lable me this, batman:

[smotherman]

Here we go.

Slave- One who has such low self esteem that they'll give their entire life over to their "master/Mistress" so they can be free from life's responsibilities.

I'm extremely good looking, so not lacking self-esteem and very responsible!

Too funny! oh and I consider myself a slave

http://www.forumsforums.com/3_9/images/smilies/g2/yum.gif

 

[Netzach]

Double post

 

[Netzach]

Wait, are you saying people who do not ID as switches are not honest about their desires? I'm throwing a huge BS flag on that.

Where is OSG when you need her?

Sometimes they are.

Sometimes people are also less than honest about their actual resume if you know what I mean. I've been pulled aside by enough other Dominants who very quietly tell me about the time they blah blah and it was really quite good. If I had a dime for every person who has told me how they *wish* they could do x or y or z if it wasn't for the abuse or the hang up or the time they tried and they got laughed at...

I don't think that "a switch" makes, but seriously. I don't know any Kinsey 6 homos who have never fooled around with the other sex either, nor many people who don't actually think it might be interesting if you stripped away all their hangups who we still call straight, or were in an adolescent circle jerk and still think it was pretty great.

I'm on a mission to cut the shit. And for every time I have to listen to how fake and undecided the vast MAJORITY of people doing SM are, I ask people to mentally go over their resume or ask themselves what the hell they're so scared of. I'm not saying there is no "purity" I suppose, I just think it's really very minute a representation. Look at all the changing orientations in leather and all the hierarchies - have you looked at the hierarchies in a leather family? While they may not be switching with the same person most people are getting multiple itches scratched. Why would "even Daddies have Daddies" provoke a knowing laugh?

I'm pretty down with OSG actually, she's doing what I think is intrinsic to her and frankly the huge tons of crap that she takes from a lot of people actually support my assertion that there are very FEW people as bound to one side of the fence as that.

Also you won't find me calling myself a switch, because sometimes brutal honesty is misapplied. Liking an enema every blue moon but calling yourself an enema fetishist would be confusing, no?


Also see the original post: I'm a Top. I have one slave and two bottoms, one of whom is versatile enough to make vanilla appealing or take over if I ask him to. That really covers it fine, the details emerge when people ask the right questions.

 

[claydobbs]

it's not important

 

[Homburg]

I didn't know that sadists are the cause of hunger in Africa.

What the hell? At least be consistent in your wanking.

Your own definition:

Sadist: Someone who finds satisfaction in letting someone suffer.

Then you go on to explain how the delivery of pain is unimportant. It's the suffering that matters. And "Let" does not equal "cause".

This thread _is_ about semantic wanking. Feel free to not participate.

No, the thread is about personal definitions. There are semantic discussions going on, but the point originally was to poll people for their own take on various commonly used words in the milieu.

 

[NALA CAYENNE]

Yet another reason why you are adored by so many Litsters, myself included

In all honesty, I have considered myself a sub for awhile. However, local opportuinities have arisen for me to venture into something new and the thought not only appeals to me but turns me on.

My label? Whatever floats my boat at the time. If I could find a sub, as a Domme/Mistress/Top, that could scratch my sub itch from time to time, I say why not and fuck the labels and who thinks what is right or wrong with it.

Sometimes they are.

Sometimes people are also less than honest about their actual resume if you know what I mean. I've been pulled aside by enough other Dominants who very quietly tell me about the time they blah blah and it was really quite good. If I had a dime for every person who has told me how they *wish* they could do x or y or z if it wasn't for the abuse or the hang up or the time they tried and they got laughed at...

I don't think that "a switch" makes, but seriously. I don't know any Kinsey 6 homos who have never fooled around with the other sex either, nor many people who don't actually think it might be interesting if you stripped away all their hangups who we still call straight, or were in an adolescent circle jerk and still think it was pretty great.

I'm on a mission to cut the shit. And for every time I have to listen to how fake and undecided the vast MAJORITY of people doing SM are, I ask people to mentally go over their resume or ask themselves what the hell they're so scared of. I'm not saying there is no "purity" I suppose, I just think it's really very minute a representation. Look at all the changing orientations in leather and all the hierarchies - have you looked at the hierarchies in a leather family? While they may not be switching with the same person most people are getting multiple itches scratched. Why would "even Daddies have Daddies" provoke a knowing laugh?

I'm pretty down with OSG actually, she's doing what I think is intrinsic to her and frankly the huge tons of crap that she takes from a lot of people actually support my assertion that there are very FEW people as bound to one side of the fence as that.

Also you won't find me calling myself a switch, because sometimes brutal honesty is misapplied. Liking an enema every blue moon but calling yourself an enema fetishist would be confusing, no?


Also see the original post: I'm a Top. I have one slave and two bottoms, one of whom is versatile enough to make vanilla appealing or take over if I ask him to. That really covers it fine, the details emerge when people ask the right questions.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Here we go.

Slave- One who has such low self esteem that they'll give their entire life over to their "master/Mistress" so they can be free from life's responsibilities.

Glad that definition works for you, Personally, if I hadn't reached a point where I had good self esteem, a career and high professional reputation, been living solo by choice for nearly 2 decades during which time I raised 2 children alone, went back and completed my high school education then went onto university to earn my degree, paid off a mortgage alone, and ran my own life highly successfully, I never would have been able to hand over my life to another...as for being free from life's responsibilities...that's a real hoot as I now have more responsibilities than I had before.

Catalina

 

[NALA CAYENNE]

*applauds the lady Catalina*

Glad that definition works for you, Personally, if I hadn't reached a point where I had good self esteem, a career and high professional reputation, been living solo by choice for nearly 2 decades during which time I raised 2 children alone, went back and completed my high school education then went onto university to earn my degree, paid off a mortgage alone, and ran my own life highly successfully, I never would have been able to hand over my life to another...as for being free from ilife's responsibilities...that's a real hoot as I now have more responsibilities than I had before.

Catalina

 

[the captians wench]

Okay, I haven't gotten to read every one's respoces yet, but i thought I should add a bit to mine here. *giggles* didn't expect it to take off so quickly.

One of the reasons this came up is because I tend to identify as a pet lately. The role I play is something of a playful slave. I never have been huge on limits, I just don't have a lot of them personally, and I tend to take to my PYL quickly and give over control of a lot more than what I define as submissive. But I remain playful, and well, a smart ass, and I do keep a say in things.

But I noticed that the people I was talking to had another deffinition of pet. They used the term to mean a submissive who doesn't always obey, but you keep them around anyway. I don't like this deffinition. I'm not obedient when I want to be and not when I don't want to be, and that seems to be the deffinition that was used to me.

Slave I tend to look at as some one who gives up total, or nearly total rights, say, free will what have you. Not to say that they are perfect, but they strive for perfection and tend to be punished a bit harsher for failure and disobedence.

Subissive doesn't have total say, but she has a lot of say in what goes on and where things go.

Bottom is just in it for the moment. may involve some submission, may not, but ultimitly she has complete say in everything

Top is just in it for the moment, no relationship involved, just a little wham bam and we're done for the night.

Dom is some one who takes control but not fully and does not take the full responcibility of keeping some one. While they do hold the majority of the power, they are a bit looser with the having of it.

Master takes complete responcibility for his, being this in a sexual manor solely or extending to other aspects of life.

Then one person I was having this conversation with said that he was labled by some one else as a daddy dom. This discription didn't fit for me. He was sweet and caring, and sentual more than sadistic, which is why these people labled him as such, but I don't think you have to be a daddy dom to be sentual. I know a few sentual sadists...I like em.

I'm not sure how to define the daddy/lil girl dynamic. I know I've enjoyed being called baby girl, but only as a term of endearment, I don't identify as a baby girl.

Okay, off to read more.

 

[NALA CAYENNE]

When I was with RH, he used 'pet' with me as a term of endearment and I relate it as such. I actually like being called pet, it has an intimate quality attached to it that I can relate to and I have taken to calling my local subbie boy that as well.

I say this to say that I agree with you wenchie, I don't take it as a negative as was described to you. I like how you describe it- as a playful sub.

Another term of affection that I use rather frequently is little one.

 

[Netzach]

Considering that I'm pretty much my husband's top and he definitely can and does assert different plans and ideas at times and I let him ...but most of the time just goes with my flow because it's how we are, I don't think I'm just in it for a night.

Why does less power exchange automatically mean less relationship to people and more mean more? I've also been in complete charge of people whose first names I didn't know and didn't care to for a duration. The power imbalance was very real and loomed very large, but I certainly care more about him.

 

[FurryFury]

I'm not real fond of labels. If you don't have the time and interest to actually talk through what X means to you and why you call yourself that and/or they call themselves X, then that person is probably not going to be someone I bother with online or off.

OTOH at a demo if someone says, who wants to try X, I might, just might jump in there with no labeling required.

 

[DeservingBitch]

Considering that I'm pretty much my husband's top and he definitely can and does assert different plans and ideas at times and I let him ...but most of the time just goes with my flow because it's how we are, I don't think I'm just in it for a night.

Why does less power exchange automatically mean less relationship to people and more mean more? I've also been in complete charge of people whose first names I didn't know and didn't care to for a duration. The power imbalance was very real and loomed very large, but I certainly care more about him.

I may be talking out of my ass, but I see it as a het thing.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

40 years ago this wasn't called "slave" but "wife".


Sorry, couldn't resist.

Bet you couldn't.

You won't see me offering you a daily blow job though and you'll be hard pressed to find a vanilla man who receives one most mornings. Including you.

 

[NALA CAYENNE]

*pastes a gold star right beneath Velvet's AV*

Bet you couldn't.

You won't see me offering you a daily blow job though and you'll be hard pressed to find a vanilla man who receives one most mornings. Including you.

 

[the captians wench]

Considering that I'm pretty much my husband's top and he definitely can and does assert different plans and ideas at times and I let him ...but most of the time just goes with my flow because it's how we are, I don't think I'm just in it for a night.

Why does less power exchange automatically mean less relationship to people and more mean more? I've also been in complete charge of people whose first names I didn't know and didn't care to for a duration. The power imbalance was very real and loomed very large, but I certainly care more about him.

This is something I'm also trying to loop my head around honestly. I'm at a stage where I'm trying to define things in my life and this just happens to be one of them. As I'm searching, I'm trying to figure out, do I want more power exchange, or do I want more of a relationship, or do I want both, and do i want it in the same package? Hince me trying to define the lables in my head, so that I can express what it is I want....when ever I figure that out.

 

[ecstaticsub]

This is something I'm also trying to loop my head around honestly. I'm at a stage where I'm trying to define things in my life and this just happens to be one of them. As I'm searching, I'm trying to figure out, do I want more power exchange, or do I want more of a relationship, or do I want both, and do i want it in the same package? Hince me trying to define the lables in my head, so that I can express what it is I want....when ever I figure that out.

Keep in mind too that a relationship can change or shift as it goes on. Mine has changed in degree of ...the only word I can think of is strictness..lately and more of a romantic relationship just because of outside influences. Honestly I'm not sure how I feel about this change but I do know i like the fluidity of it. I also know that if I was not satified with it, I could take to him about it. You don't necessarily have to decide what you want from the beginning.

 

[Primalex]

Then you go on to explain how the delivery of pain is unimportant. It's the suffering that matters. And "Let" does not equal "cause".

Yeah, right.

let
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
let; let·ting
Etymology:
Middle English leten, from Old English lǣtan; akin to Old High German lāzzan to permit, and perhaps to Lithuanian lėnas tranquil
Date:
before 12th century

transitive verb
1: to cause to : make <let me know>
3 a: to give opportunity to or fail to prevent

But hey, I'm a nice guy, I pretend that I believe you for a second and then ask the simple question:

Which meaning does the word "let" have in this sentence:
"The sadist needs to let someone suffer."

Fill in the meaning here:

_____________________

No, the thread is about personal definitions. There are semantic discussions going on, but the point originally was to poll people for their own take on various commonly used words in the milieu.

Yes. You wrote your personal definition. I wrote mine personal definition. You start to bitch because it doesn't match your definition. Now what?

 

[Primalex]

You won't see me offering you a daily blow job though

And you won't see me calling you "wife". So what?

 

[Homburg]

Yeah, right.



But hey, I'm a nice guy, I pretend that I believe you for a second and then ask the simple question:

Which meaning does the word "let" have in this sentence:
"The sadist needs to let someone suffer."

Fill in the meaning here:

_____________________




Yes. You wrote your personal definition. I wrote mine personal definition. You start to bitch because it doesn't match your definition. Now what?

A definitional argument? I'll play that game.

let1

• verb (letting; past and past part. let) 1 not prevent or forbid; allow. 2 used in the imperative to express an intention, proposal, or instruction: let’s have a drink. 3 used to express an assumption upon which a theory or calculation is to be based. 4 allow someone to have the use of (a room or property) in return for payment.

Four meanings, and not one is "to cause". OED is pretty damned good about putting the most common definition first, which, in this case is "allow". #2 is an imperative, which is similar, but not the way you've used it...

Let 1 (lt)
v. let, let·ting, lets
v.tr.
1. To give permission or opportunity to; allow: I let them borrow the car. The inheritance let us finally buy a house. See Usage Note at leave1.
2. To cause to; make: Let the news be known.
3.
a. Used as an auxiliary in the imperative to express a command, request, or proposal: Let's finish the job! Let x equal y.
b. Used as an auxiliary in the imperative to express a warning or threat: Just let her try!
4. To permit to enter, proceed, or depart: let the dog in.
5. To release from or as if from confinement: let the air out of the balloon; let out a yelp.
6. To rent or lease: let rooms.
7. To award, especially after bids have been submitted: let the construction job to a new firm.
v.intr.
1. To become rented or leased.
2. To be or become assigned, as to a contractor.

Hey, these guys actually have "cause", but it's still less common than "allow". But, wait, their "to cause" definition, in context, is used as an imperative.

Oh, sorry, the mid-sentence passive-voice usage of "let" contraindicates imperative tone by the structure of the sentence. After all "needs" is the actual active verb in that sentence.

Wow, your definition makes clear that "let" is only "cause" when used as an imperative too. Hmm, strange, eh? So, yeah, the definition of "let" in your sentence, because of the structure and active verb being "needs" is logically read as "allow".

And your opinion wasn't the issue. It was your combative stance.

At the end of the day, pain is more accurate, as suffering carries additional semantic baggage that is utterly innaccurate here. One can suffer because of humidity. Very few sadists will get a chubby because of humidity.

Let's hit OED again.

pain
• noun 1 a strongly unpleasant bodily sensation such as is caused by illness or injury. 2 mental suffering or distress. 3 (also pain in the neck or vulgar slang pain in the arse) informal an annoying or tedious person or thing. 4 (pains) great care or trouble.

suffer

• verb 1 experience or be subjected to (something bad or unpleasant). 2 (suffer from) be affected by or subject to (an illness or ailment). 3 become or appear worse in quality. 4 archaic tolerate. 5 archaic allow (someone) to do something.

Yeah, I know a worsening of quality makes me hard. And the flu? Schwing. And I can't tell you how often I've heard a scene describe as "unpleasant". Yeah, that kind dirty talk just gets me hot.

There's a little bit of reductio ad absurdum for you. Definitional arguments are lame. But definitional arguments where you aren't ethical enough to present the whole definition, and hit multiple sources? Fucking weak.

 

[Blushing Bottom]

In a short response for the sake of time I'll say that IMHO it is not all about semantics but a spectrum as others have suggested. In our art form there are many facets and each label depicts one of them.

As I've been experiencing the dating world bdsm style, I've noticed that no mater how much you avoid it, we pretty much talk in lables. So I'm curious as to how you define the different lables I have encountered.

Slave
Submissive
pet
lil girl/baby girl
bottom

top
Dom
Master
Daddy dom

Feel free to add some, these are just the most common to me.

The reason this question has come up, truely, is based on two conversations I've had recently. One guy discribed himself as a daddy dom to me, but in my encounters with him he didn't seem to fit that profile and admited that it was a lable he used because some one else put it on him. I tend to use the term "pet" to discribe myself lately, but it seems that term has some negitive (well it's negitive to me maybe not others) assosiations with it.

I'll give my deffinitions in a bit. I'm off on another date. *giggles*

 

[the captians wench]

In a short response for the sake of time I'll say that IMHO it is not all about semantics but a spectrum as others have suggested. In our art form there are many facets and each label depicts one of them.

I know that there are...different levels of each lable, but each tital kind of gives you a general idea of what the person is into. But I wanted to get an idea of what image each paints in peoples minds and see how close a generalization we all have. So far it does seem fairly close.

As well as people who believe that slaves have no self respect as has been mentioned, I have also run into those who believe submissives are self gratifying liers. That they claim to be submissive but want to retain control of the relationship (submissive as long as you're doing what I like, in other words). So I realize that there are going to be extreams, but for the most part these words are used almost as stairs, levels of domenance and submission.

 

[unfoundiamond]

PYLs/pyls... and such.

1.) slave
2.) submissive
3.) pet
4.) little girl
5.) girl (I added)**
6.) bottom

1.) Top
2.) Dom
3.) Master
4.) Daddy dom

1.) slave- a submissive who is most subservient to their PYL, I see it more sex based, housebound for sure, and basically their every act and behavior is ment to please their PYL (**no negative connotation, to me, but I see this as the "houseboy" type**) ...and yes I realize that's not the only kind... but it comes first to mind...

2.) submissive- submissive to me is a person who displays submissive nature, or personality... To me this implys the role in the dynamic they are involved in, not who they are, or any specific qualities, not even that they are only submissive.

I guess I see submissive as more of a behavior... sure some submissive people are extrememly submissive (both in social and sexual situations) but others are not... maybe only sexually... or not sexually but socially... diffrent degrees of submissive to me.

(Which is why I think the other names come in handy... like a subdivision... NPI, **giggle,giggle**)

3.) pet- pet to me, has two slight connotations when I hear it aside from basically meaning to me, a reliant submissive, the term to me also implies a loving cherished pyl, like a romatic version of how you love a pet, we are conditioned to have animals as pets... could be that I am just so programmed not to see people as "pets" so I associate what I know to be a pet ...

The name almost implies a romatic furry undertone... (I of course NEVER intend to offend, I know a lot of people use this term who may not intend it that way...)
The another connotation is that the PYL views the "pet" as partially a possession, and "kept" by the owner... like a pet... like a tiny little kitten, or a sweet dopey little puppy... I just see this as a... pet... you might take it out, you might dress it, you feed and care for it, and it relies on you... like a pet, a chuihuahua or something...

(And yes, I know people prolly don't like that... apology in advance...)

4.) little girl- A "little girl" is a submissive that is cared for with the same regard and level of attention and love you'd give to a child.
A little girl type requires guidance, and discipline, as well as love, and a Daddy to lead her to her best potential.
This can involve age play, and in little does imply a younger mentality, I don't see it as sinister or innapropriate... and its not automatically associated with sex to me... its about personality and/or dynamics...

5.) girl- similar to lg, but no young mentality implication, girl to me. Could just be a 15 to 20 something submissive, or a woman... but implies a more vaugue general submissive role, not as romantic as lg, and also the "girl" label may not be used by a Daddy Dom... could be used by a Master... or used in the medieval Lord/girl kind of sence... or used to be specifically general to make her "place felt"... (

(I find it hot and not impersonal at all depending on the way it is used...)

6.) bottom- I see this as a combination of labels, shared by both GLBT and BDSM lifestyles... and sometimes interchanged to my confusion.

GLBT sence of the word- A bottom is the reciever, OR the "f*ckee"

In the BDSM sence- a bottom is more complicated, not always the "f*ckee" the Top may not cater to the bottom like LGBT bottom is catered to...

The BDSM bottom can give or recieve , depending on the desires of the Top, can also be lots of diffrent forms of play... I see the bottom as not having ultimate control, but also sometimes required to serve the Top... (not the top catering to them) oh... and people are always like "bottom" doesn't have to be D/s"... I see people who aren't personally involved but scene in clubs or otherwise public places, to be of the T/b dynamic. It doesn't apply any relationship, only role...

I dunno, I am gonna be back for round two...

And finish off the PYLs...

 

[Primalex]

Four meanings, and not one is "to cause". OED is pretty damned good about putting the most common definition first, which, in this case is "allow". #2 is an imperative, which is similar, but not the way you've used it...

The really funny thing about the OED is that they have the use of "let" in the meaning "cause" in the phrases. You need to scroll down. If they would be consistent, they would have written "allow to explode".

And your opinion wasn't the issue. It was your combative stance.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=25533751&postcount=19
contains a "combative stance"? Bullshit.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=25541669&postcount=34
does though. I can even tell you why:
You are pissed off because my definition of sadist isn't the way you feel while you call yourself one, so you feel the urge to battle about the definition.

At the end of the day, pain is more accurate, as suffering carries additional semantic baggage that is utterly innaccurate here. One can suffer because of humidity. Very few sadists will get a chubby because of humidity.

If they are the cause, sure. Why should a sadist be restricted to physical or emotional pain? What about Zeus, who made Sisyphus do the very same thing over and over and over again? Wouldn't he be a sadist, if he did this for personal enjoyment?

Yeah, I know a worsening of quality makes me hard.

Thanks for proving my point above. If it's not a turn on for you, it can't be a turn on for a sadist, because there just can't be a difference. You are Mr. Sadist.

But definitional arguments where you aren't ethical enough to present the whole definition, and hit multiple sources? Fucking weak.

If you say that my definition is always wrong, then you need to provide all existing definitions in the world to prove me wrong. I only need to provide exactly one definition to prove me right. This is the difference if you say "something doesn't exist" versus "something exists". This is why it's so difficult to prove the not-existence of something. But hey, you wanted the challenge, so don't whine when it means work for you. It's not my job to make your life easy.

 

[Homburg]

The really funny thing about the OED is that they have the use of "let" in the meaning "cause" in the phrases. You need to scroll down. If they would be consistent, they would have written "allow to explode".

Why is this funny? I included mention of it as an imperative. Pretty clear on that point, and I notice that you don't even attempt to refute the idea that you failed to use "let" as an imperative.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=25533751&postcount=19
contains a "combative stance"? Bullshit.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=25541669&postcount=34
does though. I can even tell you why:
You are pissed off because my definition of sadist isn't the way you feel while you call yourself one, so you feel the urge to battle about the definition.

Um, no. You pulled the "here we go again" card, and picked up the same argument from a previous thread. I don't give a damn if we differ on definitions. I said jack about your definitions, including your brilliant assertion that bottom has no meaning. You decided to take issue with my original post.

If they are the cause, sure. Why should a sadist be restricted to physical or emotional pain? What about Zeus, who made Sisyphus do the very same thing over and over and over again? Wouldn't he be a sadist, if he did this for personal enjoyment?

Bulfinch failed to mention if Zeus got an erection over this. It wouldn't surprise me as Zeus was a kinky fuck, into golden showers and forced bi stuff. And the relevance of this is?

Thanks for proving my point above. If it's not a turn on for you, it can't be a turn on for a sadist, because there just can't be a difference. You are Mr. Sadist.

This makes no sense.

If you say that my definition is always wrong, then you need to provide all existing definitions in the world to prove me wrong. I only need to provide exactly one definition to prove me right. This is the difference if you say "something doesn't exist" versus "something exists". This is why it's so difficult to prove the not-existence of something. But hey, you wanted the challenge, so don't whine when it means work for you. It's not my job to make your life easy.

No, slick, I said you definition was weak, not wrong. I said your language was passive, not incorrect. You are the one that keeps trumpeting how perfect yours is. Prove it. I never once asserted mine to be the end-all. Burden of proof lies on you.