Labels and titles and terms, oh my!

[Shankara20]

Language is a gift and a curse. When talking about myself I know what "top" means (oh! is that suppose to be "Top"? ) , but only generally know what it means when someone else uses it.

Tree =

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g38/nbright1969/clip/camph8rw.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g38/nbright1969/clip/CE91204B-97EE-11D5-B428-00105A1DD84.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g38/nbright1969/clip/tree-1.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g38/nbright1969/clip/tree.gif http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g38/nbright1969/clip/tree.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g38/nbright1969/clip/tree-1.gif


Not tree =

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g38/nbright1969/clip/Dana-Meyer.jpg


In the stuff we play with here, language and labels are fodder for much conversation. There is at least one guy here that calls someone "gay" if they don't cum while getting a blow-job from a woman - go figure.

Alice asked us for our definitions - just our points of view in our own use. And look at what fun we are having with that.

Labels. wow.

 

[NemoAlia]

Far as I'm concerned, pigeonholes are for pigeons.

Lovely to see you, by the way!

But, pigeonholes are for convenience. And for the naughty sense of transgression we enjoy when we decide to switch to the other side for a while.

 

[Etoile]

But, pigeonholes are for convenience. And for the naughty sense of transgression we enjoy when we decide to switch to the other side for a while.

Oh my god, that is fabulous. Can I quote you on that sometime? I'm not sure where I'd do it, but that is just so awesome I have to remember it.

 

[Netzach]

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/363868/applause.gif
If folks spent a little less time wrapped around the axle with what the fuck to call themselves, or others for that matter, they might have a little more time to enjoy whatever the hell they're doing. Pick it, do it, and slide up and down on whatever scale you wish. The time to reexamine a label choice comes when you didn't do it right enough to either fall asleep, or do it again.

Yes. I'm really getting more into my identity as sexual. As in sex? Yes please. Yeah, labels are a useful point of departure. They do give you some ability to point yourself and others in the right direction, but I'm tired of them becoming their own fetish. I don't care anymore about what elicits alarm among those who feel they know me or are entitled to me in some way. I don't care anymore if my Dominance is as Dominant as it's supposed to be to get into the club of Natural Alpha all Domme all the time luminaries. Blah. I'm more interested in getting my rocks off as best I can, in all senses.

So what gives? In my personal universe:

Top/bottom - what you do
Dom/sub - often the reason you do it (not the only one but a common one)
Master/slave - the relationship is defined primarily by ownership - romance, friendship and all familiarity is secondary to that

 

[Emma_Ray_Garrett]

Yes. I'm really getting more into my identity as sexual. As in sex? Yes please. Yeah, labels are a useful point of departure. They do give you some ability to point yourself and others in the right direction, but I'm tired of them becoming their own fetish. I don't care anymore about what elicits alarm among those who feel they know me or are entitled to me in some way. I don't care anymore if my Dominance is as Dominant as it's supposed to be to get into the club of Natural Alpha all Domme all the time luminaries. Blah. I'm more interested in getting my rocks off as best I can, in all senses.

So what gives? In my personal universe:

Top/bottom - what you do
Dom/sub - often the reason you do it (not the only one but a common one)
Master/slave - the relationship is defined primarily by ownership - romance, friendship and all familiarity is secondary to that

Well said, that!

 

[NemoAlia]

Oh my god, that is fabulous. Can I quote you on that sometime? I'm not sure where I'd do it, but that is just so awesome I have to remember it.

You flatter me! Of course you may quote me, any time you like

 

[SpectreT]

Well, the amateur lexicologists will never give up, it seems.

To me, mental shorthand, while slightly useful, shortens the amount of consideration given. Maybe it's just because I'm not wired primarily D or primarily s, and have to hand out that "Switch" label, but I'm a little touchy about it. In one particular place, the politest thing I read about switches was from a person identifying herself as a submissive, explaining how "Switches" were "slaves with delusions" and could never be dominants at all. Ask my ex-girlfriend about my dominance - it was one of the things in our relationship she was satisfied with. My inability to display jealousy, on the other hand...

I've kvetched long and hard about this, without ever answering the original question, so here are what those words mean to me, in a BDSM-related context.

Dominant - Personality trait. The desire to be in control of nearly every aspect of the scene.

Submissive - Personality trait. The desire to be in control of only one aspect of the scene, and that one aspect only gets exercised if things are going badly. (Calling a halt to proceedings)

Top - "Old Guard" Gay Leather Master - not that there's many of 'em around any more; and most of 'em would be pretty tweaked about what's become of the S&M thing in the last forty or so years.

Bottom - Flipside of Top, above - same things about scarcity and attitude apply.

Switch - Posessing both dominant and submissive personality traits. Fully capable of being one ot the other, just not at the same time, generally speaking. No two are alike, some may very well be 'wired' one way or another, or not. Different Switches have different triggers. Mine's the personality type I'm dealing with. Yin to the Yang, if you will.

Master - Descriptor of position in a relationship. I always think Gor when I see this word.

Slave - flipside of Master, above.

 

[Netzach]

Forgot to add:

switch = hot, fewer hang ups.

 

[alice_underneath]

Alice asked us for our definitions - just our points of view in our own use. And look at what fun we are having with that.

Labels. wow.

backatcha.

In my personal universe:

Top/bottom - what you do
Dom/sub - often the reason you do it (not the only one but a common one)
Master/slave - the relationship is defined primarily by ownership - romance, friendship and all familiarity is secondary to that

Thank you, Netzach.

I sometimes wonder if people have different ideas about what 'ownership' means in this context. I noticed that you provided your personal view of this concept on a recent thread, and hope you will not mind if I provide a link to the post here:

https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=17659150&postcount=44

I've kvetched long and hard about this, without ever answering the original question, so here are what those words mean to me, in a BDSM-related context.

Thanks, SpectreT. I greatly appreciate the time that you and others took to write your definitions here.


I am heading out of town for a few days. Best wishes to all for a wonderful weekend.

Alice

 

[Pure]

history page

Lord Saber's history page has links to a number of fine articles by Rinella, Baldwin, Jay Wiseman, Gayle Rubin, Bean and others.

to point is not to chop definitions but to understand basic concepts, how they arose and what they were--and are-- applied to.

http://www.tdl.com/~thawley/history.htm

 

[SpectreT]

Lord Saber's history page has links to a number of fine articles by Rinella, Baldwin, Jay Wiseman, Gayle Rubin, Bean and others.

to point is not to chop definitions but to understand basic concepts, how they arose and what they were--and are-- applied to.

http://www.tdl.com/~thawley/history.htm

Thanks for the link. Lot of good, if only half-remembered by me, information from the pair of articles I've read so far.

 

[Pure]

Hi Netzach,

you said,
In my personal universe:

Top/bottom - what you do
Dom/sub - often the reason you do it (not the only one but a common one)
Master/slave - the relationship is defined primarily by ownership - romance, friendship and all familiarity is secondary to that

1)what's missing here is any mention of sadism; which is odd considering it's in many of your self descriptions.

2)with respect, i find 'what you do' very vague indeed-- includes painting each other with fudge icing.

in my universe, oddly enough, sadomasochism (SM) has something to do with bdsm, and SM impulses and desires are almost universal.

IMO the fascination with 'dom' and 'domme,' and those people's self labels often reflect a variety of other factors, one such, being PR. 'I'm a dom/me' goes over quite well on Leno and gets you a character role in CSI; 'I'm a sadist' leads to a spot on 'American Justice,' and makes you a character in 'Criminal Minds.'

in fact, I think genuine sexual dominance in non criminal form, is rare; in criminal form it's found in those jailded for 'power rapes.' wanting to 'dominate' others, that is exert authoritiy over them, direct and control them, have them serve one's desires is, by contrast, as common as garden grass.

just my 2 cents.

 

[saw_man1]

So what gives? In my personal universe:

Top/bottom - what you do
Dom/sub - often the reason you do it (not the only one but a common one)
Master/slave - the relationship is defined primarily by ownership - romance, friendship and all familiarity is secondary to that

Brilliance in brevity.

 

[saw_man1]

What's in a Label?
Seri,
That was an informative article and yes labels and their use or misuse are the cause of a great many disagreements in this community. As I get out and about more I have been privy to several disagreements about this very subject. It always amuses me that people can get so agitated over the opinions of strangers or casual acquaintances.

 

[Etoile]

Mmmmm, fudge icing...

 

[Pure]

fudge icing is

fine, but it ain't SM... unless a canine is involved!

(i do not see why a 'label' is always, for some people posting here, a slight or insult or stereotype; if i'm talking to someone about a yellow, rounded piece of fruit we've come across in the produce dept, i say, 'i think this is a pear, not an apple.'

this objector says, 'what have you got against apples?' OR 'why does it matter? i'll try it, and if i like it, i'll call it whatever i please!' OR 'i prefer apples to pears any day, so i will call it an apple, thank you very much')

 

[Pure]

switch

Netzach: switch = hot, fewer hang ups.

right on!

 

[SpectreT]

<snip>
(i do not see why a 'label' is always, for some people posting here, a slight or insult or stereotype; if i'm talking to someone about a yellow, rounded piece of fruit we've come across in the produce dept, i say, 'i think this is a pear, not an apple.'

this objector says, 'what have you got against apples?' OR 'why does it matter? i'll try it, and if i like it, i'll call it whatever i please!' OR 'i prefer apples to pears any day, so i will call it an apple, thank you very much')

See my post above, about the "slaves with delusions" comment.

We get touchy about labels, because they're used to insult and marginalize. It's not the same thing as the difference between apples and pears. I wish to God it were.

 

[Pure]

nice postings, spectre,

good point:

We get touchy about labels, because they're used to insult and marginalize

they certainly can be so used. but 'fetishist' instead of 'sadist' would hardly fit your bill. the (faux) 'sadist' who is 'insulted' is not so much 'marginalized' as put somewhere his male ego finds less appealing.

and every label has two handles (at least). hence "queer", long a term of contempt, has been taken up an used with pride: "We're here, we're queer!"

indeed, as i read of the early 'leather' community, the label "bottom" could be assumed (self applied) with pride, if one did some hard ass bottoming.

 

[SpectreT]

good point:

We get touchy about labels, because they're used to insult and marginalize

they certainly can be so used. but 'fetishist' instead of 'sadist' would hardly fit your bill. the (faux) 'sadist' who is 'insulted' is not so much 'marginalized' as put somewhere his male ego finds less appealing.

and every label has two handles (at least). hence "queer", long a term of contempt, has been taken up an used with pride: "We're here, we're queer!"

indeed, as i read of the early 'leather' community, the label "bottom" could be assumed (self applied) with pride, if one did some hard ass bottoming.

Interesting point. I can only speak for myself, and why I get cranky about it. It's sometimes exactly like the 'fetishits' vs. 'sadist' thing in your example. Sometimes, it's a flat denial of my past, my experiences and feelings, by someone who's never been there, never seen it, and straight up doesn't know me.

Like when I got my knickers in a knot over the "Switches, please. " comment, and a tiny bit snippish over the "n/a" descriptor. Being told I don't exist is enough to make a Spectre cranky. And if that's not what they were trying to say, I wanted to give them a chance to clarify, before I actually got angry. Over a label. Which brings me full circle to my "pigeonholes are for pigeons" remark. I don't like labels because the many different interpretations can put me in situations where people can piss me off royally, completely unintentionally, and feel I'm being completely unreasonable to be upset.

Labels are a favorite online hobby horse, and the amateur lexicologists and semanticians will keep trying, but they'll never find an absolute consensus that isn't going to offend someone's sensibilities.

 

[serijules]

Interesting point. I can only speak for myself, and why I get cranky about it. It's sometimes exactly like the 'fetishits' vs. 'sadist' thing in your example. Sometimes, it's a flat denial of my past, my experiences and feelings, by someone who's never been there, never seen it, and straight up doesn't know me.

Like when I got my knickers in a knot over the "Switches, please. " comment, and a tiny bit snippish over the "n/a" descriptor. Being told I don't exist is enough to make a Spectre cranky. And if that's not what they were trying to say, I wanted to give them a chance to clarify, before I actually got angry. Over a label. Which brings me full circle to my "pigeonholes are for pigeons" remark. I don't like labels because the many different interpretations can put me in situations where people can piss me off royally, completely unintentionally, and feel I'm being completely unreasonable to be upset.

Labels are a favorite online hobby horse, and the amateur lexicologists and semanticians will keep trying, but they'll never find an absolute consensus that isn't going to offend someone's sensibilities.

The problem with many labels is they stem from words that originally have much negativity associated with them to start with. Slaves of history were used, abused, non-existant on the totem pole. Many people have issues with thinking of the label as anything but negative, thus react badly to any instance of it. Masters were harsh people with no regards for humans they deemed to be lesser than them. Mistresses are the "other women" that break up marriages and households and families. Submissive people in a vanilla sense are often people that cannot and will not stand up for themselves. Dominant people are usually bossy and bitchy. Brats are ill mannered, selfish children. Queer means someone is weird or strange. Switch implies a person is indecisive and flighty.

Nearly every positive label we use in the BDSM community to describe our interests and roles has an equally negative definition outside our lifestyle. I think some people just have a hard time letting go of those ingrained vanilla definitions, sometimes without even realizing or admitting it.

That doesn't excuse the behaviour by any means, but it does offer some insight into it I think.

 

[alice_underneath]

Interesting point. I can only speak for myself, and why I get cranky about it. It's sometimes exactly like the 'fetishits' vs. 'sadist' thing in your example. Sometimes, it's a flat denial of my past, my experiences and feelings, by someone who's never been there, never seen it, and straight up doesn't know me.

Like when I got my knickers in a knot over the "Switches, please. " comment, and a tiny bit snippish over the "n/a" descriptor. Being told I don't exist is enough to make a Spectre cranky. And if that's not what they were trying to say, I wanted to give them a chance to clarify, before I actually got angry. Over a label. Which brings me full circle to my "pigeonholes are for pigeons" remark. I don't like labels because the many different interpretations can put me in situations where people can piss me off royally, completely unintentionally, and feel I'm being completely unreasonable to be upset.

SpectreT,

Your remarks here remind me of an excerpt from an essay I read recently on the NCSF website, "Fighting With Ourselves: A Leadership Guide to Resolving Conflicts in the SM-Leather-Fetish Communities".

"Moreover, our movement is highly diverse, including gays hets, bisexuals, gays, lesbians, and transgendered individuals; tops, bottoms and people from all sorts of economic , ethnic and social backgrounds. It is hardly surprising that pronounced differences arise, both on the substance of the issues and on tactics for dealing with our various problems.

Nor should it be surprising those views in our communities are intensely felt, or that differences often become heated. Remember that we are dealing with subjects that most of us feel are central to the issue of 'Who I am.' Moreover, these questions arise in the context of a broader society that is unsympathetic, even hostile, to our life styles, a fact that inevitably raises the intensity of our debates."

 

[Etoile]

Completely unrelated, but - NCSF is a very worthy organization for charity donations. *nods*

 

[alice_underneath]

Completely unrelated, but - NCSF is a very worthy organization for charity donations. *nods*

Good point, Etoile.

I assume that most people here are familiar with the goals of the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (NCSF). In case someone reading this is not, here is their mission statement:

"The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom is a national organization committed to creating a political, legal, and social environment in the United States that advances equal rights of consenting adults who practice forms of alternative sexual expression. NCSF is primarily focused on the rights of consenting adults in the SM-leather-fetish, swing, and polyamory communities, who often face discrimination because of their sexual expression."

There are two ways to donate. One way is to join (i.e., pay dues to) the NCSF itself - in which case, your contribution supports their lobbying activities. The other way is to contribute to the sister organization, the Institute for 21st Century Relationships/NCSF Foundation, in which case your contribution supports educational activities.

http://www.ncsfreedom.org/donations.htm

 

[Stella_Omega]

As a Canadian novice/beginner I agree with the pigeon hole theory, but sometimes us newbies need that to understand how to categorize things that we learn... I would define these words TO ME as such :

Top to me personally this is the same as a Dom/me, maybe a term used for people just starting, but not quite reached the full potential mindset of a dom/me?

bottomto me personally this is the same as a Sub,maybe a term used for people just starting, but not yet reached the true sub mindset?
...

The bolded? may I just say.. "alrighty then."

Oh, and bump. Thank you, Graceanne.