Labels and titles and terms, oh my!

[alice_underneath]

Are D/s or BDSM definitions important to you?

If so, please post your succinct and elucidative definitions here.

In recognition of the fact that the people in Iceland couldn't possibly speak for those in Peru, non-Goreans do not speak for the fans of Gor, etc. - it may perhaps be helpful for those providing definitions to identify (as specifically as possible) the BDSM community to which they belong.

Dominant

submissive

Top

bottom

Switch

Master

slave

How do you define these words?

 

[catalina_francisco]

LOL, this is beyond me tonight...been done too many times on this board for me to go there again today.

Catalina

 

[SpectreT]

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

 

[A Desert Rose]

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

I love seeing you posting again. You're so funny. ;D

 

[A Desert Rose]

LOL, this is beyond me tonight...been done too many times on this board for me to go there again today.

Catalina

I'm not so sure I'd be going there tomorrow, either. lol
My definitions don't mean a tinker's damn to anyone else.

 

[Stegral]

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 :

Dominant one who takes charge in a monagamous relationship, but listens to opinions of the Submissive

submissive one that is led by the leader of the relationship, but can voice proper opinions to the Dominant without fear

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?

Switchone that can/will/has "played" both roles

Master one that controls a person's life to the extent agreed upon by both parties, that eventually will always change as the relationship between both parties evolves

slaveone that gives thier life to a Master or Domme/dom... to have no say in your life and relinquishing all responsibilities to the mind of the Master or Dom/me

I know alot of you will SCREAM at me for the definition of a Slave.. I am sorry, but was PUT IN MY PLACE when someone "thought" I was calling his sub a slave (which I wasn't.. he didn't catch the whole conversation)

 

[alice_underneath]

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

Indeed.

My definitions don't mean a tinker's damn to anyone else.

Respectfully, I disagree with this statement. Yesterday, you wrote: "Being submissive is how I'm wired. A Man told me this weekend that I'm "a natural submissive" and that's true with the Right Man(Dom)."

I, for one, am interested to know what being 'submissive' means to you.

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......

Thank you very much, Stegral.

I will not 'scream' at you for your definitions (or anyone else's). I am a newbie too, and am really just trying to understand what people mean when they use different terms.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Indeed.

Respectfully, I disagree with this statement. Yesterday, you wrote: "Being submissive is how I'm wired. A Man told me this weekend that I'm "a natural submissive" and that's true with the Right Man(Dom)."

I, for one, am interested to know what being 'submissive' means to you.

Thank you very much, Stegral.

I will not 'scream' at you for your definitions (or anyone else's). I am a newbie too, and am really just trying to understand what people mean when they use different terms.

Alice, respectively back, why would you care what MY definition of submissive is? It means absolutely nothing to anyone, BUT me. ;-) And my Dom.

 

[SirFace]

Alice, respectively back, why would you care what MY definition of submissive is? It means absolutely nothing to anyone, BUT me. ;-) And my Dom.

Thats what makes it very interesting, and difficult at times, to enter this realm. It seems each relationship is individual and can vary widely over the defined "norm". But knowing this allows me to customise our relationship as we see fit and as it develops and not follow some preconceaved definition.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Thats what makes it very interesting, and difficult at times, to enter this realm. It seems each relationship is individual and can vary widely over the defined "norm". But knowing this allows me to customise our relationship as we see fit and as it develops and not follow some preconceaved definition.

You are absolutely correct. And if for some reason you need a "preconceived definition", there are all kinds of web sites (and our library, too) that will give you those definitions. And I bet lots more elequently than I can. ;-)

 

[Kajira Callista]

Dominant- Dominant

submissive- submissive

Top- Dominant

bottom- submissive

Switch- n/a

Master- Dominant

slave- submissive

 

[graceanne]

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

lol

 

[alice_underneath]

Alice, respectively back, why would you care what MY definition of submissive is? It means absolutely nothing to anyone, BUT me. ;-) And my Dom.

If you only apply the term to yourself, that's true. And I have no wish to intrude on anyone's personal life by asking for definitions here.

However, those who apply these terms to others (either in an affirmation or refutation of their status) presumably employ general definitions of the words.

 

[Marquis]

Dominant- Dominant

submissive- submissive

Top- Dominant

bottom- submissive

Switch- n/a

Master- Dominant

slave- submissive

Nice and simple.

 

[SpectreT]

dunno how I feel about being "n/a"...

 

[Marquis]

dunno how I feel about being "n/a"...

"switches"

Please.

 

[SpectreT]

"switches"

Please.

Elaborate, please.

 

[Marquis]

Elaborate, please.

I group switches in with the bisexuals and psychics.

Suuuuuuuure.

I hate that I have to say this, but I am, of course, kidding. I only offer this to you as a sign of respect for being part of the old guard.

However, deep deep deep deep down I'm probably not kidding.

 

[lne_iii]

switch = psychic????

 

[SpectreT]

This is why I hate labels.

I sure as hell am not "old guard" - that's gay leather BDSM, the original source for the terms "Top" and "Bottom", BTW. (I know, you were referring to my having been part of the M-thread and being one of the original posters in the forum when it was new, but I'll take the opportunity to rant a little, and maybe address a little of the original post as well.)

Quick question - did you read my self-re-introduction in the "new faces" thread? If so, I have to assume throwing in a doubt about bisexuality was another attempt to tweak me. Another quick question - did you read my thread, titled "Switch Space", or did you roll you eyes, blow a dismissive or derisive snort, and pass it over? Mind you, we were all a little giddy at having a whole forum to discuss in, so I was a lot sillier four years ago... I'll forgive any snarkyness at the goofiness of my posts, assuming you wish to read them and maybe get a peek into our minds.

Okay, let's explore the myth that my entire psychosexual makeup is fictional, as you seem to believe, from your remarks. How, and why do you believe there's no such thing as a Switch? Or no such thing as a bisexual? I'd like to know.

edit to add I also noted a quote from De Sade in your sigline. Were you aware he was just as interested in being whipped as doing the whipping? That he was fascinated with buggery, gender not an issue?

 

[Marquis]

did you read my self-re-introduction in the "new faces" thread?

No.

did you read my thread, titled "Switch Space"...?

No.

Not that I have anything against you or either topic, I just haven't read as much as I used to.

How, and why do you believe there's no such thing as a Switch? Or no such thing as a bisexual? I'd like to know.

Because I mostly believe we're all bisexual switches. The way we express our sexuality is heavily influenced by our environment and our genetics, but for the sake of binary logic I think we all have one orientation we will always be more drawn to and more natural with, and the same for a gender that we're attracted to.

This is a crackpot theory at best, but it seems consistent with what I see.

 

[SpectreT]

No.



No.

Not that I have anything against you or either topic, I just haven't read as much as I used to.



Because I mostly believe we're all bisexual switches. The way we express our sexuality is heavily influenced by our environment and our genetics, but for the sake of binary logic I think we all have one orientation we will always be more drawn to and more natural with, and the same for a gender that we're attracted to.

This is a crackpot theory at best, but it seems consistent with what I see.

Okay, my hackles are sufficiently down. I was getting a little cranky, there.

I have some points on which I agree, though I'd phrase them differently.

To keep it simple enough for me to remember what I'm talking about, I'll stick to one variable at a time.

I think of sexuality as sliding scales, like you'll find in many computer programs. Picture one with "Heterosexual" at on end and "Homosexual" at the other. I believe you'll find people all over the place on that sliding scale, and a frequency distribution chart would look something like a two-humped camel. Not much at the far ends or in the exact center, but higher frequencies in between; same for Dominance and submission, and let's not get into all the flavors of that.

As to sexuality, empirically, I have nowhere near enough information, so I'm forced to fall back on offering my own self-analysis as a piece of anecdotal evidence - near worthless scientifically, but illustrative none the less. It may even support your beliefs.

Romantically, I'm drawn to the feminine. Note I didn't say women. A really passable CD, for example, would push my buttons just as much as an actual woman. The masculine, not so much. More like camaraderie and some sexual fun, is where I fall on that score.

On the D/S thing; I tend to fill in where there's a need. If the person I'm with is subby, my dominant side emerges. If the person I'm with is dominant, my submissive side shows up. I don't seem to have a strong orientation one way or the other, beyond the social conditioning that says males should be assertive. A social conditioning that's easily overthrown, for me, I might add. Some guys never get around it, though.

edited to correct some spelling issues

 

[serijules]

I was asked to write an essay on this topic once a few years ago and I did. In re-reading it, I'm wondering why I never posted the edited version on my website...I was having a love affair with commas that night. Excuse the mistakes if you actually read the damn thing.

*ahem* anyhow, my opinion on some of the labels has changed a bit but for the most part, this sums up (in a very long winded manner) how I define each role. I wrote it to include the spanko lifestyle moreso though because it was for a spanko publication and I have since discovered that my view from a spanko lifestyle and from that of a BDSM lifestyle is a bit different, which is kind of interesting.

What's in a Label?

 

[jadefirefly]

I dunno... I don't think I could ever bring myself to label someone -else-. I'm too touchy about what I think of myself as being -- regardless of the venue in question -- to assume someone else is happy with what I want to call them.




Well unless I'm just calling someone a bitch. Then it's okay.


Anyhoo, I consider myself a sub. I'm happy to call myself this. Anyone else is welcome to call me what they wish -- it doesn't mean I -am- what they call me.

A rose by any other name and all that crap.

 

[Master_of_Pupets]

maybe im just stupid...

maybe im just stupid but maybe the whole question here is really what such terms or labels mean to the individual, and how it varies person to person. The whole trying to see things from a different perspective. Did any of that make any sense or am i just rambling?

On a slightly different note, as a newbie i sometimes wonder about some of the shortened forms of terms and their significance. Maybe i just needs to spend more time reading posts ect.