level of emotional connection, is essential to our pleasure in the
stimulus.
I have played with people who are only giving me pain because they know I
like it. I feel grateful to them for whatever catharsis I get from the
experience, but I'm not turned on by it and it doesn't meet my needs. How is
that qualitatively different from the sub-identified individual who says "I
enjoy pain, but only because I know it pleases my dominant"?
> Differentiating between, e.g. masochism (liking being the recipient of
> pain) and submission (liking being the recipient of psychological
> domination) just gives us a richer vocabulary to describe ourselves. It
> allows someone who is into submission but not into pain to say "I am a
> submissive but not a masochist". And vice versa. And it allows someone
> who is both to say "I am both a submissive and a masochist."
But both terms are such weak reeds. A "submissive" can be anything from
someone who enjoys wearing a collar while s/he gets a whipping, to someone
who prefers to spend every waking hour under an owner's direct control. A
"masochist" can hate clamps but love whips, yearn for TENS units but safeword
on violet wands. And that doesn't even begin to approach the huge number of
people who fit under neither umbrella -- the bondage bunnies, the latex
fetishists, the terror junkies, the sissy maids and many many more.
> Which, frankly, is something which would make ssbb a much easier place
> to have a basic conversation in.
Simple suggestion if you want to fix it: encourage people to say "I like x"
rather than "I am x." It *instantly* clarifies such discussions.
> I return your "creeping binaryism" with a charge of "collapsing praxis".
> That's the tendency I've observed of an unwillingness to acknowlegde the
> full spectrum of diversity in BDSM (by sweeping it under the rug with an
> airy hand wave of "oh, it's all so complex" as you do in your post)
> resulting in large numbers of people getting the impression "Oh, it's
> all the same BDSM underneath, we really are all the same" and then
> *generalizing from their experience to everyone else*.
>
> Which results in *subs* telling *me* I have it all wrong. After all,
> they know what's true for them, and the (erroneous) idea that all BDSM
> is the same underneath merely tells them they can generalize from their
> experience to all other BDSMers.
Again: much simplified if you talk about what you like, and they talk about
what they like. Of course if the only two choices are "sadist" and
"dominant," there are going to be serious misunderstandings.
> It's also what results in the phenomenon of every time a Dser tries to
> post about their relationship dynamics, an SMer feels the need to post
> back how their relationship dynamics are nothing like that; and vice
> versa. It the BDSM-tug-o-war. Can't let someone's personal
> observations possibly be misconstrued to represent the whole of BDSM,
> now can we? Oh, no, we must chime in to make sure everyone knows that's
> not the only way it's done, even if that doesn't contribute in the least
> to the conversation at hand.
>
> It also results in posters *insisting* that "BDSM is sex", because *for
> them* it is, and no matter how often it's pointed out that other
> people's experience differs, "all BDSM is really the same underneath",
> so they know they must be right.
Actually, I've taken part in more iterations of that discussion than I care
to remember, and without exception they have broken down to a semantic
quibble as to the meaning of the word "sex."
> The solution to all this is not to rant at every newbie to the scene
> about tolerance and diversity and keeping an open mind in the
> *abstract*. Tolerance is best taught by example, and the best example
> we can show is "Well, it sounds like what you're talking about is
> sadism, and what I was asking about was strictly Ds." and "I can
> understand where you're coming from, but I'm not a masochist like you,
> I'm a bondage-bottom." etc.
"Oh, you like domestic service? That's interesting. I've never gotten much
out of that, but I really like being flogged." "Hmm. I like bondage too, but
only when it's part of sex. Can you explain to me what you get out of
prolonged stringent bondage? I really don't understand that." Such
statements, IME, lead to much more interesting and productive discussions
than these endless "the meaning of dominance" arguments.
Technobarbarian
"SilverOz" <ze...@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:slrnago6vp...@zipperii.zip.com.au...
> In soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm on 16 Jun 2002 04:14:46 GMT
> Patti Beadles <pat...@rahul.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >I'm blown away by how prevalent this has become. If you go to alt.com,
> >an online alternative lifestyles personals site, you have the option of
> >identifying yourself as a dom, a sub, or a switch. I picked switch,
> >because nothing else fit, and made it clear in my ad that I was NOT
> >into DS at all. I still get tons of mail addressed to Mistress.
>
>
> That may not be alt.com as much as it is idiots.
>
> When I had a profile up there for a bit, it said I was sub, I still
> got mail addressed to Mistress.
I think the primary factor here is desperation rather than intelligence
level. I have a submissive friend who spends a lot of time online. She
regularly gets hit on by submissive men who would like her to top them. I
think it happens because she's at least female and kinky. It's probably
easier to talk to her than women who haven't indicated an interest in BDSM
and most of the dominant women are too busy to respond when they do find
them. Often these guys will start out identifying themselves to her as Doms,
apparently just to get a dialog started. They know what's going on, but they
have a strong emotional need that is not being met and kinky women, of
whatever flavor, are one obvious place to look.
Dennis
Binder
> After some of my previous posts, a couple of people very gently and
> politely (and for which correction I do thank them) pointed out that I
> frequently use the term "sub" when what I really mean is "bottom" or
> "masochist".
You're good. Do you know that yet??
> So in the hopes of straightening myself out (so to speak), I went back
> and re-read the FAQ, and now I find myself even more confused than when
> I started - so I'm throwing a question out to the group:
>
> Under the FAQ question:
> "How can I learn to be a good bottom?"
>
> Part of the answer reads:
> "... The solution? The next time
> you play, tell yourself that you are the top's property, that their will
> is yours, and that your deepest desire is to please them. Before, if
> they did something you didn't like, you might have suggested they try it
> another way; now, they are doing exactly what they want to be doing, and
> you are grateful they're doing it. Let go of your urges to be in
> control; surrender to them, and let them have their way with you."
>
> My reaction to which is:
> Hmmm.... "you are the top's property" ... "their will is yours... your
> deepest desire is to please them" ... "surrender to them" ... Huh? So
> if those are characteristics of a good bottom, how is that different
> from being a good sub?
My, what a perfect observation! The way that's written, it sure
sounds like the way to be a good bottom is to be a good
submissive. :harrumph:
Heads will roll!!
> But would anyone like to take a shot at explaining the (apparently
> subtle?) differences between "sub" and "bottom"?
Usually around here, the distinction is set between emotional
(submissive) and sensation (bottom.)
You don't have to submit to bottom, and you don't have to be a
masochist, either.
There are hundreds of sensational experiences that don't require
submission and that don't hurt, per se.
Binder
M Shirley Chong
> I think the description in the FAQ describes one *sort* of "good bottom",
> but not all sorts. In particular, I get the impression that it's aimed at
> someone who is by nature pushy or aggressive, and who might be finding zir
> playpartners turned off by that. Thus the suggestion, "the next time you
> play, tell yourself that ..." with the implication, "and see if it works
> for you". Of course, I could be wrong in my interpretation.
Maybe--but it's still a great interpretation in its own right.
> When I bottom, personally, I don't approach it from the point of view of
> being property, of desiring only to please the top, or of letting him have
> his way with me. I look at it as a cooperative enterprise, where I want to
> have fun, and want my playpartner to have fun, and want both of us to want
> to do it again in the future. In some ways, I do surrender to the scene,
> but I don't surrender my *self*, if that makes sense.
>
> Spectrum sometimes phrases this in terms of strategic vs. tactical control:
> I get to decide where I'm willing to go, and he gets to decide how we're
> going to get there.
Yes! It's the secret to being able to enjoy anything that is done or
guided by another person. If you go in and mentally (or out loud,
how crass) criticize the way your partner does things, you won't
enjoy the experience and your partner may not.
I'm reminded of a (possibly urban legend) story I heard about Jenny
Craig going to Italy and asking the chef to make bruschetta without
oil; he did his best but it was a sorry shadow of what bruschetta
really is. Going to a restaurant with a great chef and specifying so
many changes to your order that the dishes are no longer what the
chef intended is a way to cheat yourself. If you want everything
totally under your control, eat at home. If you want to taste the
world the way someone else perceives it, if you want to step out of
your familiar paths, order and let the chef show you something new.
By relaxing and relinquishing control, you can enjoy just about
anything. You might not want to do it again but you can still enjoy it.
Shirley
to reply via e-mail remove the trees from my address
Conrad Hodson
> Hmmm.... "you are the top's property" ... "their will is yours... your
> deepest desire is to please them" ... "surrender to them" ... Huh? So
> if those are characteristics of a good bottom, how is that different
> from being a good sub?
>
> I don't mean this in a smart-ass way. I'm honestly confused. Maybe the
> difference is somewhat similar to Justice Stewart's statement about
> pornography: "I know it when I see it". Maybe people who are one but
> not the other understand the difference, even if it's difficult to
> define?
>
> "Masochist" is much easier to get a handle on; obviously, not everyone
> who enjoys submission/bondage/whatever is going to get off on pain.
> And, yes, of course there's a great overlap in Real Life between the
> three - sub, bottom, masochist.
>
> But would anyone like to take a shot at explaining the (apparently
> subtle?) differences between "sub" and "bottom"?
The problem is that we have not yet, as a community, achieved consensus on
language. Our terms have been invented as needed, jargon for this new
field of activity, as the field grew and we needed to communicate with the
people we were meeting, teaching, learning from and negotiating with.
"Top" and "bottom" were terms that originally referred to vanilla or near
vanilla sex in the gay men's community. This was picked up by the gay
_leathermen_, who used top for flogger and bottom for floggee, and so
on. Since they (in theory!) suffered from the old confusion of
penetration and power, they assumed that he who got flogged was also he
who got fucked, and they didn't believe in switches.
The gay leather scene was one major contributor to the modern pansexual
bdsm scene. It was actually semi-connected as a national community, via
leather bars and kinky motorcycle clubs, though the standardization was
never perfect. For a time, flagging (wearing of keys or kerchiefs) was
_opposite_ on the East and West coasts; I forget which one prevailed,
though eventually keys or hanky on the left meant top.
The handballing (fisting) scene was quite different, but had a very
important influence that can be traced into other parts of the modern
pansexual scene. It contributed:
1) no dresscode--anything goes, especially nudity
2) switching highly approved of and occasionally _required_
3) emphasis on long, relaxing warmups and general sensuality
4) ultimately, the first pansexual play party, as a few women began to
participate
The heterosexual kink crowd was large but less connected; most people were
in isolation or played in a "circle" of a few friends. Occasionally
circles were linked by people with common memberships in more than one of
them. Otherwise, contact was mostly through the kinky personal mags, and
this often served to enlarge and link previously isolated circles. I
recall when Margaret and I first began to explore bdsm--we found a few
friends who liked to play, and formed a circle. Then we met a couple who
really worked the contact mags. We thought them very daring, but we met a
few people through them; they of course met a good many more.
The point of all this ramble of background? The bdsm scene as a readily
findable, widely based link among all sorts of kinky people only really
started to roll in the mid-1980's. As gay leathermen, kinky het swingers,
handballers, M/s people, leatherdykes and a dozen other groupings came
together to share common ground, they found they had each come up with
their own vocabularies. The common language is happening, but the process
is by no means complete, and even after the mingling is done it will of
course continue to evolve!
I prefer the usage that has no essential difference between "bottom" and
"masochist". Except that masochist is a motivation and bottom is a role,
of course. I don't use "masochist" that often because it has a lot of
garbage clinging to it from ignorant and obsolete psychiatric
theory--which does a lousy job of explaining real motives of real-world
masochists. (Who are often switches; drawing sadism and masochism at
opposite ends of a spectrum for explanatory purposes doesn't mean that a
genuine masochist can't be a genuine sadist as well. Look at painters,
they use colors from the opposite ends of the spectrum all the time,
without apology!)
So I prefer defining the ends of the SM--D/s spectrum as having SM
(Sensual Magic, sensation-for-its-own-sake, "pure SM", etc.) at one
end. This far over on the end, there may be not one shred of power
difference between the play partners, or anything one could call
submission. The people who do this often use "top" and "bottom" to
describe their preferences, or what they are doing at the moment if
they're switches. "Sadist" and "masochist" are commonly used as synonyms
for SM tops and bottoms, at least by the people who are actually doing it.
Over on the other end of this particular spectrum, we have D/s
(Dominant/submissive, Master/slave, roleplayers, etc.) This end involves
a great deal of play around power and psychology, and such is usually a
major point of the whole exercise. "Dominant" and "submissive" are the
commonest terms used by these people to describe their power roles or a
particular activity they're doing. In a very rough way, SM happens to
your body and D/s happens to your head, though of course this only applies
to people or scenes out on either end of the spectrum. In reality, a
great many scenes involve some sort of mixture of the two, and would fall
somewhere in the midsection of the spectrum.
The big problem comes when people try for _generic_ terms. Many, many
people use "submissive" generically, including descriptions of scenes that
have about as much real submission going on as a massage does. Others
(and I'm sometimes one of them!) use "top" and "bottom" generically! Such
as defining a dominant as "the top in a D/s scene".
The answer? Just try to be as clear as possible. That means defining
your terms whenever the meaning isn't totally obvious, and realizing that
diversity is a simple fact, and that these words don't yet _have_ a
completely standard meaning. Twenty years, after all, isn't long in the
evolution of a language!
Conrad Hodson
Conrad Hodson
On Sun, 16 Jun 2002, Janet Hardy wrote:
> This distinction -- what my esteemed co-author would call "creeping
> binaryism" -- is one that I dislike a lot. There are those who get the
> greater part of their charge from controlling or being controlled; there
> are those who enjoy giving or receiving sensation. There are also those who
> enjoy the presence of a fetish item or attire... those who like to attain
> or give extreme emotional states... those who enjoy role-playing as other
> ages, genders, races or species than their own... and a rainbow of others.
> Why must we all attempt to plot ourselves along some Procrustean vector of
> "bottom/top" and "sub/dom"? It's not a good fit for me, nor for most of the
> other players I know.
Binary distinctions can be very useful tools--so long as we don't forget
that they are tools. It's when somebody turns them into fucking Platonic
archetypes that we get problems.
When I use them is mostly trying to sketch out a loose structure for
newbies to sort their information overload into. For this purpose, I
usually use a Venn diagram (three partly overlapping circles) with
SM (sensation scenes, endorphin highs, etc.) as one circle; D/s (power,
roleplay, head trips) as another; and sex (whatever makes you
hard/wet/whatever) as the third. An awful lot of wiiwd can be mapped onto
a diagram like this, and it does a good job of showing allowing for the
way sexuality may or may not be involved, the way so many scenes involve a
mixture of motivations, and so on.
In this loose overview, I tell them that such things as fetishes work like
plastic overlay sheets on the diagram. They can apply across the
board. Someone with a strong rubber fetish, for instance, will usually
enjoy rubber in all sorts of contexts. Whether they are into flogging or
domination or service or otherwise-vanilla screwing, a rubber bedsheet or
rubber outfit will generally turn the temperature of the scene way up.
Bondage would be another overlay. You can use it for its own sake, or
teamed up with any one of the other things, as it suits.
It's not perfect, but so far it's the best outreach overview I've found,
and people seem to understand it quickly and be able to sort out a great
deal of personal feelings without having to distort those feelings too
much in the process. That distortion, IMHO, is what we really need to
avoid; I really enjoy offering hospitality to new arrivals in the scene,
but I don't want the beds we offer to be Procrustean!
Conrad Hodson
Conrad Hodson
>
> rather than "I am x." It *instantly* clarifies such discussions.
>
> out of that, but I really like being flogged." "Hmm. I like bondage too, but
> only when it's part of sex. Can you explain to me what you get out of
> prolonged stringent bondage? I really don't understand that." Such
> statements, IME, lead to much more interesting and productive discussions
> than these endless "the meaning of dominance" arguments.
Right you are, and I suspect we are actually much closer on this whole
question than it sounded originally. I suspect that one difference comes
between the Platonic mindset (that our categories represent some kind of
"higher reality" and are so perfect and important that we should measure
the real world against them) and the practical/observational mindset
(words are just tools, and generalizations are useful ways of moving more
than one concept around, but adjust theories to fit facts and not the
other way round).
Obviously, I'm firmly in the practical camp, and I wish your standard of
behavior as opposed to "identity" were more widely followed.
Conrad Hodson
John Warren
news:5f61b3c54d671445744...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> It's being able to have a discussion about dominance, or about bondage,
> or about sadism, or whatever, without it being about "generic BDSM",
> which allows people to chill out and say to themselves "Oh, that's *that
> other thing* I don't do, and them describing themselves that way doesn't
> rule my way of playing out of the big BDSM tent."
>
> Good terminology makes good neighbors.
However, sentences are often better than words, and paragraphs better than
sentences. Depending on shared meanings in a situation where there is no
central authority to assign meanings (French Academy, anyone?) is a risky
business at best.
--
Diversified Services (Toys, Books and Videos for the Scene since 1992)
www.diversifiedservices.biz $5 off on "Strange Bedfellows"
John Warren
valuable but far from perfect. One valuable mantra is "The map is not the
territory."
One anology I've found useful is comparing these (and many other labels) to
a newspaper photograph. Both are valuable sources of information, but the
amount of information available is decreased, rather than increased, when
you put either under a microscope.
T. Eckhart
I think the FAQ is old and only represents one particular set of
definitions. This reflects the way that language is so varied within the
general scene community.
This is a also a good example of why negotiation and communication
are very very important.
Let's use me as an example since I know me best. Pretend that I'm
going to be in a relationship with the person below.
If someone told me that they were a sub, I'd expect obedience,
good service, and lots of authority for the duration of that scene.
If someone told me that they were a bottom, I'd expect verbal or
physical feedback and lots of talking for the physical scene.
If someone told me that they were a slave, I'd expect obedience,
good & active service, lots of authority, and a focus on my needs and
desires for the duration of the relationship.
Now see, my definitions are going to be quite different from some
people on this group but similar to others. If someone wants to scene or
be with me in a BDSM sense we have to know what we mean by the words we
use.
--
--
Love, Peace, Hugs, Kisses, Whips, & Chains,
TammyJo Eckhart (teck...@kiva.net)
Author, Activist, Educator
-^-^spectrum-^^-
"Cyrain Of Ash" <cyrain...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>"Virginia Dare" <darevi...@hotspotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns922E903FE9217da...@65.82.44.7
[in reference to the SSB FAQ:]
>Part of the answer reads:
>> "Some tops get off on bottoms who are defiant or subtly
>> disobedient, and use it as an excuse to punish; but for other
>> tops, especially inexperienced ones, it can be anything but fun.
>> Making your top feel like they don't know what they're doing is no
>> fun for either of you; I know, I've been there, as the pushy
>> bottom. The solution? The next time you play, tell yourself that
>> you are the top's property, that their will is yours, and that
>> your deepest desire is to please them. Before, if they did
>> something you didn't like, you might have suggested they try it
>> another way; now, they are doing exactly what they want to be
>> doing, and you are grateful they're doing it. Let go of your urges
>> to be in control; surrender to them, and let them have their way
>> with you."
>
>The FAQ's wrong and should be corrected.
Yup. Note the date on many parts of the FAQ: in some cases the
sections were written 7 years ago. I've been asking Johnson Grey
to do a re-write (especially on the extremely dated Resource
section 37), but Real Life has a tendency to get in the way. I'll
check in with him again.
I *have* been paying attention to all this debate, though: it's
likely that I'll be the lucky Unindicted Co-conspirator that gets
to play with Virginia Dare in the near future.<G>
--
-^-^spectrum-^^- spectrum at magenta dot com www.magenta.com/~spectrum
Archivist of the Kung Foole Temple; Director, FooleCo Black Labs
!! Anonymous Unix/telnet-in non-commercial accounts+Web in an all-perv
domain: in...@magenta.com or www.magenta.com/accounts. $10/month.
"Being beaten the right way is the root password of my soul."
- Cyrain of Ash
Norton Zenger
<d_murry-...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>"SilverOz" <ze...@zip.com.au> wrote in message
>news:slrnago6vp...@zipperii.zip.com.au...
>> That may not be alt.com as much as it is idiots.
>>
>> When I had a profile up there for a bit, it said I was sub, I still
>> got mail addressed to Mistress.
>
> I think the primary factor here is desperation rather than intelligence
>level.
FWIW, I think it _is_ intelligence level, and when you think about it
there's a perfectly good reason why women who post personal ads are
inundated by messages from complete idiots.
Let's assume here that 90% of the guys who use personal ads are not
idiots, and say 10% of the guys who use personal ads are. This is, I
would say, overly generous on the side of the non-idiots, but serves
to illustrate. I will further say that in general, people (women for
the sake of this argument) who place personal ads, unless they are
themselves idiots, generally have some idea of what they are or are
not looking for, and are capable of communicating that in an ad. Now
when the greater 90% come across an ad placed by a woman, the strong
likelihood is that they will not be compatible with said woman. Not
being idiots, they will of course recognize this by comparing
themselves with the specifications in an ad, and hence will not reply
to said ad.
The 10% of idiots, though, whether functionally illiterate, lacking in
reading comprehension, or just utterly insensate to either, will not
recognize this, and hence will reply to everything that claims to have
a female set of genitalia, often in the most annoying and grating way
possible. As such, they will quickly overwhelm even those rare
non-idiots who are actually compatible in some way with the woman in
question, leading to generalized exasperation.
Unfortunately, there is no real way to filter out the idiots, which is
what makes personal ads such a frustrating venture.
--
"FUCKING STUPID BASTARD COMPUTERS! FUCKING INFORMATION
SUPERHIGHWAY HORSESHIT! MAKE LIFE EASIER MY HAIRY FAT
COCK! BRING ME THE HEAD OF BILL FUCKING GATES!"- Starr
Mailing list: http://www.topica.com/lists/bdsm_under30
Norton Zenger
>Which is why STella's "pitcher and catcher" can be useful.
..but which, unlike "top and bottom", are still apparently generally
seen as gay terms rather than BDSM ones.
Norton Zenger
<jo...@diversifiedservices.biz> wrote:
>"Cyrain Of Ash" <cyrain...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>news:5f61b3c54d671445744...@mygate.mailgate.org...
>
>
>> It's being able to have a discussion about dominance, or about bondage,
>> or about sadism, or whatever, without it being about "generic BDSM",
>> which allows people to chill out and say to themselves "Oh, that's *that
>> other thing* I don't do, and them describing themselves that way doesn't
>> rule my way of playing out of the big BDSM tent."
>>
>> Good terminology makes good neighbors.
>
>However, sentences are often better than words, and paragraphs better than
>sentences.
Sometimes. Other times, they can just get you even _more_ lost.
Janet Hardy
"Conrad Hodson" <con...@efn.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSU.4.21.020616...@garcia.efn.org...
Indeed. I'm looking at having to undo some initial negotiations in which I
broke my own rules -- I told my potential partner that I was "not at all
submissive." Now I find that he's being extremely careful not to give me any
firm directions or orders at all, even within the context of a
sensation-oriented scene. We've grown a lot closer since that initial
negotiation, and I'm quite attracted to the idea of encouraging him to take
a much firmer grip on the reins in scene... but since I described what I was
instead of what I liked, I'm going to have to go back and undo that initial
statement and redo it in a much more descriptive way. An excellent example
of the problem of labeling.
Janet
merwench
> In article <3b7d8e41d01488c7b0a...@mygate.mailgate.org>,
> Cyrain Of Ash <cyrain...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> >It is a source of considerable irritation to me as a masochist and a
> >bondage-fetishist but NOT a submissive, that so many BDSM people presume
> >all bottoms are subs.
>
> I've been fighting this battle for about a decade now. Sadly, the
> problem seems to be getting (much) worse, rather than better.
>
> I attribute part of this to the book _Different Loving_. They chose to
> use the terms dominance and submission to describe the entire spectrum
> of BDSM activities, even those that had absolutely no element of power
> exchange. In arguing this with one of the authors on a.s.b many years
> ago, he repeatedly stated that it's almost all power exchange, even
> though sometimes the participants won't admit to it. <spit>
>
Yeah, well, we know who that is, don't we? And he's an idjit.
I'm submissive to MDM. I love bondage. I'm also learning that I'm really
enjoying sensation and pain play. If something (god forbid) ever
happened to MDM, I don't know that I would *ever* sub to anyone else.
He's the only one who's ever brought out those feelings in me, and I
think the chances of finding someone else who does so naturally are
pretty slim. However, I'm also pretty sure that I would *bottom* again,
because that can be divorced from the submission aspect that we have in
our relationship, and be enjoyed for its own sake.
merwench
--
If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you've never
tried before.
merwench's poetry page: http://merpoetry.blogspot.com/
merwench's online gallery: http://home.earthlink.net/~merwench
merwench
(snip)
>
> I *have* been paying attention to all this debate, though: it's
> likely that I'll be the lucky Unindicted Co-conspirator that gets
> to play with Virginia Dare in the near future.<G>
Ah, lucky Virginia! Show her a good time, eh? :)
Patti Beadles
Janet Hardy <ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Indeed. I'm looking at having to undo some initial negotiations in which I
>broke my own rules -- I told my potential partner that I was "not at all
>submissive." Now I find that he's being extremely careful not to give me any
>firm directions or orders at all, even within the context of a
>sensation-oriented scene. We've grown a lot closer since that initial
>negotiation, and I'm quite attracted to the idea of encouraging him to take
>a much firmer grip on the reins in scene... but since I described what I was
>instead of what I liked, I'm going to have to go back and undo that initial
>statement and redo it in a much more descriptive way. An excellent example
>of the problem of labeling.
No. It's an example of the problem of giving an incompelete or
incorrect description.
If you'd told him, "I don't like to be given orders", and later
discovered that you'd like him to take a firmer grip on the reins, you
would be in the same place that you are now, but you would have used a
few more words in the initial conversation.
Labels are just verbal descriptions of what we like and who we are,
though they just tend to be short and concise, and therefore have a
harder time conveying large quantities of information. They can be
excellent shorthand notation, though.
For example, "I'm pro-choice", doesn't tell you whether I think third
trimester abortion is OK, or whether I believe in federal funding for
abortion services, but it's pretty clear that I believe that abortion
should be safe and legal. "I'm a caucasian woman" is also excellent
and largely unambiguous shorthand.
I have found that the best strategy for me is label + modifier-- start
with the concise 90% correct description, and then embellish it until I
get to something that I feel is accurate. "I'm an SM switch" is the
short version. "I'm an SM switch, primarily top though I bottom on
occasion, and I'm not at all interested in dominance and submission"
is pretty accurate. It would certainly give someone enough information
to know whether or not they were interested in further pursuit of
common interests.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles |
pat...@gammon.com |
http://www.gammon.com/ | MCSE: technology's version of
or just yell, "Hey, Patti!" | an ambulance chaser.
a.muse
i really didn't know where to post my comments since all the posts have been
very interesting, unpolluted to this point by trolls and helpful to me.
i'm not one to use labels except for expediency or as a jumping off point
for communicating. i have a personal long-standing issue with labels (boxes,
in my mind) but words are necessary tools as several have pointed out. A
word is not the be-all or end-all of reality, but it is a necessary part of
interacting with others.
i think it was Janet that mentioned the "creeping binaryism." It does not
apply to precisely what we are discussing here, but there is a huge tendency
in people to polarize ideas/concepts in their minds in such a way that it is
either this or that and nothing in between. i call this the "black and white
mentality", which (not to get off-topic here) is/has been perpetuated by the
propogation of fundamentalist religious thought, and probably other things.
It's mindset, one's perception of their reality... but that's another
subject. :-)
Could it be helpful if those of us who are clear regarding the ambiguities
of our contextual language to set a tenacious and consistent example of not
using terms which have been discussed here in a labelling way?
This reminds me of years ago in relationship counselling i was taught not to
speak in "you" statements, but rather in "i feel" statements. Same here...
not speak in "i am" statements but in "i like/do" statements. Therefore
would it seem appropriate not to use labels which have lots of subsets in "i
am" statements? And labels that have few or no subsets, would still be safe
and effective communication to be able to say "i am a slave", for example?
At least this way the new ones coming in will get straight from the get-go.
Admittedly, i haven't read every word of the FAQ, but might it have some
elucidation on this issue in the beginning?
i realize that bdsm is clear enough for those who have learned enough to
understand what it means but i question it's use as an umbrella term...
which is another of my semantical/language issues.
Every journey begins with one step and if some of us don't start patiently
living a "solution" who knows how fragmented the whole communication dynamic
can become.
Respectfully,
muse
--
"An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it."
- Orlando A. Battista
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Janet Hardy
Patti Beadles wrote:
> In article <or1P8.1024$Y43.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> Janet Hardy <ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Indeed. I'm looking at having to undo some initial negotiations in which I
> >broke my own rules -- I told my potential partner that I was "not at all
> >submissive." Now I find that he's being extremely careful not to give me any
> >firm directions or orders at all, even within the context of a
> >sensation-oriented scene. We've grown a lot closer since that initial
> >negotiation, and I'm quite attracted to the idea of encouraging him to take
> >a much firmer grip on the reins in scene... but since I described what I was
> >instead of what I liked, I'm going to have to go back and undo that initial
> >statement and redo it in a much more descriptive way. An excellent example
> >of the problem of labeling.
>
> No. It's an example of the problem of giving an incompelete or
> incorrect description.
>
> If you'd told him, "I don't like to be given orders", and later
> discovered that you'd like him to take a firmer grip on the reins, you
> would be in the same place that you are now, but you would have used a
> few more words in the initial conversation.
This is true to some degree. But if I had told him that I *was* submissive, he
would have been left without a clue as to whether I meant I enjoyed being
controlled during a scene, or I enjoyed domestic service, or I wanted to be
controlled during our day-to-day time together, or what. It's just not a
terribly useful term. Similarly, telling him I *wasn't* submissive simply
excluded all of the above and a lot more -- when in fact I do like some measure
of control during a scene (makes it easier to turn my brain off).
> Labels are just verbal descriptions of what we like and who we are,
> though they just tend to be short and concise, and therefore have a
> harder time conveying large quantities of information. They can be
> excellent shorthand notation, though.
I disagree. I think they cause far more problems than they solve.
> For example, "I'm pro-choice", doesn't tell you whether I think third
> trimester abortion is OK, or whether I believe in federal funding for
> abortion services, but it's pretty clear that I believe that abortion
> should be safe and legal. "I'm a caucasian woman" is also excellent
> and largely unambiguous shorthand.
I'd use the same shorthands with, say, a survey-taker. But to someone with whom
I wanted some intimacy, I'd say "I believe abortion should be safe and legal,
but I've had one, found it quite traumatic, and wish there were a way to express
my distress without seeming as though I'm aiding the pro-lifers," and "I'll
probably go on presenting to the world as female, but there are a lot of times
when 'female' doesn't feel like a very good fit to me."
> I have found that the best strategy for me is label + modifier-- start
> with the concise 90% correct description, and then embellish it until I
> get to something that I feel is accurate. "I'm an SM switch" is the
> short version. "I'm an SM switch, primarily top though I bottom on
> occasion, and I'm not at all interested in dominance and submission"
> is pretty accurate. It would certainly give someone enough information
> to know whether or not they were interested in further pursuit of
> common interests.
I use "switchable top and pain fetishist" in my bio because it's the most
concise way I've found to convey my orientation to an audience (who for some
reason seem to think it's important). But it would be nearly useless in actually
negotiating a scene, or in talking about complex matters of desire and fantasy.
Philip the Foole
The 10% of idiots, though, whether functionally illiterate, lacking
in reading comprehension, or just utterly insensate to either, will
Dear Mistress Norton,
i red yr ad. i am the prefect slave u r looking 4.
i want u to dress up like Wonder Woman and whip me with a vinyl pool
frog.
Yr new slave,
Philip the Foole
I am inclined to believe in your artistry precisely because others
think your writing cynical, depraved, and repulsive. Genuine talent
tends to frighten common people. ... I would be ... delighted if you
allowed me to visit you in Vienna and if you were willing --
in furs, of course -- to whip me.
- Ancient Kung Foole Proverb by Leopold von Sacher-Masoch
("Venus in Furs" and selected letters, 1875)
Christopher
<razo...@pag-mycodpiece-ans.org> wrote:
> ><adrian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Bottom" is a general term. "Masochist" refers to a specific kind
> >> of bottom who plays with pain. "Submissive" refers to another kind
> >> of bottom, who plays with power. There are bottoms who play with
> >> both. There are also bottoms who don't play with much of either,
> >> who might like to just get tied up for sensual play.
> >
> >I think that's the best summation I've heard to date... to illustrate:
> >
> >TOP
> > -- Sadist
> > -- Dominant
> > -- Master (as in, one who keeps slaves)
> >
> >BOTTOM
> > -- masochist
> > -- submissive
> > -- slave
> >
> >I think that clears some shadowy places up for me, too. =1
>
> What about the Doms (not switchs) who are masochists to a degree?
>
> Hope that cloudies the waters a bit more.
>
> RazorJAK
> ( a drunk's worst nightmare ... a masochistic Bouncer )
I'm sorry, I forgot and should have added a third category to that list
in the first place:
SWITCH
-- One or more from each of the above categories.
But I know what you mean, RazorJAK. I, too, am a Dom with mild
masochistic traits. I find a spiritual gain in pain, rather than
sexual, and it's all self-inflicted. Self-flogging and tattooing are
two ways I've found insight to hidden information. But I wouldn't
classify myself as a switch, either...
Muddy waters, indeed. ;)
-- Christopher
Christopher
> In article <3b7d8e41d01488c7b0a...@mygate.mailgate.org>,
> Cyrain Of Ash <cyrain...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> >It is a source of considerable irritation to me as a masochist and a
> >bondage-fetishist but NOT a submissive, that so many BDSM people presume
> >all bottoms are subs.
>
> I've been fighting this battle for about a decade now. Sadly, the
> problem seems to be getting (much) worse, rather than better.
>
> I'm blown away by how prevalent this has become. If you go to alt.com,
> an online alternative lifestyles personals site, you have the option of
> identifying yourself as a dom, a sub, or a switch. I picked switch,
> because nothing else fit, and made it clear in my ad that I was NOT
> into DS at all. I still get tons of mail addressed to Mistress.
>
> -Patti
How damn annoying... You're both absolutely right, people need to
recognize the difference between a sub and a masochist. For what it's
worth, my friend Dave (who's been a member of our local BDSM group from
just about the start) has this problem all the time. He's a strict
masochist, does not submit to anyone, but almost all the tops in the
local scene always want to negotiate some scene where he submits to
them. Sucks for him, cause he can only find one or two people who
understand the difference and will play with him as he needs. One of
them is my own sadistic submissive -- she just LOVES cbt and I won't let
her do those nasty awful things to me. ;)
For the record, the group I helped form and am prez of right now
recognizes the differences in bottoms and tries to educate as far and
wide as possible. But sometimes, with the flood of "internet trained
doms and subs," I feel like the little Dutch boy with his finger in the
dike. =\
Not like that, you pervs!! ROTFL
-- Christopher in Utah
Christopher
> I think the primary factor here is desperation rather than intelligence
> level. I have a submissive friend who spends a lot of time online. She
> regularly gets hit on by submissive men who would like her to top them. I
> think it happens because she's at least female and kinky. It's probably
> easier to talk to her than women who haven't indicated an interest in BDSM
> and most of the dominant women are too busy to respond when they do find
> them. Often these guys will start out identifying themselves to her as Doms,
> apparently just to get a dialog started. They know what's going on, but they
> have a strong emotional need that is not being met and kinky women, of
> whatever flavor, are one obvious place to look.
Be that as it may, it just doesn't work. I mean, do these guys really
expect someone posting a lesbian personal ad to answer their plea for
sex, simply because the person posting the ad was female?
My girl and I have a few ads posted in various places, looking for a
girlfriend for her. They state very clearly that she's looking for a
FEMALE, and males shouldn't even bother. I'll tell you one thing: we
get more mail from men in a given week than we ever have from women...
=\ How stupid do you have to be to expect that someone looking for the
exact opposite of you (be it female over male, or dominant over
submissive) is even going to bother answering you, let alone play with
you?
-- Christopher
Christopher
> The problem is that we have not yet, as a community, achieved consensus on
> language. Our terms have been invented as needed, jargon for this new
> field of activity, as the field grew and we needed to communicate with the
> people we were meeting, teaching, learning from and negotiating with.
Wow! Thank you for that personal history, Conrad. It definitely
underlines some of the problems we have as an extended community...
Would you mind greatly if I printed a copy of that to include in my
group's growing little library of articles?
-- Christopher in Utah
Jahwar
Norton Zenger <wrong...@ekilat.com> wrote:
> ...but which, unlike "top and bottom", are still apparently generally
> seen as gay terms rather than BDSM ones.
They are? That's news to me.
merwench
(snip)
>
> For the record, the group I helped form and am prez of right now
> recognizes the differences in bottoms and tries to educate as far and
> wide as possible. But sometimes, with the flood of "internet trained
> doms and subs," I feel like the little Dutch boy with his finger in the
> dike. =\
>
> Not like that, you pervs!! ROTFL
>
But "like that" sounds like *ever* so much more fun!!!
Philip the Foole
M Shirley Chong wrote:
> I'm reminded of a (possibly urban legend) story I heard about Jenny
> Craig going to Italy and asking the chef to make bruschetta without
> oil; he did his best but it was a sorry shadow of what bruschetta
> really is. Going to a restaurant with a great chef and specifying so
> many changes to your order that the dishes are no longer what the
> chef intended is a way to cheat yourself. If you want everything
> totally under your control, eat at home. If you want to taste the
> world the way someone else perceives it, if you want to step out of
> your familiar paths, order and let the chef show you something new.
>
> By relaxing and relinquishing control, you can enjoy just about
> anything. You might not want to do it again but you can still enjoy it.
I agree with Shirley's approach to dining.
Your Humble Jester,
Philip the Foole
Going to a restaurant with a great chef and specifying so many
changes to your order that the dishes are no longer what the chef
intended is a way to cheat yourself. If you want everything totally
under your control, eat at home.
- Ancient Kung Foole Proverb by M Shirley Chong
Technobarbarian
"Christopher" <spy...@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:1fdvem3.1ureekhmv53xmN%spy...@xmission.com...
> =\ How stupid do you have to be to expect that someone looking for the
> exact opposite of you (be it female over male, or dominant over
> submissive) is even going to bother answering you, let alone play with
> you?
My friend regularly gets nearly incoherent messages similar to Philip
the Foole's example or worse, but the majority are able to write in complete
sentences and communicate clearly. To me this argues against sheer
stupidity. I would agree that some of this seems to come from a dumb
misconception that I've encountered elsewhere, that if you're kinky you must
have no standards or very low standards. But, I think most of this comes
from a shotgun theory similar to guys I've met who hit on anything female
that has a pulse. They know they'll get rejected at least 97% of the time,
but every now and then you get lucky. And I suspect the odds are seen as
somewhat higher searching among the kinky. The seeker is at least spared the
work of explaining what it is they're into or that whatever it is doesn't
mean that they're less than a rational caring human being. I have several
kinky friends who have had to go through this in real life recently. It's a
long slow process with no guarantee of success at the end. (In at least two
cases it has worked out very well and I think the other one isn't going to
work out for reasons having nothing to do with kink.)
While it's completely off topic here's a fun link on the subject of
stupidity: http://www.geocities.com/saveourcows/walmart.html It's a
Wal-mart customer service manager's account of some of his more interesting
experiences. It's a hoot.
Dennis
Norton Zenger
<fo...@icehouse.net> wrote:
>> Norton Zenger: Now when the greater 90% come across an ad placed
>by a woman, the strong likelihood is that they will not be compatible
>with said woman. ...
>The 10% of idiots, though, whether functionally illiterate, lacking
>in reading comprehension, or just utterly insensate to either, will
>not recognize this ...
>
>Dear Mistress Norton,
>
>i red yr ad. i am the prefect slave u r looking 4.
>
>i want u to dress up like Wonder Woman and whip me with a vinyl pool
>frog.
>
>Yr new slave,
>
>Philip the Foole
Dear Ford,
Thank you for your very considerate message. I, like you, am a big
fan of Wonder Woman, especially the late-1960s revamp of the
character. However, I am sadly unable to comply with your eloquently
phrased request, as I suffer from a congenital allergy to sensible
shoes. I wish you the best of luck in your quest.
Seriously, man, that Charles Moulton d00d, he was one wacky guy. It
cracks me up when feminists (which, I hasten to add, are okey-dokey in
my book) try to characterize him as having a sensible or rational
ethos. Yes, he _was_ strongly pro-woman. However, it is also true
that to him "pro-woman" meant "tying them up. A lot." This is the
part that they typically try to rationalize away. Also, he invented
the lie detector, which apparently is still accepted as legal evidence
despite the fact that the vast majority of his experiments with it
involved tying up sorority girls and trying to get them to admit that
it they found the experience to be hot.
I want to be the kind of scientist Charles Moulton was.
Janet Miles
<3D0C333...@forest.pcpartner.net>, M Shirley Chong wrote:
> Yes! It's the secret to being able to enjoy anything that is done or
> guided by another person. If you go in and mentally (or out loud,
> how crass) criticize the way your partner does things, you won't
> enjoy the experience and your partner may not.
Hm. I can see that as an ideal, but it's one I haven't reached yet. To
work with your dining analogy, if something comes out of the kitchen that
turns out to be less marvelous than it sounded, I will set it aside, and
might ask for something else. For example, if the green beans that came as
a side dish with my steak are so very salty that I can't eat them, I'll
agonize about wasting food, but eventually just leave them on the plate; if
the orange roughy I ordered for my entree is so strongly flavored that even
the scent makes me queasy, I'll agonize about wasting food but eventually
order something else.
In the context of a scene, though, what that means is that I'm entirely
willing (and consider it appropriate, for the way I play and the people I
play with) to say something like, "I can't deal with that much sting that
quickly" or "please don't stop?" or even "I think *that* will be quite
enough of *that*!". Generally, whatever comes out of my mouth when I'm in
bottomspace bypasses most of the internal censors, no matter how
grammatically correct it is, so I don't usually agonize about what I'm
about to say. For me, and for my playpartners, that seems to work pretty
well. Others' mileage will, of course, vary.
JanetM
--
Posted by Janet Miles <janetmiles at chartertn dot net>
Conrad Hodson
> I have found that the best strategy for me is label + modifier-- start
> with the concise 90% correct description, and then embellish it until I
> get to something that I feel is accurate. "I'm an SM switch" is the
> short version. "I'm an SM switch, primarily top though I bottom on
> occasion, and I'm not at all interested in dominance and submission"
> is pretty accurate. It would certainly give someone enough information
> to know whether or not they were interested in further pursuit of
> common interests.
Exactly. The label can be useful, but the mistake comes when the user or
receiver of the label gets lazy and falls into the trap of thinking that
the label is the whole story. A publisher can pick a very appropriate
title for a book, frex, but only a fool would assume that reading the
title told them everything about the contents.
I still remember fondly a young woman who opened negotiation with a flat
statement of mostly labels, "I'm a good physical masochist, and I'm
sexually submissive." A lot of information in nine words, including the
thing that impressed me most which was a clear understanding of the
difference between masochism and submission. In fact, all her labels
proved perfectly accurate, and she spent the next six hours demonstrating
it quite delightfully.
Conrad Hodson
Conrad Hodson
>
> would have been left without a clue as to whether I meant I enjoyed being
> controlled during a scene, or I enjoyed domestic service, or I wanted to be
> controlled during our day-to-day time together, or what. It's just not a
> terribly useful term. Similarly, telling him I *wasn't* submissive simply
> excluded all of the above and a lot more -- when in fact I do like some measure
> of control during a scene (makes it easier to turn my brain off).
You're saying, in effect, that because "submissive" (or any other single
word) carries only a limited amount of meaning, that it's useless?
Every person I've heard object to "labeling" in this way seems to have a
huge blind spot at just this point. There _is_ no single word that is
going to describe the entire complexity of a person, or the entire
complexity of a piece of gravel for that matter. Does that mean that
"person" or "gravel" are useless words?
Of course not. It means that the criticism should be directed at the
worker, not the tools. The problem is not labeling, it lies in the people
who toss off a label and think they've told the whole story. Or in
reading or hearing a short label and thinking they know all they need to
know about someone. The problem here isn't that labels were used, but
rather that they weren't followed up with more detail.
Labels are very, very useful, but they can never be anything but a
starting point. Giving or reading a label and leaving it at that is like
buying seeds but never preparing the soil or opening the packet. This is
not, however, a valid argument against buying seeds!
Conrad Hodson
Conrad Hodson
Not at all, and thanks for the compliment.
BTW, Gayle Rubin has written some marvelous articles on various aspects of
the ancestry of the scene, and she's my source for some of what I
wrote. You might try Googling her name and see what you get. If that
doesn't work, the chapter she contributed to Mark Thompson's _Leatherfolk_
(Alyson) is very good, as are some comments she's made either here or on
the SM-ACT mailing list, which are probably archived.
Gayle also, AFAIK, has the honor of being the initiator of what became the
Leather Archives and Museum--at least, her eloquent proposal to the NLA
National Council is the first I'd heard of the idea.
Conrad Hodson
Janet Hardy
Conrad Hodson wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2002, Janet Hardy wrote:
> >
> > This is true to some degree. But if I had told him that I *was* submissive, he
> > would have been left without a clue as to whether I meant I enjoyed being
> > controlled during a scene, or I enjoyed domestic service, or I wanted to be
> > controlled during our day-to-day time together, or what. It's just not a
> > terribly useful term. Similarly, telling him I *wasn't* submissive simply
> > excluded all of the above and a lot more -- when in fact I do like some measure
> > of control during a scene (makes it easier to turn my brain off).
>
> You're saying, in effect, that because "submissive" (or any other single
> word) carries only a limited amount of meaning, that it's useless?
>
> Every person I've heard object to "labeling" in this way seems to have a
> huge blind spot at just this point. There _is_ no single word that is
> going to describe the entire complexity of a person, or the entire
> complexity of a piece of gravel for that matter. Does that mean that
> "person" or "gravel" are useless words?
No -- it means that there are better ones. No word is useless, but some are more
effective than others.
> Of course not. It means that the criticism should be directed at the
> worker, not the tools. The problem is not labeling, it lies in the people
> who toss off a label and think they've told the whole story. Or in
> reading or hearing a short label and thinking they know all they need to
> know about someone. The problem here isn't that labels were used, but
> rather that they weren't followed up with more detail.
But if you have to give more detail, why bother with the label? Why not just give
the detail and skip the label, which is confining and vague?
Philip the Foole
Norton Zenger wrote:
> Seriously, man, that Charles Moulton d00d, he was one wacky guy. It
> cracks me up when feminists (which, I hasten to add, are okey-dokey in
> my book) try to characterize him as having a sensible or rational
> ethos. Yes, he _was_ strongly pro-woman. However, it is also true
> that to him "pro-woman" meant "tying them up. A lot." This is the
> part that they typically try to rationalize away. Also, he invented
> the lie detector, which apparently is still accepted as legal evidence
> despite the fact that the vast majority of his experiments with it
> involved tying up sorority girls and trying to get them to admit that
> it they found the experience to be hot.
>
> I want to be the kind of scientist Charles Moulton was.
Harvard-trained psychologist Dr. William Moulton Marston, who wrote
"Wonder Woman" under the pen name "Charles Moulton" was indeed an
interesting character. He and his wife lived with his female lover in
an apparently harmonious extended family, which I like to imagine
involved a great deal of *hot lesbian sex*
Marston fathered two children by each woman. Wonder Woman ended up in
some sort of bondage in just about every episode.
http://www.uky.edu/Projects/Chemcomics/html/ww_21_a10.html
Your Humble Jester,
Philip the Foole
"What did he want?"
"He wanted what all men want."
"He wanted you to dress like Wonder Woman, tie him up with your golden
magic lasso, and force him to tell the truth?"
- Ancient Kung Foole Proverb (from "Back to School")
Virginia Dare
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2002, Janet Hardy wrote:
>>
>> Simple suggestion if you want to fix it: encourage people to say "I
>> like x" rather than "I am x." It *instantly* clarifies such
>> discussions.
>>
>> "Oh, you like domestic service? That's interesting. I've never gotten
>> much out of that, but I really like being flogged." "Hmm. I like
>> bondage too, but only when it's part of sex. Can you explain to me
>> what you get out of prolonged stringent bondage? I really don't
>> understand that." Such statements, IME, lead to much more interesting
>> and productive discussions than these endless "the meaning of
>> dominance" arguments.
>
> Right you are, and I suspect we are actually much closer on this whole
> question than it sounded originally. I suspect that one difference
> comes between the Platonic mindset (that our categories represent some
> kind of "higher reality" and are so perfect and important that we
> should measure the real world against them) and the
> practical/observational mindset (words are just tools, and
> generalizations are useful ways of moving more than one concept
> around, but adjust theories to fit facts and not the other way round).
>
> Obviously, I'm firmly in the practical camp, and I wish your standard
> of behavior as opposed to "identity" were more widely followed.
Both of you, along with a.muse and others, make an excellent point, and
you've helped clarify a great many things I'm very hazy on - far more
than just the proper meaning and usage of the sub/bottom/masochist
terminology.
The very thoughtful posts to this NG remind me how very powerful a thing
language is, and how fluid. I appreciate the enlightening discussion!
Virginia
RazorJAK, the Once & Future Crankygoth
>In article <6fnnguglsqmvnkbn3...@4ax.com>,
>RazorJAK, the Once & Future Crankygoth <razo...@pag-mycodpiece-ans.org> wrote:
>
>>What about the Doms (not switchs) who are masochists to a degree?
>
>If you sometimes are a top (subspecies dom), and sometimes a bottom
>(subspecies masochist), then why wouldn't you consider yourself a
>switch?
Because I have no sub tendencies. :-)
Then again - my personal definition of masochism may be different from
yours. I guess maybe painjunkie would be a better term. I don't go
begging to be hurt ... but when I am - the endorphins kick in, the
lil silver knives dance in my veins and the firesprites dance behind
my eyes.
I think the fact that I start grinning like a crackhead who's just had
a taste of sweet sweet rock when I'm pummeled has cowered more drunks
with beermuscle than anything else I've ever done on the clock.
Then again ... I despise most labels since thats all people see you as
once the label is known. I use them to help those who may want a
quick lil blurb about myself ... but since humans by their very nature
are stupid beasts ... labels suck for actually giving any definition.
RazorJAK
( pagan goth Indian masochistic Dom )
--
Would the boy I used to be follow the teacher I am today?
http://www.pagans.org/~razorjak
ICQ 5300005 ~~~ AIM, YAHOO MSN & IRC RazorJAK
RazorJAK, the Once & Future Crankygoth
>"RazorJAK, the Once & Future Crankygoth" wrote in message
>
>> What about the Doms (not switchs) who are masochists to a degree?
>>
>> Hope that cloudies the waters a bit more.
>
>No, these are AND categories not OR categories.
>
>What's so hard to understand? Someone can be a masochist AND a dom AND
>a
>submissive AND a bondage-top. Or a sadist AND a masochist AND a dom AND
>likes roleplaying being an anteater.
>
>You can belong to as many categories as you like.
I think what you fail to realize is that I'm the type of person who
views a huge amount of labels as an offshoot of political correctness.
Political Correctness being that most vile of conditions which,
though claiming to make people nicer to one another, is truly designed
to make communication more difficult and to make people so scared of
offending someone with the wrong use of a word or phrase that they use
300 where 10 would do.
Maybe that makes it more clear for you.
RazorJAK
--
Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors --
and miss.
-
1047 of 4115 in the Sigfile O' Doom
-
http://www.pagans.org/~razorjak
ICQ 5300005 ~~~ AIM, YAHOO MSN & IRC RazorJAK
remove my CODPIECE to email me
Patti Beadles
Janet Hardy <jha...@greenerypress.com> wrote:
>But if you have to give more detail, why bother with the label? Why not just
>give the detail and skip the label, which is confining and vague?
Because sometimes you can solve a problem with a lot less work just by
using a label?
Take meeting compatible playpartners as an example, since it's highly
relevant to the discussion. For the sake of argument, I'm going to
pretend that we're playing a game, where the goal is to efficiently find
a compatible playpartner from among a large group of people who are
also seeking compatible playpartners. This will necessarily
oversimplify human interactions, but it's not entirely unrealistic
either.
Just by saying, "I'm a bisexual female SM top", a lot of people have
enough information to know that we aren't a good match. For example,
gay men, tops, submissives who are looking for a 24/7 mistress,
bi-phobic lesbians, and a whole host of others can now move on to the
next potential partner, and do so very quickly.
Once someone has found that I meet the first level filters for common
interests, we can start delving deeper to see if we are compatible on
other levels. Maybe we are, maybe we aren't, but we don't need to
waste time with an in-depth conversation if it's guaranteed to fail.
On the other hand, I could talk for the next six months, and not ever
completely define what a "Patti" is. The depth of human existence is
so great that I don't think it's ever possible to completely define
someone. If you were to try, you would eventually get to the point
where you had to stop at something that was approximate but not 100%
precise. That point varies depending upon your goals. Sometimes that
stopping point is one word deep-- a heterosexual female whose whole
goal was to find a sex partner could stop at "female" when talking to
me.
Labels are like the tip of a pyramid. They don't come anywhere near
the whole story, but they can be useful shorthand.
Cyrain Of Ash
news:3D0C1E9C...@greenerypress.com
> I think where we run into problems is when we try to label what we *are*,
> instead of what we *do*. It's very easy for me to list the things I like to
> do: giving and receiving many (well, most) kinds of erotic pain, certain
> role-plays, taking sexual control but not outside-world control, etc. It is
> less easy to put a simple label on them: "Well, I'm a masochist and a sadist,
> and I'm generally dominant but I don't enjoy giving orders except under
> certain very particular circumstances, and sometimes I'm a gay male dom but
> other times I'm not..." Well, you get the idea. There may be some people in
> the world who feel that the label "submissive" or "masochist" or whatnot is
> an exact description of their kink, but if so, I've met few if any.
Again, I disagree.
First of all, if someone asks "What is a rose?" and I answer "A rose is
a flower" is that not true? No one thinks that saying is a rose is a
flower means that a rose is a peony. Just because "flower" does not
convey the whole lush, odiferous redness of roses, does not mean it is
incorrect.
Moreover it is absurd to maintain that just because "flower" does not
perfectly delimit "roseness" that "flower" is a useless term.
Saying a rose is a flower tells us much that is useful about roses. It
doesn't need to tell us *everything* about roses to be *useful*.
"By any other name..."
But much more of a concern, is this idea that we should restrict our
discourse to what we do and never address what we *are*.
Sorry, maybe your kink is merely something you do. My kink is something
I *am*.
Indeed, it is precisely the issues of *identity* which are such
compelling ones I want to talk about them here.
Why else am I here? I certainly don't need this forum to discuss knots.
I'm here to explore what I *is*, by sharing and hearing stories of what
other peoples *is*, too.
> Yet I know of no masochists who enjoy pain _per se_. Some masochists will use
> pain in self-play -- lubricated by a liberal dose of fantasy -- when no
> sadist is available. Yet for me and for every other masochist I've talked to
> about this, being given pain with intent and meaning, by someone with whom we
> feel some level of emotional connection, is essential to our pleasure in the
> stimulus.
Janet, you have now Completely And Utterly Pissed Me Off.
Go back and look at the third sentence in the above paragraph.
You say "for me and for every other masochist I've talked to".
You stand there and complain about how awful lables like "masochist" and
"sub" are, and yet you use them yourself! And you use them for exactly
the purpose those of us who advocate their use do: To make an argument
about the nature of masochism. You make a generalization about
masochism.
Now, *what* that generalization is ("being given pain with intent and
meaning, by someone with whom we feel some level of emotional
connection, is essential") is IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION.
The point is that we can HAVE such a discussion because of those terms.
The point is that the language represents CONCEPTS -- that the token
"masochism" refers to a concept of a liking-of-pain-in-some-way. That
without the word "masochism" you could not have built the above
sentence.
And more over, you could not have built that *argument* on a purely
logical ground, without that concept. You had to identify certain
people as "masochist" and their opinions therefore as relevant to any
generalization about "masochists".
All I want is to share in the linguistic/conceptual power you arrogate
to yourself.
[
This that follows is a complete red-herring issue, but an interesting
one, so let's talk about it. Going back:
> Yet I know of no masochists who enjoy pain _per se_.
I know of no vanillas who enjoy random things being put in their cunts
by strangers _per se_.
Generally, no one feels it necessary to say "sex is not enjoyable _per
se_, only consensual sex in the accordance with one's sexual tastes is
enjoyable."
Why do we feel it necessary to say "pain is not enjoyable _per se_, only
consensual pain in accordance with one's tastes in pain is enjoyable"?
> I have played with people who are only giving me pain because they know I
> like it. I feel grateful to them for whatever catharsis I get from the
> experience, but I'm not turned on by it and it doesn't meet my needs. How is
> that qualitatively different from the sub-identified individual who says "I
> enjoy pain, but only because I know it pleases my dominant"?
Er, isn't this a pointless question in the abstract? If an individual
comes forth and says "I enjoy pain, but only because I know it pleases
my dominant", we can then *ask* him whether or not what you report of
your experience sounds to him like his experience, and then have an very
interesting discussion about what he is or isn't.
'Cause, frankly, my first question would be "So, why don't you call that
masochism?" and I, frankly, expect him to reply "Oh, yes, I am a
masochist, just much less than I am a submissive." *or* "Well, it's not
the pain itself I like, it's enduring it for my Dom...." *or* "I like
that he hurts me and clearly gets off on it; the pain I could do with
out." *or* "My top hurting me with impunity makes me feel dominated and
is thus hot. It's the impunity not the pain which does it."
Simply put: I'm not sure any real person would describe themselves as
you posit in your hypothetical case, so I'm not sure it's a problem in
need of a solution.
]
> But both terms are such weak reeds. A "submissive" can be anything from
> someone who enjoys wearing a collar while s/he gets a whipping, to someone
> who prefers to spend every waking hour under an owner's direct control. A
> "masochist" can hate clamps but love whips, yearn for TENS units but safeword
> on violet wands.
Yes. And one of the things I find thrilling and fascinating about those
words is they bring together such disparate peoples, and ask "what *do*
we have in common? Is there some underlying commonality between the
masochist who is into piercing and the masochist who quicks on piercing
but loves the rack and the masochist who haets both piercing and the
rack, but loves whips, and....?
It allows all these people a common ground ("masochism") to discuss
their experience and *abstract* from it. It allows someone who quicks
from piercing play but is into other pains to learn from the
practitioners of the other kink they might never have otherwise
associated themselves with.
Yea, verily, I testify from personal experience here: I *am* that
masochist who would never in a million years have thought those sickos
who drive (*shudder*) needles into one another might have something,
anything, to say which might pertain to my experience. The
*abstraction* of masochism that we shared was precisely where that
common ground was found.
> And that doesn't even begin to approach the huge number of
> people who fit under neither umbrella -- the bondage bunnies, the latex
> fetishists, the terror junkies, the sissy maids and many many more.
YES! That's RIGHT! IGOR, BRING ME MORE WORDS! MORE WORDS!
MWUAHAHAHA!
Ahem.
We now reach my favorite hobbyhorse topic: the orphan stepchild of BDSM.
"Everybody knows" that "BDSM" is made of three acronyms.
We see "Ds" described here all the time. "SM" too.
So...where did "B&D" go? "Bondage and Discipline"?
You know, bondage not just to hold your masochist in place, and not just
to leash your submissive, but just.... bondage for it's own glorious
sake. Bondage as a fetish. Bondage as "not being able to move freely
turns my crank", as "tied up people make my gonads throb"....?
I've been off wandering other forums trying to find the bondage
fetishists in my subflavor. Found 'em. The people whose idea of a fun,
steamy weekend is putting (or being put by) someone of the appropriate
gender in a full-body cast, toes-to-crown and keeping them that way.
And a bunch of them told me "Oh, no, I'm not into that BDSM stuff. I
don't do pain or that silly dom-sub stuff. I just want to immobilize a
woman."
*BOY* were they surprized to find out my local BDSM club had a workshop
on mummification.
Houston, we have a problem. A PR problem, if nothing else. If we think
"we BDSMers" are including people of that kink in our "big tent", plenty
of *them* sure don't.
I think that's a bloody shame.
Oh, yeah, and what about waist training and corset fetishists? The
recent thread on corsets was a lovely blast from the past (Ah, Bottiers,
whither are you?) but just served to remind me how once we had more of
those around. But now when I go to corset fetishist websites they don't
seem to often call themselves "BDSM", and indeed make mention of how
"those BDSM" (in res) people sometimes like to play dressup in corsets
(implied: that those BDSMers like how corsets look 'nasty' but aren't
actually *into* corsets as a body-mod or sensation thing.)
Where did the forced-feminization people go, anyways? And the chastity
belt fetishists? And the human-furniture people? And the enema
fetishists? And the body-painting fetishists?
("...long time passing....Gone to Yahoo, everyone.//When will they ever
learn// When will they eeeeeeeeeeh-ver learn...")
These, insofar as they weren't about the emotional rush of "submitting"
to another's will, weren't "Ds", and insofar as they weren't about
physical "pain", weren't "SM". And the people who are primarily
oriented to them found neither the "Ds" nor "SM" sides of our little
turf battle to be home. They were of a third flavor.
[
And, knowing full well that when "B&D" was a commonly used term
"Discipline" referred "punishment-roleplay" from the verb sense of "to
discipline" meaning "to punish", I nevertheless wonder if we shouldn't
bring back "Discipline" in it's *noun* sense: A Discipline.
Like yoga, or tai chi, or medicine, or playing a musical instrument.
Waist training is a Discipline. The wearing of a chastity belt is a
Discipline. Shibari is a Discipline. Sissification is a Discipline.
Mummification is, hooboy, a Discipline.
These are... Arts. Practices. Things one does over time in progressive
forms.
Hmmm. "Bondage & Disciplines"
]
There's like this whole *THIRD* of the BDSM universe which has been
abandoned. What happened?
And can we bring them back? *I* for one miss them, here.
Bluntly: the use of "dom" and "sub" universally for all kink is what
seems to be driving them away. Maybe we should Knock That Off, hmm?
> > Which, frankly, is something which would make ssbb a much easier place
> > to have a basic conversation in.
>
> Simple suggestion if you want to fix it: encourage people to say "I like x"
> rather than "I am x." It *instantly* clarifies such discussions.
No, that solves a different problem than the one I'm talking about.
What you suggest has been making it worse.
> Again: much simplified if you talk about what you like, and they talk about
> what they like.
Excuse me, but nobody is suggesting not *also* using discussion at
length.
But what you suggest *reduces* the available tool set, and limits
people's available options of expression.
You keep saying "make due with only paragraphs, not lables".
I'm saying "Why choose?"
> "Oh, you like domestic service? That's interesting. I've never gotten much
> out of that, but I really like being flogged."
"Thanks so much for responding to my question about domestic service.
It really made me feel understood and appreciated how, despite the fact
I tried to talk about a topic important to me, my thread was immediately
hijacked by people who feel that what I'm trying to get answers on is so
uninteresting they talk about something else completely. Or maybe not."
---
Cyrain_of_Ash Butterfly ISO spider. Stuff ISO artist. Code
@fastmail.fm ISO hacker. Object ISO subject for verbing.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Cyrain Of Ash
news:aeh3bm$k5c$1...@samba.rahul.net
> In article <3b7d8e41d01488c7b0a...@mygate.mailgate.org>,
> Cyrain Of Ash <cyrain...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> >It is a source of considerable irritation to me as a masochist and a
> >bondage-fetishist but NOT a submissive, that so many BDSM people presume
> >all bottoms are subs.
>
> I've been fighting this battle for about a decade now. Sadly, the
> problem seems to be getting (much) worse, rather than better.
>
> I attribute part of this to the book _Different Loving_. They chose to
> use the terms dominance and submission to describe the entire spectrum
> of BDSM activities, even those that had absolutely no element of power
> exchange. In arguing this with one of the authors on a.s.b many years
> ago, he repeatedly stated that it's almost all power exchange, even
> though sometimes the participants won't admit to it. <spit>
*sigh*
> A bigger factor seems to be the prevalence of online BDSM roleplaying.
> Though I don't frequent them, there seem to be just tons of "chatrooms"
> and other online chat areas that feature BDSM roleplaying.
Well, sure. I'm on an on-line forum for people into mummification, and
*BOY* is it hard to do an on-line mummifcation scene.
%User Sekmet loving wraps the sacred linen bandages over Cleop's eyes.
%Cleop says "Mmmmmmph! Mmmmmmmmph! MMMMMMMMPH!"
Kinks where the thrill is in a mode of interpersonal interaction which
can be largely verbalized are going to take to the net like ducks to
water.
I suppose exhibitionists are exchanging pictures and doing video
conferencing.
The rest of us are SOL.
So of course on the Net Ds is going to be disproportionately
represented.
Still a bloody pain in the ass.
> These seem
> to have evolved into an entire culture, wherein doms capitalize their
> names, and subs never do, and a sub who is "owned" has their owners
> initials in their name. There seem to be elaborate rituals and
> protocol so that these psuedo-doms and subs know their places, and
> everybody can tell who is who.
If I could figure out how to do the same with a physical kink, I'd do it
in a heartbeat. :) I do so envy them.
> For better or worse, a lot of people seem to be coming into the scene
> via this route. Definitely for worse (at least from where I sit), even
> more people seem to be coming into what they THINK is the scene through
> chatrooms.
Yeah, oy.
> But the only world they know is the online world, where
> everybody is a dom or a sub (sorry, a Dom or a sub), and it all centers
> around kneeling at someone's feet and calling them Sir and being a
> proper slavegirl.
If we could get them all to label themselves "Ds" instead of "BDSM" that
would be nice. (Unlikely, but nice. And the "non-capitalist pig" Dser
will probably not be amused to see the "capitalist pig" Dsers coopt
their kink's definition.)
> I'm blown away by how prevalent this has become. If you go to alt.com,
> an online alternative lifestyles personals site, you have the option of
> identifying yourself as a dom, a sub, or a switch. I picked switch,
> because nothing else fit, and made it clear in my ad that I was NOT
> into DS at all. I still get tons of mail addressed to Mistress.
This drives me up a wall, too.
In my Copious Spare Time, I've been kicking around db designs for a
pervert personals site which Works. One idea was to let everyone have
one "facet" of their ad (i.e. a blurb and some flags) for as many of the
following as they want: sadist, masochist, dom, sub, fetishist. Maybe
more. The point being, that you could write one ad from the perspective
of being a sadist, and a different ad from the perspective of being a
masochist, if you wanted. And what people saw pertained to what they
searched on to turn up your ad (someone looking for sadists would see
your sadist blurb, and links to your other blurbs.) And you could have
one blurb tagged for multiple categories if you prefer ("I'm a
sadomasochistic switch who is only looking to play with other SM
switches. This is my joint sadist/masochist blurb.")
Anyway, I finessed alt.com. I thought "What would the people I'm
hunting for do? How would they be looking for me?" So I put down
"sub", since I am a "bondage bottom" and a masochist, and that seemed
analogous.
But had the obvious problem, of getting tons of domly doms. Who were
all (mostly) completely polite, and perhaps not to be blamed for not
understanding I wasn't a sub, since, *sigh*, it *says* sub on that damn
tag.
So I thunk and thunk, and then I figured it out. I rewrote my ad and
titled it "SM yes, B&D yes, D/s no".
Mostly worked like a charm. That and putting "Doms need not apply" in
the body.
(*I* went on a *Date* today. Met through alt.com, no less. :)
Cyrain Of Ash
news:slrnago6vp...@zipperii.zip.com.au
> That may not be alt.com as much as it is idiots.
>
> When I had a profile up there for a bit, it said I was sub, I still
> got mail addressed to Mistress.
I got one of those. But... it was some bloke who wanted to dress up in
women's underwear and clean my bathroom for me.
I tell ya, I thought long and hard about that one. :)
Cyrain Of Ash
news:996pguc8in49gq1e6...@4ax.com
>
> FWIW, I think it _is_ intelligence level, and when you think about it
> there's a perfectly good reason why women who post personal ads are
> inundated by messages from complete idiots.
> As such, they will quickly overwhelm even those rare
> non-idiots who are actually compatible in some way with the woman in
> question, leading to generalized exasperation.
>
> Unfortunately, there is no real way to filter out the idiots, which is
> what makes personal ads such a frustrating venture.
Er, maybe I shouldn't be sharing this with the world, but I've been
having pretty good luck with alt.com. That is, still lots of
not-quite-the-right-kink matches, but hardly inundated with bozos. Most
of the hits I have gotten have been polite and the right vague
orientation and many quite intelligent.
One of the things I do to help me quickly weed the bozos is I have a
bozo trap on my page. The bottom of my ad says "Please answer one or
more of the following questions...." and I have a few
conversation-starter questions I picked because they'd show me some of
the non-kink sides of someone. It's *immediately* apparent whether or
not someone has read (and comprehended) my ad by whether or not they
bother to answer any of those questions in their response. Anyone who
doesn't gets plonked without second thought.
(Anyone who wants to tie me up had better demonstrate from second-zero
an absolute *rapt* attention to every request I make. Show me you are
hanging on my every word, or go to hell.)
outthere
Apologies if this is an unwelcome intrusion into the conversation. I've been following the remarks of Janet with interest, it's first time I've come across an attitude approximately my culture's way of looking at things. I'm just intrigued and getting excited about something I see and trying to figure out what... so don't mind me. This will irritate I'm sure.
Cyrain Of Ash wrote:
"Janet Hardy" <jha...@greenerypress.com> wrote in message
news:3D0C1E9C...@greenerypress.com> I think where we run into problems is when we try to label what we *are*,
> instead of what we *do*. It's very easy for me to list the things I like to
> do: giving and receiving many (well, most) kinds of erotic pain, certain
> role-plays, taking sexual control but not outside-world control, etc. It is
> less easy to put a simple label on them: "Well, I'm a masochist and a sadist,
> and I'm generally dominant but I don't enjoy giving orders except under
> certain very particular circumstances, and sometimes I'm a gay male dom but
> other times I'm not..." Well, you get the idea. There may be some people in
> the world who feel that the label "submissive" or "masochist" or whatnot is
> an exact description of their kink, but if so, I've met few if any.Again, I disagree.
This makes sense, Janet's remarks. In my culture we don't have the concept that people 'are' at all. There is no such thing as 'is'. We recognise people being in the state of being this or that...state of happiness, state of being in control, state of maleness...whatever. They can be in many states all at the same time, going in and out. You don't discuss people in terms of "'who' are you?" But simply 'where are you?" - labels of course don't apply because people aren't static, they are changeable and fluid. Maleness is fluid, Femaleness is fluid...etc. It's not truth ful or workable to represent them as otherwise. Eg anykind of label that works the same way as a label on a can of food - list of contents for said can. People aren't things they're not stuck as one thing - static.
Although you have words like 'dominant' , 'submissive' whatever, they aren't USED in a label sense just as markers or pointers to a -general terrain-. In other words they give a general feel from a distance what kind of things are happening - but it defines nothing. No one is 'dominant' whatever definition you give it - all the time, so why call them that.
Some times I think you role play with words to make your 'identities' to live in - and lose out on the real people behind the 'identities' you make.
Anyway there is -no definition- in our culture because it's understood
that there would an infinite number of ways to look at anything. Where
is the sanity in looking for ONE definition. It suggests an inability to
see.
Rather in any and all dialogue or communcation as opposed to western
people first people negotiate where they stand in relation to the other
and what they are discussing and work with the definitions you arrange
amongst yourselves. Hard in english - but our own language has that design
built into it.
I notice so many many many many many like EVERYTHING isn't an ISSUE for us - like it is for you people because of this thing about 'labels' or that there HAS to be A definition. A = this + this + this + this. And people get bent out of shape if the definition is 'wrong'.
First of all, if someone asks "What is a rose?" and I answer "A rose is a flower" is that not true? No one thinks that saying is a rose is a flower means that a rose is a peony. Just because "flower" does not
convey the whole lush, odiferous redness of roses, does not mean it is incorrect.
So you have a word 'rose' that points to a range of floral creations that sometimes are beautiful and sweet or wet, lank, dark black, slimy and stink. Or small, or large, or redish, orangeish... Sometimes they don't smell at all. Those hot house ones are a worry. But a 'rose' is in fact not a 'rose'. Nor is it a 'flower'.
Words are just pointers and they only have any meaning between two people if you recognise what the other means - relevant to the subject at hand, what you want to do or achieve. It doesn't even matter if you use different words that actually mean the same thing - if the job gets done, what ever that is. It's easy to get caught up in a 'definition'
In our culture the rose most definately could be a peony anyhoo. If we come across a particular rose that is significant it will of course get another name - the one I kept in my fridge last year was called "happy giant".
Moreover it is absurd to maintain that just because "flower" does not perfectly delimit "roseness" that "flower" is a useless term.
Words, are used to convey whatever it is that you want to convey to get the job done. "Rose" can be a useless word if the immediate picture is red sweet smelling when you are thinking specifically of dark, slimy black congealing on the ground. It's useful if you say "pick up all the roses" referring to those pretty ones for your girlfriend. "Rose" will mean in any specific conversation quite different things.
You might not think this is an issue, but I have to teach kids how to paint, which means they need to "SEE" if I get them young no problem. But when they're older you say a word and they automatically interpret it to mean A= this + this + this + this regardless of what they're looking at!! Eg put them around a tree - it's a sliver birch with whiteish greenish bark, and small leaves etc. The ADULTS and kids alike will start with a "brown" trunk" and "this shade of green" - Because that's what they are told 'trees ARE" regardless theirs a bloody sliver one in front of them. Really dumb. And that idiocy is everywhere.
We do a few exercises to teach them to see what's in front of them again
- and you should see their faces when they get it. I know you probably
don't have a clue about what I'm saying. But I don't think you realise
how dangerous it is to get caught up on labels - it makes you short sighted
and takes the 'now' and 'colour' out of everything you do. Most certainly
it gets in the way of real life when you get caught up on semantics.
But much more of a concern, is this idea that we should restrict our discourse to what we do and never address what we *are*.
The *are* conversation is a wank. And people enjoy wanking, that's fine.
But it becomes a problem if you don't recognise that's all it is.
Sorry, maybe your kink is merely something you do. My kink is something
I *am*.
That's limiting.
Janet Hardy
Cyrain Of Ash wrote:
> "Janet Hardy" <jha...@greenerypress.com> wrote in message
> news:3D0C1E9C...@greenerypress.com
>
> > I think where we run into problems is when we try to label what we *are*,
> > instead of what we *do*. It's very easy for me to list the things I like to
> > do: giving and receiving many (well, most) kinds of erotic pain, certain
> > role-plays, taking sexual control but not outside-world control, etc. It is
> > less easy to put a simple label on them: "Well, I'm a masochist and a sadist,
> > and I'm generally dominant but I don't enjoy giving orders except under
> > certain very particular circumstances, and sometimes I'm a gay male dom but
> > other times I'm not..." Well, you get the idea. There may be some people in
> > the world who feel that the label "submissive" or "masochist" or whatnot is
> > an exact description of their kink, but if so, I've met few if any.
>
> Again, I disagree.
>
> First of all, if someone asks "What is a rose?" and I answer "A rose is
> a flower" is that not true? No one thinks that saying is a rose is a
> flower means that a rose is a peony. Just because "flower" does not
> convey the whole lush, odiferous redness of roses, does not mean it is
> incorrect.
>
> Moreover it is absurd to maintain that just because "flower" does not
> perfectly delimit "roseness" that "flower" is a useless term.
>
> Saying a rose is a flower tells us much that is useful about roses. It
> doesn't need to tell us *everything* about roses to be *useful*.
Depends, I suppose, on the purpose of the discussion. If I'm talking about my
individual needs, preferences and desires, "flower" won't cut it; if I ask you to
bring me flowers, and I want roses, I will be unsatisfied with an armful of
daisies. If I'm speaking in generalities -- "I need to stop by the flower shop on
our way home" -- it's just fine.
> But much more of a concern, is this idea that we should restrict our
> discourse to what we do and never address what we *are*.
>
> Sorry, maybe your kink is merely something you do. My kink is something
> I *am*.
Couldn't agree more. But there are other things I *am* -- for example, a mother --
that require considerable further explication if their goal is to increase
understanding and intimacy. If I tell you I'm a mother, you're likely as not to
picture me as the full-time mother to a couple of preschool or school age
children, whereas in fact I am the hostess and ATM for a couple of male college
students, one away at school, the other dividing his time between here and a city
100 miles away where his father lives.
So: to a statistician or survey-taker, I'm a "mother." To a potential partner,
lover or friend, or to someone with whom I am trying to have an intelligent
discussion on the topic of motherhood, "mother" is a sorely inadequate word.
> Indeed, it is precisely the issues of *identity* which are such
> compelling ones I want to talk about them here.
>
> Why else am I here? I certainly don't need this forum to discuss knots.
> I'm here to explore what I *is*, by sharing and hearing stories of what
> other peoples *is*, too.
Actually, as you can see in several of the books I've written, I advocate strongly
for BDSM as an issue of identity rather than behavior. But that's an issue
separate from the matter of whether labels are an adequatae springboard for
meaningful discussion.
> > Yet I know of no masochists who enjoy pain _per se_. Some masochists will use
> > pain in self-play -- lubricated by a liberal dose of fantasy -- when no
> > sadist is available. Yet for me and for every other masochist I've talked to
> > about this, being given pain with intent and meaning, by someone with whom we
> > feel some level of emotional connection, is essential to our pleasure in the
> > stimulus.
>
> Janet, you have now Completely And Utterly Pissed Me Off.
>
> Go back and look at the third sentence in the above paragraph.
>
> You say "for me and for every other masochist I've talked to".
>
> You stand there and complain about how awful lables like "masochist" and
> "sub" are, and yet you use them yourself! And you use them for exactly
> the purpose those of us who advocate their use do: To make an argument
> about the nature of masochism. You make a generalization about
> masochism.
You are quite correct. My apologies. I could have phrased that better.
> Now, *what* that generalization is ("being given pain with intent and
> meaning, by someone with whom we feel some level of emotional
> connection, is essential") is IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION.
No, it is directly relevant to the point of origin of this discussion -- whether
or not a clear binary division between "submissive" and "masochist" is a useful
distinction. And I maintain that it is not, or only marginally so.
> The point is that we can HAVE such a discussion because of those terms.
We could have had a better one without them. "For me, and for every other person
I've talked to who enjoys pain in an erotic context..."
> The point is that the language represents CONCEPTS -- that the token
> "masochism" refers to a concept of a liking-of-pain-in-some-way. That
> without the word "masochism" you could not have built the above
> sentence.
See above. And I would argue that "masochism" does not equate to
liking-of-pain-in-some-way -- there are a lot of marathon runners and
hot-pepper-eaters out there who I don't think are masochistic in the sense we use
it here. Simply enjoying endogenous opiates is not the same as getting an erotic
charge from them.
> And more over, you could not have built that *argument* on a purely
> logical ground, without that concept. You had to identify certain
> people as "masochist" and their opinions therefore as relevant to any
> generalization about "masochists".
See above. I could easily have done so.
> This that follows is a complete red-herring issue, but an interesting
> one, so let's talk about it.
Since it's actually the original point of discussion, I'd be delighted to.
> > Yet I know of no masochists who enjoy pain _per se_.
>
> I know of no vanillas who enjoy random things being put in their cunts
> by strangers _per se_.
>
> Generally, no one feels it necessary to say "sex is not enjoyable _per
> se_, only consensual sex in the accordance with one's sexual tastes is
> enjoyable."
Really? I think you're being culturally and historically a bit narrowminded. Are
you old enough to remember the judge who advised, "If rape is inevitable, relax
and enjoy it"? Or the converse -- Dr. Ruth, in "Sex For Dummies," who counsels
"Kinky sex is not sexy" (regardless, one supposes, of consent and desire)?
> Why do we feel it necessary to say "pain is not enjoyable _per se_, only
> consensual pain in accordance with one's tastes in pain is enjoyable"?
Not what I said, is it? I suggested that the pleasure and intent of the giver is
essential to the enjoyment of erotic pain. This shades so-called "pure masochism"
awfully close to those definitions of "submission" in which giving service or
pleasure to one's partner are essential to the pleasure of the submissive?
> > I have played with people who are only giving me pain because they know I
> > like it. I feel grateful to them for whatever catharsis I get from the
> > experience, but I'm not turned on by it and it doesn't meet my needs. How is
> > that qualitatively different from the sub-identified individual who says "I
> > enjoy pain, but only because I know it pleases my dominant"?
>
> Er, isn't this a pointless question in the abstract? If an individual
> comes forth and says "I enjoy pain, but only because I know it pleases
> my dominant", we can then *ask* him whether or not what you report of
> your experience sounds to him like his experience, and then have an very
> interesting discussion about what he is or isn't.
I didn't intend it to be the final dictum on the matter (although I recognize that
my writing style often sounds a bit dogmatic). But I don't think that makes the
question "pointless"; it goes toward the original discussion, whether submission
and masochism are different phenomena, or different frameworks for similar
phenomena.
> 'Cause, frankly, my first question would be "So, why don't you call that
> masochism?" and I, frankly, expect him to reply "Oh, yes, I am a
> masochist, just much less than I am a submissive." *or* "Well, it's not
> the pain itself I like, it's enduring it for my Dom...." *or* "I like
> that he hurts me and clearly gets off on it; the pain I could do with
> out." *or* "My top hurting me with impunity makes me feel dominated and
> is thus hot. It's the impunity not the pain which does it."
Oooh, you're talking to different people than I am. I've lost count of the times
I've heard things like "I'm not a masochist; to me, pain just *hurts*" (this from
someone who has just worn and enjoyed a dozen clips on his genitals); "I'm not a
masochist, I just accept the pain to please my top" (this from someone whom I have
beaten raw, to his very great pleasure, not an hour before); "I'm not a masochist
like you" (from someone whose response to erotic pain is vivid and sexual, but who
is bemoaning the fact that she can't take quite as much of certain kinds of pain
than I can).
These people honestly seem to believe at some level that masochists are some
charmed species who are wired so as to be able to orgasm from stubbing their toe.
Intellectually, they know better, but "masochism" seems to be some platonic ideal
of sexualized pain that, IME, does not actually exist.
> Simply put: I'm not sure any real person would describe themselves as
> you posit in your hypothetical case, so I'm not sure it's a problem in
> need of a solution.
I assure you, plenty of people do.
> > And that doesn't even begin to approach the huge number of
> > people who fit under neither umbrella -- the bondage bunnies, the latex
> > fetishists, the terror junkies, the sissy maids and many many more.
>
> YES! That's RIGHT! IGOR, BRING ME MORE WORDS! MORE WORDS!
> MWUAHAHAHA!
>
> Ahem.
>
> We now reach my favorite hobbyhorse topic: the orphan stepchild of BDSM.
>
> "Everybody knows" that "BDSM" is made of three acronyms.
>
> We see "Ds" described here all the time. "SM" too.
>
> So...where did "B&D" go? "Bondage and Discipline"?
>
> You know, bondage not just to hold your masochist in place, and not just
> to leash your submissive, but just.... bondage for it's own glorious
> sake. Bondage as a fetish. Bondage as "not being able to move freely
> turns my crank", as "tied up people make my gonads throb"....?
>
> I've been off wandering other forums trying to find the bondage
> fetishists in my subflavor. Found 'em. The people whose idea of a fun,
> steamy weekend is putting (or being put by) someone of the appropriate
> gender in a full-body cast, toes-to-crown and keeping them that way.
>
> And a bunch of them told me "Oh, no, I'm not into that BDSM stuff. I
> don't do pain or that silly dom-sub stuff. I just want to immobilize a
> woman."
Hey, I wrote a whole book for the innumerable folks who say, "Hey, I'm not into
that BDSM stuff; I just like to spank people [or get spanked]." I am *fully* aware
of what Jay calls the "goddammit" crowd ("I'm not into BDSM, I just like bondage,
goddammit").
> Houston, we have a problem. A PR problem, if nothing else. If we think
> "we BDSMers" are including people of that kink in our "big tent", plenty
> of *them* sure don't.
>
> I think that's a bloody shame.
>
> Oh, yeah, and what about waist training and corset fetishists? The
> recent thread on corsets was a lovely blast from the past (Ah, Bottiers,
> whither are you?) but just served to remind me how once we had more of
> those around. But now when I go to corset fetishist websites they don't
> seem to often call themselves "BDSM", and indeed make mention of how
> "those BDSM" (in res) people sometimes like to play dressup in corsets
> (implied: that those BDSMers like how corsets look 'nasty' but aren't
> actually *into* corsets as a body-mod or sensation thing.)
>
> Where did the forced-feminization people go, anyways? And the chastity
> belt fetishists? And the human-furniture people? And the enema
> fetishists? And the body-painting fetishists?
>
> ("...long time passing....Gone to Yahoo, everyone.//When will they ever
> learn// When will they eeeeeeeeeeh-ver learn...")
>
> These, insofar as they weren't about the emotional rush of "submitting"
> to another's will, weren't "Ds", and insofar as they weren't about
> physical "pain", weren't "SM". And the people who are primarily
> oriented to them found neither the "Ds" nor "SM" sides of our little
> turf battle to be home. They were of a third flavor.
In my experience in the spanking community, that's rarely the problem. They
absolutely understand the Ds part of our world, and the ageplay part -- it's the
fetish and bondage parts that turn them off. They attend a BDSM event and see
people in leather and latex instead of pleated skirts and kneesocks. And then
those people get *tied up* -- what's the fun in that? And then they use shit like
clamps and needles! -- and that's just *weird*!
As long as BDSM appears from the outside to be a scary monolith of leather-clad
freaks, we'll have this problem. Who wants to associate with a bunch of
frightening, marginalized, probably gay weirdos?
Ack -- just looked at the clock. Got to have Jay at the airport in 1/2 hr. More
later.
Janet
Patti Beadles
Janet Hardy <jha...@greenerypress.com> wrote:
>No, it is directly relevant to the point of origin of this discussion -- whether
>or not a clear binary division between "submissive" and "masochist" is a useful
>distinction. And I maintain that it is not, or only marginally so.
Janet-- we tend to agree on a lot of things, but we seem to be miles
apart on this one.
How many people have to tell you, "it's a useful distinction for ME",
before you realize that while it might not work so well for you, it's
important for some people?
Michele
<jha...@greenerypress.com> wrote:
<biiiig snipperoo>
>As long as BDSM appears from the outside to be a scary monolith of leather-clad
>freaks, we'll have this problem. Who wants to associate with a bunch of
>frightening, marginalized, probably gay weirdos?
<jumping up and down and waving her hand> Me oh me oh me oh me oh
me!!!
Spanko chyk with fondness for BDSM identified folks
Norton Zenger
<cyrain...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>"Janet Hardy" <jha...@greenerypress.com> wrote in message
>news:3D0C1E9C...@greenerypress.com
>
>> I think where we run into problems is when we try to label what we *are*,
>> instead of what we *do*. It's very easy for me to list the things I like to
>> do: giving and receiving many (well, most) kinds of erotic pain, certain
>> role-plays, taking sexual control but not outside-world control, etc. It is
>> less easy to put a simple label on them: "Well, I'm a masochist and a sadist,
>> and I'm generally dominant but I don't enjoy giving orders except under
>> certain very particular circumstances, and sometimes I'm a gay male dom but
>> other times I'm not..." Well, you get the idea. There may be some people in
>> the world who feel that the label "submissive" or "masochist" or whatnot is
>> an exact description of their kink, but if so, I've met few if any.
>
>Again, I disagree.
>
>First of all, if someone asks "What is a rose?" and I answer "A rose is
>a flower" is that not true?
Rose is a rose is a rose. Of course. You say Shakespeare, I say
Gertrude Stein.
>Ahem.
>
>We now reach my favorite hobbyhorse topic: the orphan stepchild of BDSM.
>
>"Everybody knows" that "BDSM" is made of three acronyms.
>
>We see "Ds" described here all the time. "SM" too.
>
>So...where did "B&D" go? "Bondage and Discipline"?
>
>You know, bondage not just to hold your masochist in place, and not just
>to leash your submissive, but just.... bondage for it's own glorious
>sake. Bondage as a fetish. Bondage as "not being able to move freely
>turns my crank", as "tied up people make my gonads throb"....?
Goddamn right. I completely fuckin' agree with you here. MORE
BONDAGE, PLEASE.
Thank you.
>I've been off wandering other forums trying to find the bondage
>fetishists in my subflavor. Found 'em. The people whose idea of a fun,
>steamy weekend is putting (or being put by) someone of the appropriate
>gender in a full-body cast, toes-to-crown and keeping them that way.
>
>And a bunch of them told me "Oh, no, I'm not into that BDSM stuff. I
>don't do pain or that silly dom-sub stuff. I just want to immobilize a
>woman."
Oh yeah. I've run across that too. "I only do BONDAGE! I don't do
that icky weirdo BDSM stuff!" Well, for fuck's sake, people. It's
only IN THE TITLE OF THE FREAKIN NEWSGROUP. (Oh, and I am told the
same thing happens with the spankos. I don't know as much about that,
since it's not one of my primary kinks.)
So the question is, is the bondage people denying they have anything
to do with BDSM our fault, or their fault? My gut instinct says
"their fault". And also, I don't hang out with them because mostly
they aren't as interesting or intelligent as the people here. And a
lot of them are kind of creepy.
Yes, this causes a lot of cognitive dissonance in me. The people in
this newsgroup are, generally speaking, wonderful people, with whose
predilections I am either not into at all (the entire "public scene",
poly, etc, etc.) or, in the worst case, completely fail to comprehend
(D&S, which I have tried damn hard to try and figure out, but
everything I have read about it might as well be the Martian Newspaper
for all the good it does me.) It's gotten to the point where I'm
thinking kinky relationships are probably more trouble than vanilla
ones, and I've damn near given up on the idea of a relationship where
I don't have to pretend to be something I'm not.
>Where did the forced-feminization people go, anyways? And the chastity
>belt fetishists? And the human-furniture people? And the enema
>fetishists? And the body-painting fetishists?
>
>("...long time passing....Gone to Yahoo, everyone.//When will they ever
>learn// When will they eeeeeeeeeeh-ver learn...")
So where do they go when Yahoo kicks them out, which they are and will
continue to do? There's the question.
I think a lot of this is that Usenet just isn't COOL like it used to
be. Most people have no fuckin' clue as to what Usenet is and/or how
it works.
>These, insofar as they weren't about the emotional rush of "submitting"
>to another's will, weren't "Ds", and insofar as they weren't about
>physical "pain", weren't "SM". And the people who are primarily
>oriented to them found neither the "Ds" nor "SM" sides of our little
>turf battle to be home. They were of a third flavor.
>
>[
>And, knowing full well that when "B&D" was a commonly used term
>"Discipline" referred "punishment-roleplay" from the verb sense of "to
>discipline" meaning "to punish", I nevertheless wonder if we shouldn't
>bring back "Discipline" in it's *noun* sense: A Discipline.
Whoa ho ho. That's way too Robert Fripp for me, personally.
"Discipline is not an end, only a means to an end", and all those
endless bloody aphorisms. But, you know. Help yourself.
>There's like this whole *THIRD* of the BDSM universe which has been
>abandoned. What happened?
>
>And can we bring them back? *I* for one miss them, here.
Well I think a lot of is is that there's a lot more you can talk about
in terms of D&S than there is in terms of bondage. D&S generally is,
at least from the impression I get, deeper, more spiritual, and more
profound. Which I guess is why it kind of galls me that I absolutely
cannot do it at all. I want to be all heavy and shit. I don't want
to just be some kind of weirdo pervert; I want to be on a SPIRITUAL
QUEST.
I'm not, though. Bondage doesn't touch some great Truth deep down in
my soul; it just gets me hot. And that to me makes me feel like I
have failed somehow.
But well anyway, that's why you'll damn near never see me talking
about BDSM here. I like bondage; I wish I could be doing more of it.
I think it's great, honestly. I just don't have anything to say about
it. Sorry!
>Bluntly: the use of "dom" and "sub" universally for all kink is what
>seems to be driving them away. Maybe we should Knock That Off, hmm?
Well, I don't use "dom" and "sub", myself, but if "dom" and "sub" is
the way a person sees it, then that's what they should use. It seems
to me that anybody who runs away screaming from this newsgroup just
because a bunch of people are talking about "doms" is probably a wuss,
anyway.
I tell you what, though, I would sure as hell like a better
descriptive term for my primary kink. According to the commonly
accepted nomenclature, it appears that people who are into bondage are
"bondage bunnies". Nothing against Bugs Bunny, mind, but I am not a
god-damned furry rabbit. I am not a cartoon character. If we're
going to be going and changing words around, can we change that one,
please? Because I sure as hell know that people don't go around
calling each other "fisting gerbils" or "toilet ducks" or anything
like that. It's silly and demeaning when used as a primary
descriptive term. Surely we can do better.
Norton Zenger
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Apologies if this is an unwelcome intrusion into the conversation. I've been
>following the remarks of Janet with interest, it's first time I've come across an
>attitude approximately my culture's way of looking at things. I'm just intrigued
>and getting excited about something I see and trying to figure out what... so don't
>mind me. This will irritate I'm sure.
Nah, it's a public conversation, and anyone's free to drop in at
anytime. Nice post, really. I don't agree with everything in it, but
certainly good to see someone else popping in.
Lose the HTML, though. Thanks.
Norton Zenger
<fo...@icehouse.net> wrote:
>Harvard-trained psychologist Dr. William Moulton Marston, who wrote
>"Wonder Woman" under the pen name "Charles Moulton" was indeed an
>interesting character. He and his wife lived with his female lover in
>an apparently harmonious extended family, which I like to imagine
>involved a great deal of *hot lesbian sex*
>Marston fathered two children by each woman. Wonder Woman ended up in
>some sort of bondage in just about every episode.
Quite true. I mean, the early issues of that comic book had an
absolutely _staggering_ amount of bondage. Which is why to a degree
it cracks me up when people try to justify it by saying "Oh, yeah,
well, everybody got tied up back then." Perhaps, but certainly not to
that degree. For instance, not a lot of people know this... you know
how Wonder Woman got her famed "magic lasso"? She won it in a
"girl-roping contest". Damn straight, they had this contest on, I
don't know, Mystery Island or wherever the hell the Amazons lived, and
they said "OK, Amazons- all of you are now going to tie each other up.
And the last person who remains who isn't tied up gets this golden
lasso. How's that sound?"
I can't see this making the slightest amount of sense to anybody who
_isn't_ into bondage. Also, let's not forget that Wonder Woman's
original vulnerability (also largely forgotten over the years) is that
her powers were nullified if she was shackled in "chains forged by
men." No symbolism there, hmmm?
The creation of Wonder Woman is also a fascinating tale. Marston, who
was a psychologist, wrote a journal article severely criticizing comic
books for their violence and misogyny. The head of National
Publications (later DC Comics) saw this article, and wrote to Marston,
asking him what he would do differently. The result of these
discussions was the creation of the Wonder Woman comic book. One
wonders what might have resulted had EC done the same thing with
Fredric Wertham...
It's also worth pointing out that while other comics may fall by the
wayside, Wonder Woman will likely be published in perpetuity. The
reason for this is that DC only retains the rights to the character
while she is featured in an ongoing series. Should they drop the
character, the rights will revert back to Marston's estate.
Norton Zenger
<cyrain...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>This drives me up a wall, too.
>
>In my Copious Spare Time, I've been kicking around db designs for a
>pervert personals site which Works. One idea was to let everyone have
>one "facet" of their ad (i.e. a blurb and some flags) for as many of the
>following as they want: sadist, masochist, dom, sub, fetishist.
I'll tell you what I would like from a pervert personals site. If you
ever get said site off the ground, could you please have it _not_ ask
me what my penis size is? Because the vast majority of the world at
large, I believe, neither wants nor needs to know, and it just makes
things that much more unnecessarily sleazy.
>Anyway, I finessed alt.com. I thought "What would the people I'm
>hunting for do? How would they be looking for me?" So I put down
>"sub", since I am a "bondage bottom" and a masochist, and that seemed
>analogous.
>
>But had the obvious problem, of getting tons of domly doms. Who were
>all (mostly) completely polite, and perhaps not to be blamed for not
>understanding I wasn't a sub, since, *sigh*, it *says* sub on that damn
>tag.
I've read your ad. Blame them.
>(*I* went on a *Date* today. Met through alt.com, no less. :)
Hey, congratulations!
Norton Zenger
<cyrain...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>Er, maybe I shouldn't be sharing this with the world, but I've been
>having pretty good luck with alt.com. That is, still lots of
>not-quite-the-right-kink matches, but hardly inundated with bozos. Most
>of the hits I have gotten have been polite and the right vague
>orientation and many quite intelligent.
Well, you're also biologically female. That helps a _hell_ of a lot.
Those who happen not to be have a _much_ more marginal chance of
getting anything even remotely useful out of pesonals sites.
Yes, I speak from experience.
Michele
wrote:
<snip>
>So the question is, is the bondage people denying they have anything
>to do with BDSM our fault, or their fault? My gut instinct says
>"their fault". And also, I don't hang out with them because mostly
>they aren't as interesting or intelligent as the people here. And a
>lot of them are kind of creepy.
Wow. If I were a bondage fetishist and saw that sentence, I wouldn't
think that I or my kink were okay. So if there's fault, imo it lies
with any person who implies that someone's kink is not okay, or that
certain kinds of BDSM folks are "kind of creepy."
(that goes for the spanko who thinks that playing in leather is
weird).
My favorite analogy for BDSM is "dessert." Maybe spanking is
blackberry pie, and forced feminization is chocolate ice cream, but
it's all dessert. Different flavours, for sure, but still dessert. I
might not want any chocolate ice cream, personally, but can respect
and appreciate that for others, it's the best dessert going.
<snip>
>Well I think a lot of is is that there's a lot more you can talk about
>in terms of D&S than there is in terms of bondage. D&S generally is,
>at least from the impression I get, deeper, more spiritual, and more
>profound.
More profound than what? And who decided that profundity provides some
sort of objective measure of the "moreness" of an experience? Why does
anyone need to say that their kink is more or less anything than
someone else's?
IMO, the"kinkier than thou" posture is the flip side of YKINOK.
> Which I guess is why it kind of galls me that I absolutely
>cannot do it at all. I want to be all heavy and shit. I don't want
>to just be some kind of weirdo pervert; I want to be on a SPIRITUAL
>QUEST.
>
>I'm not, though. Bondage doesn't touch some great Truth deep down in
>my soul; it just gets me hot. And that to me makes me feel like I
>have failed somehow.
IMO, one of the bravest and most intimate journeys occurs when we
honestly attempt to understand and explore our erotic selves.
Lots of people will never know what gets them hot.
<snip>
>I tell you what, though, I would sure as hell like a better
>descriptive term for my primary kink. According to the commonly
>accepted nomenclature, it appears that people who are into bondage are
>"bondage bunnies". Nothing against Bugs Bunny, mind, but I am not a
>god-damned furry rabbit. I am not a cartoon character. If we're
>going to be going and changing words around, can we change that one,
>please? Because I sure as hell know that people don't go around
>calling each other "fisting gerbils" or "toilet ducks" or anything
>like that. It's silly and demeaning when used as a primary
>descriptive term. Surely we can do better.
<nodding in agreement>. Yes, the term does sound dismissive.
Michele
Laura Antoniou
<< I use "switchable top and pain fetishist" in my bio because it's the most
concise way I've found to convey my orientation to an audience (who for some
reason seem to think it's important). But it would be nearly useless in
actually negotiating a scene, or in talking about complex matters of desire and
fantasy. >>
I say that I am a "sadomasochist" because no matter what stage in my life, what
partner I was with (or lacking) or what I did or how, or how often, there is
one common element. What makes me orgasm, what makes me arroused, what makes
sense in my imagination and in real life, as activity and identity, are acts of
sadomasochism.
To me, it's like saying I'm a dyke. That will tell people that (with some good
certainty) I prefer to have romantic/physical relations with women. It says
nothing about what sorts of women I like, or what I would do with 'em once I
got up the nerve to say something like, "gosh, those shoes are nice" or even
how I think of the whole partnership scene, i.e. monogamy vs. polyamory, etc.
And it certainly doesn't speak to what my experience in the past might have
been or what I intend to do in the future. It's a general lable, a shorthand, a
quick way to establish some image of "me" to someone else.
Therefore, it is of limited use. But, for many people, that's all they're gonna
get from me. I share information on my own internal "do they need to know?"
basis, as most people do.
But like "dyke", "sadomasochist" establishes (for me) a groundwork upon which
to base my identity. Top, bottom, "dominant/submissive" etc., all our dual-mode
IDs, I've been all over the freakin' chart. What it boils down to, always, is I
get off on sadomasochistic actions and imagry. LOTS of it. When I say I'm a
sadomasochist, I want to both declare my loyalty - I'm kinky as shit and ain't
no way around that - and my refusal to get into specific details unless I think
you need to know that.
And that's when negotiation terms come into play, and when specific roles and
actions get listed and compared.
In the mean time, though, leatherdyke, queer sadomasochist, porn writer, etc. -
those are foundations. The actual furnishing and frills you get to see once
you're through the door, LOL.
Laura
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Brand new edition of The Trainer shipping now! New material, new version.
Bookstores and via: the Marketplace Web site: www.iron-rose.com/marketplace
Philip the Foole
Aha! So *that's* the secret pickup line!
*scribbling furiously*
Philip the Foole
> One of the things I do to help me quickly weed the bozos is I have a
> bozo trap on my page. The bottom of my ad says "Please answer one or
> more of the following questions...." and I have a few
> conversation-starter questions I picked because they'd show me some of
> the non-kink sides of someone. It's *immediately* apparent whether or
> not someone has read (and comprehended) my ad by whether or not they
> bother to answer any of those questions in their response. Anyone who
> doesn't gets plonked without second thought.
Dear Mistress Ash,
i red ur ad that sez you want to trap a bozo. i am the prefect slave u
r looking 4. i would like u to dress in a clown suit and whip me with
an inflatable vinyl pool frog.
Your new slave,
Philip the Foole
Anyone who wants to tie me up had better demonstrate from second-zero
an absolute *rapt* attention to every request I make. Show me you are
hanging on my every word, or go to hell.
- Ancient Kung Foole Proverb by Cyrain of Ash
Sockermom9
>Wow. If I were a bondage fetishist and saw that sentence, I wouldn't
>think that I or my kink were okay. So if there's fault, imo it lies
>with any person who implies that someone's kink is not okay, or that
>certain kinds of BDSM folks are "kind of creepy."
Well, SSBB kinda selects people for intelligence and a predilection for
thinking things through and hashing them out with like-minded folks. Not
everyone's into that, and if they aren't, I might well see them as less
interesting, whatever their kink.
As a matter of fact, I visited a bondage-only workshop a bit ago, and was bored
to tears. Imagine; me in a roomful of rope, bored. Hard to believe. But the
dynamic was not one that appealed to me, much--the energy was just plain not
there. You have to leave room for personal taste in these things.
Lynn
If electricity comes from electrons... does that mean that morality comes from
morons?
Canis Ridiculous
<ug4sgu0so4a71gv6m...@4ax.com>
>>You know, bondage not just to hold your masochist in place, and not just
>>to leash your submissive, but just.... bondage for it's own glorious
>>sake. Bondage as a fetish. Bondage as "not being able to move freely
>>turns my crank", as "tied up people make my gonads throb"....?
>
>Goddamn right. I completely fuckin' agree with you here. MORE
>BONDAGE, PLEASE.
Is bondage a kink? Is it something vanillas do? Is it "vanilla kink,"
and a more representative member of that set of activities than the "sex
with the lights on" I use as caricature?
--
Canis
Ridiculous
"Why would anyone want to diminish a woman's sexual desire?" TWW
adrian...@hotmail.com
>>So the question is, is the bondage people denying they have anything
>>to do with BDSM our fault, or their fault? My gut instinct says
>>"their fault". And also, I don't hang out with them because mostly
>>they aren't as interesting or intelligent as the people here. And a
>>lot of them are kind of creepy.
>>
>Wow. If I were a bondage fetishist and saw that sentence, I wouldn't
>think that I or my kink were okay. So if there's fault, imo it lies
>with any person who implies that someone's kink is not okay, or that
>certain kinds of BDSM folks are "kind of creepy."
I don't have any interest in bondage. And I'm plenty uncomfortable
with the assignment of blame for disconnecting "bondage" and "bdsm,"
and the blanket negative assessment of bondage people.
I suspect that Norton is using "bondage people" to refer to a self-
identified community of bondage fetishists, who have parties or
mailing lists or chatrooms. I suspect they are connected by social
customs, which may include explicit rejection of "BDSM." So there
could be a great many bondage enthusiasts who are not in this
community of "bondage people," and wouldn't know what Norton was
talking about. At least I HOPE that's what Norton meant.
Michele:
>(that goes for the spanko who thinks that playing in leather is
>weird).
>
>My favorite analogy for BDSM is "dessert." Maybe spanking is
>blackberry pie, and forced feminization is chocolate ice cream, but
>it's all dessert. Different flavours, for sure, but still dessert. I
>might not want any chocolate ice cream, personally, but can respect
>and appreciate that for others, it's the best dessert going.
That's a tasteful and respectful way of looking at it. Though it
might miss out on how *important* a particular kind of bdsm can be
to its devotees. I'm a spanking fetishist.
Norton:
>>Well I think a lot of is is that there's a lot more you can talk about
>>in terms of D&S than there is in terms of bondage. D&S generally is,
>>at least from the impression I get, deeper, more spiritual, and more
>>profound.
And bondage gives you more technical details to talk about.
Depending on your spirituality, S/M can be quite a bit deeper
and more spiritual than D/S. But any scene based on evoking
transcendent emotional states is going to be difficult to
describe, and a lot of people will stammer and wave their
hands and wind up summarizing it with something like, "Wow.
...I never felt anything like that before."
Michele:
>More profound than what? And who decided that profundity provides some
>sort of objective measure of the "moreness" of an experience? Why does
>anyone need to say that their kink is more or less anything than
>someone else's?
>
>IMO, the"kinkier than thou" posture is the flip side of YKINOK.
*applause*
This is the most important point.
Norton:
>> Which I guess is why it kind of galls me that I absolutely
>>cannot do it at all. I want to be all heavy and shit. I don't want
>>to just be some kind of weirdo pervert; I want to be on a SPIRITUAL
>>QUEST.
If you really want to, put down the ropes, and go off on a spiritual
quest. When you find what you're looking for, or get tired of looking
for a while, you can come back and do bondage. Maybe you really do
need to find something. I have no idea what it might be, or if it's
at all related to anything in bdsm. I just think you ought to listen
to yourself.
Norton:
>>I'm not, though. Bondage doesn't touch some great Truth deep down in
>>my soul; it just gets me hot. And that to me makes me feel like I
>>have failed somehow.
Michele:
>IMO, one of the bravest and most intimate journeys occurs when we
>honestly attempt to understand and explore our erotic selves.
>
>Lots of people will never know what gets them hot.
>
>
><snip>
>
>>I tell you what, though, I would sure as hell like a better
>>descriptive term for my primary kink. According to the commonly
>>accepted nomenclature, it appears that people who are into bondage are
>>"bondage bunnies". Nothing against Bugs Bunny, mind, but I am not a
>>god-damned furry rabbit. I am not a cartoon character. If we're
>>going to be going and changing words around, can we change that one,
>>please? Because I sure as hell know that people don't go around
>>calling each other "fisting gerbils" or "toilet ducks" or anything
>>like that. It's silly and demeaning when used as a primary
>>descriptive term. Surely we can do better.
>
><nodding in agreement>. Yes, the term does sound dismissive.
I like "enthusiast." It works for practicioners of any kink. It's
respectful. It doesn't imply someone is a fetishist, or that the
kink is a core part of the person's identity - just that he or she
likes to do it. It works for top or bottom. Bondage enthusiast,
enema enthusiast, ponyplay enthusiast, leather enthusiast.
Adrian Turtle
sidewalk radical
Michele
>Michele writes:
>
>>Wow. If I were a bondage fetishist and saw that sentence, I wouldn't
>>think that I or my kink were okay. So if there's fault, imo it lies
>>with any person who implies that someone's kink is not okay, or that
>>certain kinds of BDSM folks are "kind of creepy."
>
>Well, SSBB kinda selects people for intelligence and a predilection for
>thinking things through and hashing them out with like-minded folks. Not
>everyone's into that, and if they aren't, I might well see them as less
>interesting, whatever their kink.
>
>As a matter of fact, I visited a bondage-only workshop a bit ago, and was bored
>to tears. Imagine; me in a roomful of rope, bored. Hard to believe. But the
>dynamic was not one that appealed to me, much--the energy was just plain not
>there. You have to leave room for personal taste in these things.
IMO, there's a big difference between "this bores me," or "this
doesn't work for me," and "those kinds of BDSM folks are kind of
creepy."
In the first two sentences I'm speaking to my own experiences and
needs. In the final one, I'm characterizing others negatively. YKIOK
is implicit in the first two statements; YKINOK is found in the
latter.
Michele
DonSideB
(Sockermom9) writes:
>Michele writes:
>
>>Wow. If I were a bondage fetishist and saw that sentence, I wouldn't
>>think that I or my kink were okay. So if there's fault, imo it lies
>>with any person who implies that someone's kink is not okay, or that
>>certain kinds of BDSM folks are "kind of creepy."
>
>Well, SSBB kinda selects people for intelligence and a predilection for
>thinking things through and hashing them out with like-minded folks. Not
>everyone's into that, and if they aren't, I might well see them as less
>interesting, whatever their kink.
>
This is why I stick to relatively simple and straightforward things like peace
in the middle east.
I used to think I could analyse BDSM and find some explanation or rationale for
why it makes me feel the things I do, and I tried repeatedly to explain it to
my vanilla wife and come to common understandings of what it is with other
kinksters.
I don't do that any more. It just is what it is. I have become convinced that
it is not only that I have failed to put it into words, I no longer think it
*can* be put into words. I think it comes from wiring that is so primitive in
us that it predates language and maybe even humanity.
I think the vanillas have that wiring too, but for some reason, perhaps social
conditioning, perhaps something inborn, they don't connect with it.
I think that it is not our intellect directly but rather that more intelligent
people are more able to look past or reject social conditioning to take out
those deep, primitive drives and play with them. I don't claim to know why I
feel like I do, I'm just glad that I do.
--
don
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. - Edward R Murrow
SSBB Diplomatic Corps: Tidewater Virginia
Canis Ridiculous
>my soul; it just gets me hot. And that to me makes me feel like I
>have failed somehow.
Which is nothing compared to feeling you shouldn't be in SSBB because
you like bondage but things with whips, needles, etc. are NYK.
If people like that shouldn't be in SSBB, then UNSUBSCIBE.
Metal Fem
Michele wrote:
> <jumping up and down and waving her hand> Me oh me oh me oh me oh
> me!!!
Hey, it's Michele!
Are you really able to jump up and down? I've been wondering how you
were doing.
Of course, if it's all too much of a PITA to talk about for now we can
keep talking about spankos :)
regards
MetalFem
Michele
<meta...@webone.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>Michele wrote:
>
>> <jumping up and down and waving her hand> Me oh me oh me oh me oh
>> me!!!
>
>Hey, it's Michele!
>
>Are you really able to jump up and down?
I can manage a gentle bouncing up and down. Abdominal incision aches,
but isn't painful. Mostly I'm just tired- not much energy.
> I've been wondering how you were doing.
Recovering nicely, thanks :-). I see the onc. next week so we can
figure out what to do next, treatment-wise.
>
>Of course, if it's all too much of a PITA to talk about for now we can
>keep talking about spankos :)
A PITA? Colorectal cancer is =definitely= a pain in the ass <g>.
I'll spare folks the details of the surgery, but anyone who's
interested is welcome to e-mail me.
Michele
merwench
Me too. Some of my best friends are gay weirdos of one stripe or
another.
merwench
--
If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you've never
tried before.
merwench's poetry page: http://merpoetry.blogspot.com/
merwench's online gallery: http://home.earthlink.net/~merwench
Norton Zenger
wrote:
>On 17 Jun 2002 12:22:09 -0500, Norton Zenger <wrong...@ekilat.com>
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>So the question is, is the bondage people denying they have anything
>>to do with BDSM our fault, or their fault? My gut instinct says
>>"their fault". And also, I don't hang out with them because mostly
>>they aren't as interesting or intelligent as the people here. And a
>>lot of them are kind of creepy.
>
>Wow. If I were a bondage fetishist and saw that sentence, I wouldn't
>think that I or my kink were okay. So if there's fault, imo it lies
>with any person who implies that someone's kink is not okay, or that
>certain kinds of BDSM folks are "kind of creepy."
Sorry. I suppose I should make it clear that I, myself, am a bondage
fetishist.
>>Well I think a lot of is is that there's a lot more you can talk about
>>in terms of D&S than there is in terms of bondage. D&S generally is,
>>at least from the impression I get, deeper, more spiritual, and more
>>profound.
>
>More profound than what? And who decided that profundity provides some
>sort of objective measure of the "moreness" of an experience? Why does
>anyone need to say that their kink is more or less anything than
>someone else's?
I don't know; like I said, I don't get D&S, personally. That's just
the impression I've always gotten.
>>I'm not, though. Bondage doesn't touch some great Truth deep down in
>>my soul; it just gets me hot. And that to me makes me feel like I
>>have failed somehow.
>
>IMO, one of the bravest and most intimate journeys occurs when we
>honestly attempt to understand and explore our erotic selves.
I wish I could agree. I find erotic selves in general and my erotic
self in particular to be extremely silly. I guess my personal
philosophy and my kink aren't very compatible.
Velvet Wood
> Yet I know of no masochists who enjoy pain _per se_.
You do now.
> Some masochists will use
> pain in self-play -- lubricated by a liberal dose of fantasy -- when no
> sadist is available. Yet for me and for every other masochist I've talked to
> about this, being given pain with intent and meaning, by someone with whom we
> feel some level of emotional connection, is essential to our pleasure in the
> stimulus.
The only kind of emotional connection I really *need* is "Is this person
likley to go totally insane and violate my limits or even kill me?" Sure,
the edgier painplay I only do with my husband, but that's an issue of
trust. I trust him to hurt me like I tell him to, dammit. And he trusts
me enough to know that if I say, "Do X for Y amount of time, no matter what"
then I mean it and won't kill him for doing so afterwards. Doesn't really
matter to *me* whether he enjoys doing X or not, as long as he does so
anyway. It so happens that, for most values of X, he does enjoy it or
at least enjoys the results of it, so life is good, but what I *want*
out of it is the sensation. For connection, I'll torture *him*, thanks.
I find the distinction between masochist and submissive pretty damned
useful. Primarily because the default assumption seems to be that if
you are a masochist, then you are automatically submissive. Labels
exist. It's natural for people to try to slot things into comfy
categories and they *will* do so no matter what anyone says or how stupid
it may be. Being able to say, "I am a masochist. I am not at all
submissive and have no desire to be so. Don't try to make me submit,
you'll just ruin the pain for me," is, IMO, useful enough as
clarification to more than justify the time spent explaining, if need
be, to the occasional still-interested-after-this-revelation person,
what exactly my personal meaning of those two terms might be.
> But both terms are such weak reeds. A "submissive" can be anything from
> someone who enjoys wearing a collar while s/he gets a whipping, to someone
> who prefers to spend every waking hour under an owner's direct control. A
> "masochist" can hate clamps but love whips, yearn for TENS units but safeword
> on violet wands. And that doesn't even begin to approach the huge number of
> people who fit under neither umbrella -- the bondage bunnies, the latex
> fetishists, the terror junkies, the sissy maids and many many more.
So use the other terms, too? Words are good, the more of them the better.
Part of what I identify as is a dominant, mostly-same-sex-oriented bisexual,
polyamorous, sadistic, masochistic, blood-lusting bitch. I think this
provides quite a bit of information for the average person with familiarity
with the terms. No, it doesn't say everything about me. But if someone
is interested in a monogamous, heterosexual, submissive, they'll know right
away that we're not aiming at the same things.
Dunno, maybe it's because I'm getting older and feeling time creeping
up on me, but I just don't *want* to waste time defining every single
facet of my personality when there are already words perfectly suited
to the task. I know who I am. There are some things I really am
certain of and that are not likely to change. I have no interest in
labeling anyone else, but am quite happy to use any labels they choose
to apply to themselves. And if I just don't get it, I'm not too shy
to ask just what the heck those labels mean to *them*, anyway.
> Simple suggestion if you want to fix it: encourage people to say "I like x"
> rather than "I am x." It *instantly* clarifies such discussions.
Not really. I don't *like* sadism. It's probably an urge the human
race would be better off without, as it's more often abused than
ethically used. But I *AM* a sadist. An ethical sadist, I hope.
Velvet
Norton Zenger
>I suspect that Norton is using "bondage people" to refer to a self-
>identified community of bondage fetishists, who have parties or
>mailing lists or chatrooms. I suspect they are connected by social
>customs, which may include explicit rejection of "BDSM." So there
>could be a great many bondage enthusiasts who are not in this
>community of "bondage people," and wouldn't know what Norton was
>talking about. At least I HOPE that's what Norton meant.
Yep, pretty much.
>Norton:
>>>Well I think a lot of is is that there's a lot more you can talk about
>>>in terms of D&S than there is in terms of bondage. D&S generally is,
>>>at least from the impression I get, deeper, more spiritual, and more
>>>profound.
>
>And bondage gives you more technical details to talk about.
Hmmm. Well- and this is speaking as a bondage fetishist, mind you- I
can think of few things that would be more completely boring to do.
To me that's like going on a music newsgroup and discussing the
redbook audio specifications at length. A fetishist I may be, but I
find people much more interesting than knots. And this _is_ a soc.
group and not a sci. group.
>Norton:
>>> Which I guess is why it kind of galls me that I absolutely
>>>cannot do it at all. I want to be all heavy and shit. I don't want
>>>to just be some kind of weirdo pervert; I want to be on a SPIRITUAL
>>>QUEST.
>
>If you really want to, put down the ropes, and go off on a spiritual
>quest. When you find what you're looking for, or get tired of looking
>for a while, you can come back and do bondage. Maybe you really do
>need to find something. I have no idea what it might be, or if it's
>at all related to anything in bdsm. I just think you ought to listen
>to yourself.
But that's not how I view spiritual quests. To me it's not something
you take up in your free time and then when you're done go back to
your normal every day life; it's a calling, a way of seeing and doing
things, a journey without end. IOW, if I have to give up bondage for
the sake of it, it's a good bet that I'm _not_ ever coming back. And
that's not a particularly appealing or fulfilling prospect to me. I
am very into holism and all that shit; I would like everything I do to
be a fair representation in some way of who I am, of my essential
nature. And while I do enjoy bondage, said fetishism is, IMO, grossly
incongruous with the way I view myself, other people, and the world at
large. You know, while I do adopt aliases on other places on the net
I frequent, they tend to be mere formalities; everywhere else people
generally know me by my birth name. That I use a different name here
does not owe to the hypocritical morals of contemporary society nor to
my own concern for privacy, as I have long ago accepted that any
privacy on the net is only illusory. It is only here that I retain a
bona fide alternate persona; it is only Norton Zenger who I can't
positively identify as belonging to myself.
>I like "enthusiast." It works for practicioners of any kink. It's
>respectful. It doesn't imply someone is a fetishist, or that the
>kink is a core part of the person's identity - just that he or she
>likes to do it. It works for top or bottom. Bondage enthusiast,
>enema enthusiast, ponyplay enthusiast, leather enthusiast.
I hate to repeat myself, but man, is that _ever_ a Robert Fripp kind
of thing. I mean, if it works for you go for it, but I personally
could never refer to myself as an "enthusiast" with a straight face.
BLDRNRpdx
<<My favorite analogy for BDSM is "dessert." Maybe spanking is
blackberry pie, and forced feminization is chocolate ice cream, but
it's all dessert. Different flavours, for sure, but still dessert. I
might not want any chocolate ice cream, personally, but can respect
and appreciate that for others, it's the best dessert going.>>
Which is great, if BDSM is "dessert" for you. For some of us, it's more of an
entree. Or perhaps a better analogy for some of us would be BDSM as flour or
water or some other *really* basic ingredient mixed with a whole lot of other
good stuff to make the meal.
Bladerunner
BLDRNRpdx
<<You could have identified yourself as 100% submissive and still got
mail addressed to "Mistress" from alt.com. Just as you could have
identified yourself as 100% lesbian and still got mail from men. >>
I posted to an online personals board, IDing as bio-female *and* one who
roleplays being a little girl, and got a response from someone looking for a
Boy.
Still shaking my head over that one,
Bladerunner
Janet Hardy
Patti Beadles wrote:
> In article <3D0DF188...@greenerypress.com>,
> Janet Hardy <jha...@greenerypress.com> wrote:
>
> >No, it is directly relevant to the point of origin of this discussion -- whether
> >or not a clear binary division between "submissive" and "masochist" is a useful
> >distinction. And I maintain that it is not, or only marginally so.
>
> Janet-- we tend to agree on a lot of things, but we seem to be miles
> apart on this one.
>
> How many people have to tell you, "it's a useful distinction for ME",
> before you realize that while it might not work so well for you, it's
> important for some people?
[shrug] Then use it, and I won't. (Interestingly, as far as I can tell, yours and my
playstyles are extremely similar.) Why do we have to agree?
Janet Hardy
Velvet Wood wrote:
> Janet Hardy <jha...@greenerypress.com> writes:
>
> > Yet I know of no masochists who enjoy pain _per se_.
>
> You do now.
Really? Then why do you need a partner? I'm not needling; I'm honestly curious --
I've never encountered such a person before.
a.muse
"Patti Beadles" <pat...@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:ael16i$mam$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> In article <3D0DF188...@greenerypress.com>,
> Janet Hardy <jha...@greenerypress.com> wrote:
>
> >No, it is directly relevant to the point of origin of this discussion --
whether
> >or not a clear binary division between "submissive" and "masochist" is a
useful
> >distinction. And I maintain that it is not, or only marginally so.
>
> Janet-- we tend to agree on a lot of things, but we seem to be miles
> apart on this one.
>
> How many people have to tell you, "it's a useful distinction for ME",
> before you realize that while it might not work so well for you, it's
> important for some people?
>
to... "do what works for you". As we can see from this discussion, labeling
and IDing is not a readily solvable issue in our current culture. But, what
I think we all have going for us is the "awareness" of the fallibility of
our language and as DonSideB says, "I think that it is not our intellect
directly but rather that more intelligent people are more able to look past
or reject social conditioning to take out
of a different particular facet of this discussion I believe I would not be
remiss in reapplying his thinking here. I would guess that the intelligent
quotient is part of what makes this discussion possible. The other part,
possibly is our innate desire to be accurately known, accepted and
understood. Therefore it is our awareness of the inadequacy of our language
that gives us the impetus to explore beyond the initial words or labels to
discover what we are seeking in terms of information for the sake of our
personal communications, understanding and potential intimacies.... i.e.
making the effort to communicate so we know what the other person is saying
and that they have understood what we have intended with our personal choice
of words.
muse
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
SilverOz
Velvet Wood <vel...@pele.cx> wrote:
>
>I find the distinction between masochist and submissive pretty damned
>useful. Primarily because the default assumption seems to be that if
>you are a masochist, then you are automatically submissive. Labels
And vice versa.
I got asked once "you don't do flogging, you don't have sex with your
dominant, what do you do?"
The default appears to be "pain and D&S", so those who are into one
and not the other are seen as the weird ones, no matter the label
used.
SilverOz
a.muse
"RazorJAK, the Once & Future Crankygoth" <razo...@pag-mycodpiece-ans.org>
wrote in message news:tutqgu8fsa0jq9r6m...@4ax.com...
> On 16 Jun 2002 03:36:40 GMT, Patti Beadles <pat...@rahul.net> wrote:
<snipped>
> Then again ... I despise most labels since thats all people see you as
> once the label is known. ..............
This, for me, summarizes the problem/issue with labels... and as i've stated
in other posts, for me, labels can become boxes. It is not the using of them
or the meaning the convey, but that many times the listener/reader has their
own understanding of that label and it may or may not be correct or what I
want to communicate. So where does the responsibility for the communication
lie? In my training and experience, it lies with the communicator. If a
person wants to be understood, they need to be willing to make the effort to
clarify their intent beyond the label .
So, i ask... Could some effort on the part of those of us that understand
the complexities could take a little more responsibility for communicating
more clearly and responsibly/
Michele
wrote:
I think you get my point, though, even if the analogy doesn't work for
you. For me, the problem with the flour and water metaphor is that it
doesn't recognize the diversity of activities and identifications that
come under the BDSM umbrella.
So maybe BDSM is food, generally. For me it's blackberry pie, and for
you it's something more fundamental- like flour and water <smiling>.
Originally I'd thought of saying that religion is a good metaphor for
BDSM (ie, different ways of looking at the transcendent) but thought
that might be potentially inflammatory here <g>.
Michele
a.muse
"Norton Zenger" <wrong...@ekilat.com> wrote in message
news:ug4sgu0so4a71gv6m...@4ax.com...
<snipped, snipped, snipped>
> Well I think a lot of is is that there's a lot more you can talk about
> in terms of D&S than there is in terms of bondage.
Really? Why?
> D&S generally is,
> at least from the impression I get, deeper, more spiritual, and more
> profound.
As someone else has asked, more profound than WHAT?
Keep in mind that profundity is subjective.
> Which I guess is why it kind of galls me that I absolutely
> cannot do it at all. I want to be all heavy and shit. I don't want
> to just be some kind of weirdo pervert; I want to be on a SPIRITUAL
> QUEST.
What to you constitutes a spiritual quest?
> I'm not, though.
I would challenge this thinking, as the very fact that you are cognizant of
spiritual questing represents some form of a quest, in and of itself.
> Bondage doesn't touch some great Truth deep down in
> my soul; it just gets me hot.
Being able to get hot in this context is, IMHO, a significant spiritual
"truth" within yourself yet to be explored. Spirituality is not, again,
IMHO, something other than living in *conscious self-awareness and
acceptance*... it is essentially only this.
> And that to me makes me feel like I
> have failed somehow.
Failed at what? Being spiritual? Being on a quest? I suggest this is
something to be reconsidered.
> But well anyway, that's why you'll damn near never see me talking
> about BDSM here. I like bondage; I wish I could be doing more of it.
> I think it's great, honestly. I just don't have anything to say about
> it. Sorry!
>
> >Bluntly: the use of "dom" and "sub" universally for all kink is what
> >seems to be driving them away. Maybe we should Knock That Off, hmm?
>
> Well, I don't use "dom" and "sub", myself, but if "dom" and "sub" is
> the way a person sees it, then that's what they should use. It seems
> to me that anybody who runs away screaming from this newsgroup just
> because a bunch of people are talking about "doms" is probably a wuss,
> anyway.
Or grossly un/ill/mis-informed.
> I tell you what, though, I would sure as hell like a better
> descriptive term for my primary kink. According to the commonly
> accepted nomenclature, it appears that people who are into bondage are
> "bondage bunnies". Nothing against Bugs Bunny, mind, but I am not a
> god-damned furry rabbit. I am not a cartoon character. If we're
> going to be going and changing words around, can we change that one,
> please? Because I sure as hell know that people don't go around
> calling each other "fisting gerbils" or "toilet ducks" or anything
> like that. It's silly and demeaning when used as a primary
> descriptive term. Surely we can do better.
Being a bondage junkie, myself, I'm just new enough to the nomenclatures to
not have been exposed to too much of the bunny label... thank god! My mind
would have gone to Playboy (as in Playboy bunny) rather than the furry
ones... and i ain't one of those either. Would I be insulted with that one?
Yep!
a.muse
"Sockermom9" <socke...@aol.comm> wrote in message
news:20020617150721...@mb-mc.aol.com...
> Michele writes:
>
> >Wow. If I were a bondage fetishist and saw that sentence, I wouldn't
> >think that I or my kink were okay. So if there's fault, imo it lies
> >with any person who implies that someone's kink is not okay, or that
> >certain kinds of BDSM folks are "kind of creepy."
>
> Well, SSBB kinda selects people for intelligence and a predilection for
hm.... a new label for one of our kinks... "intelligence and a predilection
for thinking things through and hashing them out with like-minded folks".
:-) musing again!
M Shirley Chong
> I agree with Shirley's approach to dining.
>
> Your Humble Jester,
>
> Philip the Foole
>
> Going to a restaurant with a great chef and specifying so many
> changes to your order that the dishes are no longer what the chef
> intended is a way to cheat yourself. If you want everything totally
> under your control, eat at home.
> - Ancient Kung Foole Proverb by M Shirley Chong
I am honoured.
Does this count towards my fifteen minutes? <G>
Shirley
to reply via e-mail remove the trees from my address
M Shirley Chong
>>Yes! It's the secret to being able to enjoy anything that is done or
>>guided by another person. If you go in and mentally (or out loud,
>>how crass) criticize the way your partner does things, you won't
>>enjoy the experience and your partner may not.
Janet Miles wrote:
> Hm. I can see that as an ideal, but it's one I haven't reached yet. To
> work with your dining analogy, if something comes out of the kitchen that
> turns out to be less marvelous than it sounded, I will set it aside, and
> might ask for something else. For example, if the green beans that came as
> a side dish with my steak are so very salty that I can't eat them, I'll
> agonize about wasting food, but eventually just leave them on the plate; if
> the orange roughy I ordered for my entree is so strongly flavored that even
> the scent makes me queasy, I'll agonize about wasting food but eventually
> order something else.
I should have specified that it doesn't apply to food that is
dangerous to one's health (toxic with too much salt, spoiled, etc).
Setting aside the "this isn't how *I* would do it" attitude is how I
learned to enjoy hot peppers, sushi and lots of other things. For
me, turning off that critical inner voice is always a delight! I may
not want to repeat that particular experience but I don't regret
experiencing it once. It lets me enter someone else's world and
perceive something differently.
It probably helps that although I have a rather sensitive stomach
about some things, those things don't usually involve food (seeing
someone chewing tobacco sets me off instantly, even just the memory
of it!).
Conrad Hodson
>
> > Of course not. It means that the criticism should be directed at the
> > worker, not the tools. The problem is not labeling, it lies in the people
> > who toss off a label and think they've told the whole story. Or in
> > reading or hearing a short label and thinking they know all they need to
> > know about someone. The problem here isn't that labels were used, but
> > rather that they weren't followed up with more detail.
>
> But if you have to give more detail, why bother with the label? Why not just give
> the detail and skip the label, which is confining and vague?
First of all, well-chosen labels are _not_ confining and vague. By
definition, I would say. If a particular label doesn't fit well, by all
means change it for one that does better, but you seem to be arguing
against the entire concept of writing anything on the outside of the file
folder, of putting any titles on the books.
Also, getting rid of "the label" turns out to be the first step on an
infinite regression. The problem just shifts to the next noun in your
description. Get rid of that one too? Try to describe something complex
without using any nouns that might be regarded as "labels", or that might
need further definition for clarity, and you won't be able to describe
anything coherently at all.
Conrad Hodson
D
>FWIW... I think this, ultimately, is the understanding we all need to come
>to... "do what works for you". As we can see from this discussion, labeling
>and IDing is not a readily solvable issue in our current culture. But, what
>I think we all have going for us is the "awareness" of the fallibility of
>our language and as DonSideB says, "I think that it is not our intellect
>directly but rather that more intelligent people are more able to look past
>or reject social conditioning to take out
>those deep, primitive drives and play with them." Even tho he was speaking
>of a different particular facet of this discussion I believe I would not be
>remiss in reapplying his thinking here. I would guess that the intelligent
>quotient is part of what makes this discussion possible. The other part,
>possibly is our innate desire to be accurately known, accepted and
>understood. Therefore it is our awareness of the inadequacy of our language
>that gives us the impetus to explore beyond the initial words or labels to
>discover what we are seeking in terms of information for the sake of our
>personal communications, understanding and potential intimacies.... i.e.
>making the effort to communicate so we know what the other person is saying
>and that they have understood what we have intended with our personal choice
>of words.
I think maybe even if you could agree exactly on what the words mean and
how the labels might be used, you'd still have the translation of each
persons link between the words and their individual experience of what
they link to those words.... but they are a *start*
So its a dialogue, you start, they reply, you modify, they query, you
expand, they expand, you take another step, they take a couple too....
or not as the case and circumstances apply.
Its cooking, you know, peeling off onion skins and getting to know the
ingredients still means many different dishes, and even the same dish
cooked with the same ingredients can be quite different with another
cook :-))
But its still useful to just know about the ingredients......
--
David
Virginia Dare
news:Pine.GSU.4.21.020616...@garcia.efn.org:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2002, Virginia Dare wrote:
>> But would anyone like to take a shot at explaining the (apparently
>> subtle?) differences between "sub" and "bottom"?
>
> The problem is that we have not yet, as a community, achieved
> consensus on language. Our terms have been invented as needed, jargon
> for this new field of activity, as the field grew and we needed to
> communicate with the people we were meeting, teaching, learning from
> and negotiating with.
<snip of a tremendously interesting post with loads of information and
several extremely helpful comments>
Thanks so much for taking the time to post this, Conrad. It was all
completely new to me, and so very helpful and informative!
Virginia