A Master's 'right' to play with others

[satindesire]

There is no true anything when it comes to this. It's like saying there's a true cat. Well, yes, there are animals that walk on all fours and have whiskers and tails and say "meow" but there are Persians and Rexes and Siamese and Sphynxes. They all have different fur. Are they all cats? Of course! But none is the true cat. Same for this.

You know what, that's a REALLY good way of putting it! You have a way of explaining things that really makes sense to me.

And I love cats, so you get bonus internets.

I agree with you.

 

[Homburg]

I agree that "fake" is an accurate descriptor, if someone is intentionally lying about personal proclivity.

However, recent discussion on this thread has focused on folks in established relationships, using labels to describe their personal sexual ID or relationship flavor. In that context, "true" and "false" are indeed semantic opposites. You can't talk about one without implicitly referencing the other.

Given my unwillingness to parse 7+ pages of posts to see where and how "true" or "false" entered into the discussion, I can't comment on said entry. But also given is the simple fact that this thread has drifted, as so many do, far from the initial topic. The current gist is a discussion of labels within the culture overall.

While I think it is valid to see those terms in the context of this discussion, it is likewise valid to see them in context with the general usage within our little subculture (meaning Lit).

In my own case, my posts, and the thrust of my overall commentary vis a vis labels is to use more words as it might just help to avoid the sort of butthurt that arises from implicit meanings, assumptions, et al.

Example being my own post on the labels. To my eyes, it is pretty clear that I don't hold much stock in "submissive", "slave", "dominant", or "master" because they're so very subjective and/or relationship specific. I have no such problem with "top" and "bottom" as they are pretty empirically verifiable. Did you spank (or whatever toppy activity you want) someone? You can be called a "top". Did you get spanked by someone? You can be called a "bottom". It's pretty simple.

Oh, and to be inclusive, I see "switch" as empirically verifiable as well. Didn't want to leave switchy types out.

 

[Homburg]

You know what it comes down to? It is me railing against intellectual laziness. Brevity itself is not the problem. Anyone around here has seen Netzach lay simultaneously brief and yet incredibly incisive comments on threads. Concise statements are not inherently bad themselves. It is when someone is brief for no other reason than that they are not willing to adequately explain themselves.

One-word labels are the culprit so often that it is not funny. Heinlein said it well with the line "Specialization is for insects." Much as I am not a colour on a nametag, neither am I a single-word label. No one is. To assume otherwise is intellectual laziness or sheer ignorance.

 

[intothewoods]

The difference between 'African American' or 'man' on the one hand, and relationship ID labels (sub, slave, bottom, Top, Dom, Master) on the other, is that the latter group are all fabricated meanings with no universal authority source (dictionary, Guidebook to the One True Way of Alternative Lifestyles, or whatever) to back them up.

I understand why people who belong to a specific club or cultural group would want to establish rules or standards within that setting. I also understand why supersessionism would bug some leather folks.

But in general, I think it's ridiculous for people to talk about poser Doms, wannabe subs, fake-label slaves, or misapplied Master titles. If there's no "true" anything in kinky relationships, then there's no fake anything, either.

Intimate erotic applications aside, I think of SM physical play as a sport or artistic endeavor, like basketball or painting. I admire skills, and some skills I admire greatly. But there's nothing inherent in the activity itself that I find respect-worthy or noble.

A separate issue is the personal character of individual players. Relationship ID has nothing to do with it, and the notion that people who embrace D/s or M/s should somehow be held in higher esteem is a notion I find laughable. The idea that D-types in particular are inherently worthy of respect by non-partners is one I find truly ludicrous.

Well, I said 'I could call myself an African American man' because the idea of a guy who sometimes sucks cock ID'ing as "straight" is sort of ridiculous to me (satin's post).

As for real slaves and fake slaves and all that, yeah, whatever. I have my buddies from the scene, but I'm not really into it at this point, so labels are useless. Even when I do dip back in from time to time, I really haven't found many individuals that grill me on what I am. Maybe I've just been lucky...

 

[Homburg]

Well, I said 'I could call myself an African American man' because the idea of a guy who sometimes sucks cock ID'ing as "straight" is sort of ridiculous to me (satin's post).

I read an article a while back on (I think) Brazil, that was talking about male/male sexual conduct and the homo/hetero label. Apparently a guy can get his dick sucked by another man and still be considered straight, but the one what does the sucking is not. So long as the suckee is only the suckee, he's straight.

It reminded me of an piece on ancient Greece where m/m fellatio (and buggery) was okay, culturally and legally for the pitcher, but the catcher could face censure or worse.

Male sexuality can be so damned weird sometimes.

 

[satindesire]

I never really understood why some people seem to have an oversensitivity to labels? Even if I'm mislabeled, it doesn't piss me off. My identity is tied as much to what other people may guess me to be as the color of shoes I'm wearing. If someone says "Oh, you must be a Domme because of XYZ." I'll laugh and say "No, I'm not a Domme, I'm actually this and etc yadda yadda." Because I'm married to a male, many people assume I'm straight and label me as such. That doesn't bother me either.

Perhaps it's because I grew up really shy in school and never had to deal with societal peer pressure in order to maintain the status quo of being popular...or feeling an overwhelming desire to "fit in" as I grew up into an adult, but someone else's opinions of me never really mattered.

I wish I could talk to someone who's sensitive about labels and ask them why. I'd like to hear their side of the story.

 

[JMohegan]

Hold off a bit until you see the folks that say, "Online only BDSM is just as real!!1!" That's worth bristling over.

Honestly, part of my reaction to labels is in reaction to that attitude. If someone in an online-only LDR can call themselves a "Dominant Master" and sneer at me because what they do is as "real", I don't care much for the validity of those terms.

Sneering seems sort of pointless, no matter which way the sneering's going.

My bottom line on self-applied labels for other people's relationships is that they fall into the vast category of Things I Can't Control. Fortunately, they also fall into the vast category of Things That Have No Impact On Me Whatsoever. So I really don't see the point of any bristling.

 

[intothewoods]

I read an article a while back on (I think) Brazil, that was talking about male/male sexual conduct and the homo/hetero label. Apparently a guy can get his dick sucked by another man and still be considered straight, but the one what does the sucking is not. So long as the suckee is only the suckee, he's straight.

It reminded me of an piece on ancient Greece where m/m fellatio (and buggery) was okay, culturally and legally for the pitcher, but the catcher could face censure or worse.

If you get a blow job from a guy you're still straight. But only if it's at a glory hole and you can't really tell that it's a guy.

Ha ha.

I shouldn't be so bitchy about it, since I do think that if you have relationships with women and you're not secretly a self-loathing type (you just like some cock every once in a while), then it probably makes sense to ID as straight if that feels right for you. I just have little patience for the self-loathing and/or homophobic.

 

[Stella_Omega]

There is no true anything when it comes to this. It's like saying there's a true cat. Well, yes, there are animals that walk on all fours and have whiskers and tails and say "meow" but there are Persians and Rexes and Siamese and Sphynxes. They all have different fur. Are they all cats? Of course! But none is the true cat. Same for this.

That is not the problem, at all.

What we're talking about here is someone saying that Sphinx cats are the only true cats, or that alley cats aren't as good as Persians, or that someone lied about being a Siamese when they were really just a Manx, or someone insisting that the label 'Persian' actually applies to the cats you always thought were Angoras.



Yeah, they are all cats. But those little divisions mean even more to people who are dividing smaller and smaller categories, I've noticed.

I wish I could talk to someone who's sensitive about labels and ask them why. I'd like to hear their side of the story.

I am.
You haven't noticed?

 

[satindesire]

I am.
You haven't noticed?

No, I haven't.

Why are you sensitive about labels?

 

[ownedsubgal]

I wish I could talk to someone who's sensitive about labels and ask them why. I'd like to hear their side of the story.

i'm sensitive about certain labels...for instance, when someone refers to me as a "bottom," or "kinky," it makes the hair stand up a bit. it doesn't anger me, it's just frustrating. it took such a long time for me to reach this place where i really know accept (and like) myself for who i am...it bothers me to be even casually accepted for who i am NOT.

of course, i deal with it by providing a clarifying explanation and education, but it still pushes those buttons.

 

[Homburg]

If you get a blow job from a guy you're still straight. But only if it's at a glory hole and you can't really tell that it's a guy.

Ha ha.

I shouldn't be so bitchy about it, since I do think that if you have relationships with women and you're not secretly a self-loathing type (you just like some cock every once in a while), then it probably makes sense to ID as straight if that feels right for you. I just have little patience for the self-loathing and/or homophobic.

It's such a cultural weirdness. Women can be bi, but if a guy goes in that direction at all, he must gay. No middle ground for men. Makes no sense.

 

[Homburg]

Sneering seems sort of pointless, no matter which way the sneering's going.

My bottom line on self-applied labels for other people's relationships is that they fall into the vast category of Things I Can't Control. Fortunately, they also fall into the vast category of Things That Have No Impact On Me Whatsoever. So I really don't see the point of any bristling.

The first part of that quote was intended to be humourous.

Cheers.

 

[satindesire]

It's such a cultural weirdness. Women can be bi, but if a guy goes in that direction at all, he must gay. No middle ground for men. Makes no sense.

Just goes to show you how different sexuality can be in different cultures.

 

[JMohegan]

That is not the problem, at all.

What we're talking about here is someone saying that Sphinx cats are the only true cats, or that alley cats aren't as good as Persians, or that someone lied about being a Siamese when they were really just a Manx, or someone insisting that the label 'Persian' actually applies to the cats you always thought were Angoras.



Yeah, they are all cats. But those little divisions mean even more to people who are dividing smaller and smaller categories, I've noticed.

Is there a cat equivalent of the American Kennel Club?

The AKC is a recognized authority on dog breeds. If we had one of those in the kinky world, all these debates over relationship labels would be unnecessary. We could just take a couple to the board and ask, "Are these people misapplying the Master and slave labels?" And we'd have a definitive answer, yes or no!

 

[funkygreeneyedlady]

For me, there is absolutely no sharing... vanilla-BDSM-regardless I don't share!!! I am still new to this lifestyle, my husband is very hesitant to jump into this lifestyle, so I am still living pretty much vanilla. (bummer for me)
regardless... I lived previously with someone for 5+ years and was suppose to be in a commited long-term type of relationship, however, he didn't see it the same way... I was cheated on and when I say cheated on... it was several times over the span of 5 years... therefore I have lived with the aftermath of said things... I cannot ever imagine sharing my mate regardless of the lifestyle, for me, mentally, it's my undoing and in this lifestyle trust is a major key point and w/o that you cannot have a fulfilling Dom/Sub relationship... for me that is.

 

[satindesire]

Is there a cat equivalent of the American Kennel Club?

The "Cat Fanciers Association" http://www.cfainc.org/

 

[JMohegan]

The "Cat Fanciers Association" http://www.cfainc.org/

There you go! That's just what we need!

 

[satindesire]

There you go! That's just what we need!

Right on!

 

[Stella_Omega]

No, I haven't.

Why are you sensitive about labels?

Because the ways in which I am different-- which do affect me in profound ways, making me, at times nearly incapable of functioning around "normal' people-- can only be expressed by labels. I'm transgendered, atheist, queer, and a host of other things that "normal" people don't even consider. None of these things show on the outside of me. walking on the street, I'm a fairly nice-looking woman who might as well be straight, happy with her vag, church-going. And it's easy, even for my friends who know and love me, to forget, and include me in assumptions which I have no part of.

Yet I am conscious of my differences, every minute of every day. They look like labels to you, but to me they are the descriptors of my identity.

 

[satindesire]

Because the ways in which I am different-- which do affect me in profound ways, making me, at times nearly incapable of functioning around "normal' people-- can only be expressed by labels. I'm transgendered, atheist, queer, and a host of other things that "normal" people don't even consider. None of these things show on the outside of me. walking on the street, I'm a fairly nice-looking woman who might as well be straight, happy with her vag, church-going. And it's easy, even for my friends who know and love me, to forget, and include me in assumptions which I have no part of.

Yet I am conscious of my differences, every minute of every day. They look like labels to you, but to me they are the descriptors of my identity.

What confuses me is that I seem to sense some sort of...self-worth issues in people who are sensitive towards labels. "Am I not good enough at being XYZ so instead, you label me incorrectly as ZYX?"

Do you think it's a product of doubt or perhaps low self-esteem that makes you more prone to disliking an incorrect label?

 

[Stella_Omega]

What confuses me is that I seem to sense some sort of...self-worth issues in people who are sensitive towards labels. "Am I not good enough at being XYZ so instead, you label me incorrectly as ZYX?"

Do you think it's a product of doubt or perhaps low self-esteem that makes you more prone to disliking an incorrect label?

Yes.
Please do not take that as an invitation to give me, or anyone else, self-help pep talks.

And also?

re-read what I just wrote in my post above.

 

[satindesire]

Yes.
Please do not take that as an invitation to give me, or anyone else, self-help pep talks.

And also?

re-read what I just wrote in my post above.

Geeze. Okay, I won't. :/

I just wanted some clarification.

 

[JMohegan]

Because the ways in which I am different-- which do affect me in profound ways, making me, at times nearly incapable of functioning around "normal' people-- can only be expressed by labels. I'm transgendered, atheist, queer, and a host of other things that "normal" people don't even consider. None of these things show on the outside of me. walking on the street, I'm a fairly nice-looking woman who might as well be straight, happy with her vag, church-going. And it's easy, even for my friends who know and love me, to forget, and include me in assumptions which I have no part of.

Yet I am conscious of my differences, every minute of every day. They look like labels to you, but to me they are the descriptors of my identity.

I'm confused about what it means to be "queer." That is, I get that you don't want sexual attention from someone like me, and of course I respect that. But there are so many possibilities beyond that, and so many people of different proclivities and life choices embracing the label, that I don't have a clear notion of it, other than "not straight."

I'm agnostic. What I hate most is the assumption that people who don't claim to know the big answers are somehow devoid of integrity or ethical grounding.

 

[Cattypuss]

I'm transgendered, atheist, queer, and a host of other things that "normal" people don't even consider. .

Move to the UK and cross one of those "labels" off your list - we think atheism is entirely normal over here

I've been a self-proclaimed atheist for at least 20 years and nobody here has ever batted an eyelid