Different types of doms

[Stella_Omega]

Woo Hoo. Was that a breakthru?

Again, I was not trying to label anyone, just trying to learn the proper adjectives needed to accurately describe various characteristics of a persona that is related to B/d, D/s and SM?
The end goal for me is to identify what this dark little monster inside me is, so I know how to feed it properly, in hopes that I can live in harmony with it, and not be eaten alive by it. (A little over-dramatic, just because)...

Here's what I learned on this journey...
1. Labels Suck.
2. Even if they didn't suck there aren't enough Labels to describe the number of Different people in the world.
3. There never were enough words to properly describe the individual feeling of a person. Whether they are falling in love for the first time, or submitting to their partner for the first time. In either case, it's a beautiful thang.

Beautiful,baby.

4. BDSM today, contains D/s, but didn't use to, and some people don't like the new definition so we should be clear as to whether we are talking about B/d, S/m or D/s and skip the entire acronym to start with.

Not quite. BDSM has always contained D/s but it didn't use to be the default, the automatic assumption, the only words far too many people know.

5. Top/bottom and Master/slave are still confusing, but I plan to never use the terms because they can be adequately described using various levels of B/d, D/s and/or SM.

Au contraire. Top/bottom describe the leading/following roles in ALL BDSM activities.

Dom/sub, Master/slave, sadist/masochist, these words describe top/bottom roles for (very important and very much overlapping) varieties of BDSM activities.

6. AND, Yes, there are an infinite number of different Dominant Partners who Dominate in many different ways. I can tell that by the different posts in this thread alone.

Or more accurately, top partners who top in many different ways...

However I admit that not so many people will know what you're talking about as will if you say "dominant."

There should be cookies and milk after this class is over-- or steak and beer. Possibly blowjobs. I know I could use one...

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

Why do we try to understand something that's so deep and so individual and then hash it out on a web site where nothing but words are seen? Oh, I guess it isn't hurting anything, as long as you don't condemn someone for mentioning he hates labels.

I know, I know. You hate labels. But guess what? Labels are describing words, and the definitions will always be in flux.

Nobody's trying to pigeonhole you, so chill out.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you are no different than anybody else here, you just define your feelings in a different way. I might say cravings or hunger, but it means the same thing as when you say it's just who you are. I couldn't be who I am without my cravings or my hungers. In fact, I'd be just a shell of a person, without any desires or goals or purpose. So, while I might call them cravings or a hunger, without them I have no identity.

But aren't you just putting labels on things, and telling OSG that her labels for the same thing are different?

 

[Stella_Omega]

If ever there was an exception that proved the rule, osg is it. Every shred that I know about her is proof that some people truly have no choice; She could live like she does, or she could have died. I am convinced of that.

And I am glad she found her partner and that she's happy. Because some of us don't-- even those of us who don't have such overwhelming needs don't find happiness.

 

[DVS]

I know, I know. You hate labels. But guess what? Labels are describing words, and the definitions will always be in flux.

Nobody's trying to pigeonhole you, so chill out.

I sure hope I can chill out today. It's already in the 80s and sunrise was just 2 1/2 hours ago. Going to be hot and humid today.

But aren't you just putting labels on things, and telling OSG that her labels for the same thing are different?

Yes and yes.
To help clarify it for you, I'm not trying to put her down or anything, I'm just saying her views can also be someone else's views. It's all in how you see things.

 

[DVS]

You've never been mentally ill, have you?

[Not saying OSG is. Me, now, I'm batshit motherfucking crazy.]

Everybody is a little touched, if you ask me. Sanity is kind of like normal. There's no such thing.

 

[DVS]

I don't think hunger and craving necessarily connote choice, but they sound more like lusty, hot sexy in the moment stuff than everyday identity. I think D/s, and BDSM for that matter, can be both.

I don't assume that my words would be the same as someone else. Obviously, your mileage may vary.

 

[midwestyankee]

I don't assume that my words would be the same as someone else. Obviously, your mileage may vary.

But this is the crux of the problem, as I understand the problem that is on the table: which is how to talk about the kinds of relationships and the kinds of activities that are encompassed by BDSM D/s and any other sets of initials people use to stand for that which we do.

Let me put this in terms that I think should resonate with you, DVS. Let's say that you and I decide to talk about classic rock music. In your mind, that term almost certainly includes the works of The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and so on. But what if, in my head, the term "classic rock music" also included the works of the Temptations and Madonna. No doubt you'd be confused if I tried to make a point about classic rock by relying on Madonna or The Supremes as examples.

We're trying to remove confusion from our discussions and to do this we need to have well-understood meanings for certain words and phrases. Without these we never really know what the other person is trying to communicate. Despite everyone's distaste for being labelled, sometimes labels, when used in the same way all the time, make further communication possible.

 

[midwestyankee]

I'd like to toss out an observation: part of the problem in this discussion is that the English language has a maddening way of making verbs into nouns and vice versa these days.

Thus to be a top is not the same thing as to top. To be a bottom is not the same thing as to bottom. Surely a top can bottom by choice, and I think that this mulligatawny of terms gives us indigestion quite regularly.

That which we do does not determine who we are any more than who we are limits the choices we make about what we do.

 

[intothewoods]

I don't assume that my words would be the same as someone else. Obviously, your mileage may vary.

Yes, well, I like conversing with people, and a common language is a pretty crucial ingredient in conversation.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't assume that my words would be the same as someone else. Obviously, your mileage may vary.

I assume that someone will completely misconstrue my words unless I make an effort to get us in agreement over what they mean.

So far, my milage has proven pretty good with that...

 

[DVS]

But this is the crux of the problem, as I understand the problem that is on the table: which is how to talk about the kinds of relationships and the kinds of activities that are encompassed by BDSM D/s and any other sets of initials people use to stand for that which we do.

Let me put this in terms that I think should resonate with you, DVS. Let's say that you and I decide to talk about classic rock music. In your mind, that term almost certainly includes the works of The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and so on. But what if, in my head, the term "classic rock music" also included the works of the Temptations and Madonna. No doubt you'd be confused if I tried to make a point about classic rock by relying on Madonna or The Supremes as examples.

We're trying to remove confusion from our discussions and to do this we need to have well-understood meanings for certain words and phrases. Without these we never really know what the other person is trying to communicate. Despite everyone's distaste for being labelled, sometimes labels, when used in the same way all the time, make further communication possible.

I don't understand where you're going with this. Sorry.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't understand where you're going with this. Sorry.

Did you forget to add the 'wink' smiley, or are you serious?

 

[FungiUg]

I assume that someone will completely misconstrue my words unless I make an effort to get us in agreement over what they mean.

I have been known to do that deliberately just to take a conversation in an interesting direction. Bad me!

 

[Stella_Omega]

I have been known to do that deliberately just to take a conversation in an interesting direction. Bad me!

Noted. I won't fall for that again, toots. I invested a lot of sincerity, effort, and some emotional distress, for your fun.

Fuck off.

 

[FungiUg]

Noted. I won't fall for that again, toots. I invested a lot of sincerity, effort, and some emotional distress, for your fun.

Fuck off.

I beg your pardon? Was there something offensive in the conversation we were having? Did I denigrate or belittle you in some way?

I will lead a conversation in an interesting direction because I am interested in what is being said. Not because I wish to distress you in some way.

If I have hurt or disappointed you, I do apologise.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I beg your pardon? Was there something offensive in the conversation we were having? Did I denigrate or belittle you in some way?

I will lead a conversation in an interesting direction because I am interested in what is being said. Not because I wish to distress you in some way.

If I have hurt or disappointed you, I do apologise.

Yes, you did. You goaded me into reiteration a half a dozen times, in my sincere attempt to be sure you understood something that is pretty important to me. In conversations like this, I consider it my responsibility to be understood, and I was failing in that.

Apology accepted, but never pretend to misconstrue my words for your fun again. if you want to keep a conversation going, there are more respectful ways to do it.

 

[DVS]

I'd like to toss out an observation: part of the problem in this discussion is that the English language has a maddening way of making verbs into nouns and vice versa these days.

Thus to be a top is not the same thing as to top. To be a bottom is not the same thing as to bottom. Surely a top can bottom by choice, and I think that this mulligatawny of terms gives us indigestion quite regularly.

That which we do does not determine who we are any more than who we are limits the choices we make about what we do.

I agree. When posing what you might consider a very simple question to a group of people, you can get a wild variance in the answers. Especially, if each person's response is kept secret from the others. We are all individuals. You could even ask the very same question in different ways and get different answers from the same group of people.

We do need labels in our lives, otherwise the simple things in life would be impossible. Words like right and left, stop and go, merge and yield have to mean the same to everybody, or we'd have big problems. Not to mention the colors of red, yellow and green. But, while we all know what the color red is, ask someone to explain the color and you'll get a wide range of answers.

 

[FungiUg]

Yes, you did. You goaded me into reiteration a half a dozen times, in my sincere attempt to be sure you understood something that is pretty important to me.

No, that was not my intention, although yes I can see it did happen. My intention was to have a discussion around the different aspects of D/s that can crop up in relationships, whether they be "official" BDSM-oriented relationships or not. To me, this felt like a worthwhile extension of the topic, and I was interested in your viewpoint (because it differs somewhat from my own, but you were making quite valid points.)

In conversations like this, I consider it my responsibility to be understood, and I was failing in that.

No, you were not (and in fact, I said as much.) I was, I admit, drawing you out, because it is an interesting topic. It wasn't that I didn't understand you, but rather than I wanted to know the why and how of your viewpoint.

Apology accepted, but never pretend to misconstrue my words for your fun again. if you want to keep a conversation going, there are more respectful ways to do it.

I guess I am missing something here. I didn't state that I misconstrued anything you said. Oh, wait, yes I did. Dammit! My comment should "I have been known to deliberately misconstrue someone" (it was the act of miscontruing that I was admitting to, not saying I was doing that with you.) My apology is sincere and still stands.

If you can show me where I was disrespectful, I will attempt to mend my ways. In point of fact, I hold you in the highest respect, which is the primary reason that I too was making time to discuss this with you.

 

[DVS]

Did you forget to add the 'wink' smiley, or are you serious?

No, I think I was more confused with his analogy and so I was hoping for a little more clarification as to where he was going with it. I think I understood where he was going, but I didn't want to assume I did and be wrong.

 

[FungiUg]

We do need labels in our lives, otherwise the simple things in life would be impossible.

Agreed. It's why I don't "hate" labels. They are a necessity.

My viewpoint is that the things we label can exist, can happen, without needing or knowledge of the labels. However, when we wish to discuss those things meaningfully, then the labels become vital as they form a "common vocabulary" over which we can transmit our intentions.

So the labels are necessary... but they are also secondary. The labels describe something that is already there.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I have been known to do that deliberately just to take a conversation in an interesting direction. Bad me!

You have to admit that, in this particular thread, I would make an unfortunate leap to a conclusion...

I guess I am missing something here. I didn't state that I misconstrued anything you said. Oh, wait, yes I did. Dammit! My comment should "I have been known to deliberately misconstrue someone" (it was the act of miscontruing that I was admitting to, not saying I was doing that with you.) My apology is sincere and still stands.

If you can show me where I was disrespectful, I will attempt to mend my ways. In point of fact, I hold you in the highest respect, which is the primary reason that I too was making time to discuss this with you.

Thank you, your clarification eases my wounded ego considerably

Whew!

Agreed. It's why I don't "hate" labels. They are a necessity.

My viewpoint is that the things we label can exist, can happen, without needing or knowledge of the labels. However, when we wish to discuss those things meaningfully, then the labels become vital as they form a "common vocabulary" over which we can transmit our intentions.

So the labels are necessary... but they are also secondary. The labels describe something that is already there.

d'accord, genau, I couldn't agree more.

the things that we are and do and want-- we knew about them before we ever encountered the words we are using here.

 

[FungiUg]

You have to admit that, in this particular thread, I would make an unfortunate leap to a conclusion...

Worse, I fucked up in the way I worded what I was saying. You read what I said, not what I meant. So you were quite justified in thinking I was having a go at you. Grrr (at myself!)

Just goes to prove that just because we are both literate and domly types (oh wait, I might be a top!) doesn't make us immune to misunderstanding. Which in a way, nicely illustrates the point of the discussion (not that I was deliberately doing that! That's not the way my evil swings.)

 

[Stella_Omega]

So.. what are you drinking? This one's on me.

Unless you'd rather have a spanking, I'm in the mood to give one. In a service way, of course.

 

[DVS]

Agreed. It's why I don't "hate" labels. They are a necessity.

My viewpoint is that the things we label can exist, can happen, without needing or knowledge of the labels. However, when we wish to discuss those things meaningfully, then the labels become vital as they form a "common vocabulary" over which we can transmit our intentions.

So the labels are necessary... but they are also secondary. The labels describe something that is already there.

I don't hate labels, either. They are indeed necessary for us to understand each other. But, not all labels are as succinct and defined as others. The problem is, if we were to make them all as succinct and understandable, some wouldn't be labels...they'd be paragraphs.

 

[FungiUg]

So.. what are you drinking? This one's on me.

Unless you'd rather have a spanking, I'm in the mood to give one. In a service way, of course.

Coffee (it's early morning here). We just bought a new dark roast, and it's yummy, so I'm about to embark on my 2nd. I'd offer you one, but by the time it got to you, it would be icky.

My poor girl's butt is well striped from the beating I gave her at the last play party we went too... she's rather happy. But I'm sure she'd still be willing to take a well-deserved spanking for me.