labels (I know, not a good thing) for introductions.

[Rox_shybutcurious]

I'm not real happy with the title, but couldn't come up with something better to get to the meat of my question. Sorry.

This is inspired by some comments in another thread, but I wanted to set it up on it's own so it didn't get lost in that one.

I've seen several posts about not placing specific labels and that makes sense to me. Too much potential for contraversy in trying to determine what behavior would come under what title and who gets to decide and the degrees necessary, etc. etc... As Papilllon said elsewhere so many shades of gray. But doesn't there have to be some level of defining involved. Especially if your new. For instance if you're meeting a group within the lifestyle for the 1st time, or say a munch, aren't you at some point going to want to identifiy yourself as something specific? Be it Dom, sub, Top, bottom, in between or something totally different?

Thanks,
Rox.

 

[serijules]

/ rant

I think labels have a great and valid place in the lifestyle, and I get really exasperated when people become so inflexible they completely abandon the positives that labels offer (like the whole PYL/pyl thing....just shoot me!) Using a word to describe someone doesn't mean you are forcing your ideals on them or making them something they are not. The only person that can really break that down is that person themselves. There is nothing hard to understand or accept about this...so if you use labels for communications purpose, just keep in mind that the other person may have different views and leave it at that.

I like to think that most people are mature enough and open minded enough to realize that if someone introduces themselves as a slave or a Master or whathaveyou, it may not necessarily match your own definition of the same label. I like to think that people are intelligent enough to be able to use "dominant" or "submissive" in a generalized nature without having people get all up in arms about how it doesn't fit them. So I tend to use labels under the impression that the people I am communicating with are intelligent, mature beings without hang-ups over something as simple as a label.

I do have issues with people labeling OTHERS and fitting them into pigeonholes they don't belong in. Saying "you are not a slave because slaves act like this or that" is a form of labeling that I don't tolerate. Using labels as a way to communicate to others your chosen role or to try to hook up with others that may share similar interests with you is perfectly acceptable (and quite normal). If I address a post to the "submissives out there", I am addressing anyone out there that takes on any type of role with submissive or bottom characteristics, be it a slave, a daughter/son, an ageplayer, a masochist, a spankee, a puppy, a pony or a switch.

You would be hard pressed to communicate your roles, interests and desires with a group of people without using labels in some form. Some people try it, and end up coming across like they havn't a clue on earth what they are trying to say, much less getting that point across to others.

Soo...yes, I'm a fan of labels. I'm not a fan of abuse of labels. Simple as that.

/ end rant

 

[Rox_shybutcurious]

/ rant


You would be hard pressed to communicate your roles, interests and desires with a group of people without using labels in some form. Some people try it, and end up coming across like they havn't a clue on earth what they are trying to say, much less getting that point across to others.

Soo...yes, I'm a fan of labels. I'm not a fan of abuse of labels. Simple as that.

/ end rant

Thank you serijules, that actually makes a lot of sense to me. I appreciate your input.

Rox.

 

[papilllon]

In other words, various people within the larger BDSM community use these words in varying ways to describe their own or other relationships. It's a little disconcerting to begin to read something, perhaps a well-written and insightful post here in this forum, and then stumble over the meaning because certain words are being used in a way that contradicts the way you understand them.

This is why I have come to appreciate the use of PYL and pyl. The simple distinction between capitalized and non-capitalized sets the two descriptors at opposite ends of the BDSM spectrum. And for the most part, people in conscious BDSM relationships operate from the two sides of the middle ground.

This makes sense to me.

I think we all find a label that defines us better than all the others, but it does so, at least for some of us, in a very general way. I'd say I'm a sub but another sub or a dominant person may consider I'm not that. Just for example, if you look at the way people usually define submission in here vs. on the Taken in hand website, you will find that it usually differs on some crucial aspects.

As JMohegan stated, labels can be useful, but you still have to define what it means to you for people to really understand who you are.

I still feel though that when I say I'm submissive, it does not give a cristal clear idea of what type of relationship I want. But unless I want to start explaining what I mean each time I post, I suppose submissive will have to be good enough.

 

[FurryFury]

I'd go with the truth as I saw it. "I'm just starting out, right now I see myself as a sub though I do top from time to time in order to please my man." (In my case.)

Fury

 

[Rox_shybutcurious]

I'd go with the truth as I saw it. "I'm just starting out, right now I see myself as a sub though I do top from time to time in order to please my man." (In my case.)

Fury

Thank you Fury, I like this. It gives enough information to be understood without having to go into lengthy explanations that would be suited for a one on one with an individual you might be interested in.

Rox.

 

[FurryFury]

Thank you Fury, I like this. It gives enough information to be understood without having to go into lengthy explanations that would be suited for a one on one with an individual you might be interested in.

Rox.

My pleasure Rox!

*smiles*

Fury

 

[papilllon]

I think labels have a great and valid place in the lifestyle, and I get really exasperated when people become so inflexible they completely abandon the positives that labels offer (like the whole PYL/pyl thing....just shoot me!)

I have to admit I don't quite understand why you seem so angry about this. So far, the posts I have written and read from others on that subject didn't seem arrogant or disrespectul, in my opinion, towards people who find labels important in their relationship. I've said it and I'll repeat it, if it is of value to them, then they should use those terms.

I like to think that people are intelligent enough to be able to use "dominant" or "submissive" in a generalized nature without having people get all up in arms about how it doesn't fit them.
/ end rant

You disagree with the way I see things and it's o.k. Life would be boring if everybody thought the same thing all the time.

I'm not sure your post was aimed at one specific person but I have to admit it came accross as a bit insulting though. To not consider labels that important does not mean people are not intelligent enough...

In my lifestyle, labels doesn't matter. The key word here being "my" lifestyle. It doesn't mean yours is less valid than mine but it sure does not mean that people for whom labels are not important are in the wrong. There is just no right and wrong, just what works for us personnally. Many people. Many points of view.

 

[Rox_shybutcurious]

I still feel though that when I say I'm submissive, it does not give a cristal clear idea of what type of relationship I want. But unless I want to start explaining what I mean each time I post, I suppose submissive will have to be good enough.

Papilllon, do you feel if you say you're a sub, not necessarily on the boards, but in meeting new people that there's a certain behavior expected of you? Just curious as I've actually never met anybody in person that I've known was in the lifestyle.

Thanks,
Rox.

 

[papilllon]

Papilllon, do you feel if you say you're a sub, not necessarily on the boards, but in meeting new people that there's a certain behavior expected of you? Just curious as I've actually never met anybody in person that I've known was in the lifestyle.

Thanks,
Rox.

I have only had one relationship in person that was a D/s one, but yes, a certain behavior was expected of me though no specific rules had been given in the beginning. We had talked a lot already and the dynamic of the relationship was there. When I met him, it was very natural, instinctive I would say. He felt dominant to me so I acted in a submissive way. I know I wouldn't react to everybody this way just because they are dominant but that's how it worked with him.

 

[serijules]

I have to admit I don't quite understand why you seem so angry about this. So far, the posts I have written and read from others on that subject didn't seem arrogant or disrespectul, in my opinion, towards people who find labels important in their relationship. I've said it and I'll repeat it, if it is of value to them, then they should use those terms.



You disagree with the way I see things and it's o.k. Life would be boring if everybody thought the same thing all the time.

I'm not sure your post was aimed at one specific person but I have to admit it came accross as a bit insulting though. To not consider labels that important does not mean people are not intelligent enough...

In my lifestyle, labels doesn't matter. The key word here being "my" lifestyle. It doesn't mean yours is less valid than mine but it sure does not mean that people for whom labels are not important are in the wrong. There is just no right and wrong, just what works for us personnally. Many people. Many points of view.

Not angry, exasperated

And I didn't say or mean to imply that those that don't use labels are not "intelligent" enough, I meant to imply that people who have a tantrum every time someone uses a label or insist they were somehow violated by the use of them are not, IMO, acting very mature or intelligent. That's childish behaviour that unforuntately a lot of adults display. I do find the PYL/pyl thing annoying just as I find other forms of netspeak annoying, but I don't claim any sort of violation. I just ignore it (unless a thread comes up specifically discussing the topic, like this one )

I don't find labels of much importance either, other that they are handy for communication purposes...my point was that sometimes people spend so much effort and time either trying to define something that is extremely flexible and personal, or spend just as much effort and time avoiding them that they end up not making a whole lot of sense. It all seems very unnecessary to me. It's not that big of a deal. What exasperates me is when people MAKE it a bigger deal than it ever had any need to be.

My reply was absolutely not directed at one person or even at this forum in particular...it's a fairly common problem in the lifestyle for rifts and issues to exist over labels. I've always found this exasperating, no matter who is doing it. The original poster asked for opinions....my opinion is what I gave.

 

[Rox_shybutcurious]

I have only had one relationship in person that was a D/s one, but yes, a certain behavior was expected of me though no specific rules had been given in the beginning. We had talked a lot already and the dynamic of the relationship was there. When I met him, it was very natural, instinctive I would say. He felt dominant to me so I acted in a submissive way. I know I wouldn't react to everybody this way just because they are dominant but that's how it worked with him.

Thanks for sharing. This is all working towards helping me figure things out and I appreciate everybody's time.

Rox.

 

[papilllon]

Thanks for sharing. This is all working towards helping me figure things out and I appreciate everybody's time.

Rox.

No problem.

I would do things differently now though and just be friends before letting things go further. At least, that experience sure has helped me to better understand my needs and that's the positive aspect of it.

 

[Rox_shybutcurious]

No problem.

I would do things differently now though and just be friends before letting things go further. At least, that experience sure has helped me to better understand my needs and that's the positive aspect of it.

Kind of a cycle there. Trying to figure out your needs, to know what your getting into, but hoping the experience will help you define those needs without getting yourself into trouble through inexperience. Or something like that.... LOL

I'm grateful for places like this to pick peoples brains for their experiences....

Rox.

 

[neonflux]

Hi Rox, I like this question as I am working to figure it all out. My first contacts with BDSM were in RL, where I think that labels as part of an introduction are important as a way to "place" someone, particularly if one is exploring the possibility of play or even just exhange regarding techniques, etc. I don't think that I've ever run across a situation where someone expected a particular behavior from me in RL because of how I identify. Nor would I ever, ever assume I knew anything beyond the role a person takes in play/relationships based on how they define themselves, not even in terms of their desires - every individual is different, every individual's desires are unique, every individual expresses her/his desires in ways that are specific to themselves. That said, knowing someone's self-definition helpas someone in another thread mentioned

I'm not real happy with the title, but couldn't come up with something better to get to the meat of my question. Sorry.

This is inspired by some comments in another thread, but I wanted to set it up on it's own so it didn't get lost in that one.

I've seen several posts about not placing specific labels and that makes sense to me. Too much potential for contraversy in trying to determine what behavior would come under what title and who gets to decide and the degrees necessary, etc. etc... As Papilllon said elsewhere so many shades of gray. But doesn't there have to be some level of defining involved. Especially if your new. For instance if you're meeting a group within the lifestyle for the 1st time, or say a munch, aren't you at some point going to want to identifiy yourself as something specific? Be it Dom, sub, Top, bottom, in between or something totally different?

Thanks,
Rox.

 

[neonflux]

I do have issues with people labeling OTHERS and fitting them into pigeonholes they don't belong in. Saying "you are not a slave because slaves act like this or that" is a form of labeling that I don't tolerate. Using labels as a way to communicate to others your chosen role or to try to hook up with others that may share similar interests with you is perfectly acceptable (and quite normal).

I agree totally!!!

I think we all find a label that defines us better than all the others, but it does so, at least for some of us, in a very general way. I'd say I'm a sub but another sub or a dominant person may consider I'm not that... As JMohegan stated, labels can be useful, but you still have to define what it means to you for people to really understand who you are... I still feel though that when I say I'm submissive, it does not give a cristal clear idea of what type of relationship I want.

Sometimes I think is is the "unsubtle mind" that jumps to conclusions about what someone means by their self definitions. I don't think that I've ever run across a situation where someone expected a particular behavior from me or someone else in RL because of how I/they identify. Nor would I ever assume I knew anything beyond the role a person takes in play/relationships based on how they define themselves - every individual is different, every individual's desires are unique, every individual expresses her/his desires in ways that are specific to themselves. And I agree that knowing someone's self-definition helps to establish a reference point for exploration and discovery, but that is what I think that it should be viewed as - a reference point.

I've seen several posts about not placing specific labels and that makes sense to me. Too much potential for contraversy in trying to determine what behavior would come under what title and who gets to decide and the degrees necessary, etc. etc... As Papilllon said elsewhere so many shades of gray. But doesn't there have to be some level of defining involved. Especially if your new. For instance if you're meeting a group within the lifestyle for the 1st time, or say a munch, aren't you at some point going to want to identifiy yourself as something specific? Be it Dom, sub, Top, bottom, in between or something totally different?

Hi Rox, I like this question as I am working to figure it all out. My first contacts with BDSM were in RL, where I think that labels as part of an introduction are important as a way to "place" someone, particularly if one is exploring the possibility of play or even just exhange regarding techniques, etc. Someone in another thread mentioned that I've been lucky having never experienced prejudices or being "boxed" in by my self-definitions. Perhaps it's also a part of SF-Bay Area culture, or queer culture, or being switch, I don't know for sure...

I am beginning to believe that something very different happens online - not here, at least among regular posters who are a very decent and respectful bunch - but elsewhere. I've had my profile on Alt for a while now - looking for a woman (somehow, it's just easier online to explain my herpes status, which I feel obligated to tell people about right away). I am clear in my profile that I'm switch AND that I'm looking for a woman AND that I'm not interested in online/long distance relationships. I also express clearly that one of my firm limits is verbal humiliation. My photos include one of my back after a really nice flogging, btw/

Today, finally understood on a visceral level (have always understood it intellectually) the outrage that other women have posted regarding being contacted by "Doms" who made assumptions about who they were. This man in his email wrote (he's Italian, thus some of the odd sentence structure): "I love the role of master, it appeals to to me to explore the body of my slave and to use it for my pleasure. I’m looking for a girl, straight or bi-sex with high attitude in submissive sex. A sub who'd love to share with me the pleasure of safe s/m and sex submission too, i like sweet slut sub asian woman,also woman until to 65 but very slut, for exchange ideas, opinions by email."

Did I answer the question???

Neon

 

[Rox_shybutcurious]

I agree totally!!!

Sometimes I think is is the "unsubtle mind" that jumps to conclusions about what someone means by their self definitions. I don't think that I've ever run across a situation where someone expected a particular behavior from me or someone else in RL because of how I/they identify. Nor would I ever assume I knew anything beyond the role a person takes in play/relationships based on how they define themselves - every individual is different, every individual's desires are unique, every individual expresses her/his desires in ways that are specific to themselves. And I agree that knowing someone's self-definition helps to establish a reference point for exploration and discovery, but that is what I think that it should be viewed as - a reference point.



Neon

Thanks Neon, this does help. And I'm glad to hear that, so far, the consensus is that there isn't necessarily an expectation of specific behavior based on how you identify yourself. One less thing to be concerned about if I ever get to the point of talking myself into contacting the local group.

Thanks again,
Rox.

 

[papilllon]

Thanks Neon, this does help. And I'm glad to hear that, so far, the consensus is that there isn't necessarily an expectation of specific behavior based on how you identify yourself. One less thing to be concerned about if I ever get to the point of talking myself into contacting the local group.

Thanks again,
Rox.

I think serious people would always discuss and take the time to find out what a partner really wants, what are his or her limits, etc. and don't take anything granted just from a label.

But I have heard of groups in Montréal who do have expectations of how a sub must act, even on a first conversation, and will simply consider you un-submissive if you don't fit that specific mold : very strict rules, a code of conduct, etc. Now, I was never a member of these groups so I can't say for sure it's how it works with them, but I was cautionned by different people to be careful.

What I do know for sure though, is that everytime I have posted a personal ad looking for a D/s relationship (never here, but on a french web site for people in Montréal), many things were usually assumed and I was told over and over again that I was not a submissive because "this" or "that" wasn't something I was willing to do or because I wasn't willing to call them "Master".

Just keep in mind that you will probably discuss with all kinds of people and some of them will have expectations.

This forum is amazing because there are so many experienced people here that take what they do seriously and would not just assume anything from a label. This is by far the best D/s forum I have found.

 

[SpectreT]

Meh.

Labels are a necessary evil. Every last one of them is murky and begging for misinterpretation and/or misrepresentation, if only because no two minds will be using the exact same definition for the same word.

Hell, a really good friend of mine and I can't even agree on a color in a particular poster. He calls it purple, when it's really a deep navy blue. Purple actually needs some red in it. This color isn't even indigo, I swear...

Sorry. I digress.

The other side is, without words (or other symbols), Communication is impossible. So we need labels, even when they're inadequate or not absolutely correct. As I've said elsewhere, I call myself a Bi Switch, even though I'd really only consider myself a 2 on the Kinsey scale, and my switching is in part a function of reaction to conscious and subconscious cues I get from people I'm interacting with, and in smaller part a function of my own current moods and desires. I'm never "in the middle" for real, which is what some people seem to want to define "Switch" as, nor am I equally attracted to men and women, though that's what some people want to define "Bi" as. Heck, to some people, by saying "Bi Switch", they interpret that as "Gay Submissive in denial".

So labels are slippery bastards, but we can't escape them.

 

[serijules]

Meh.

Labels are a necessary evil. Every last one of them is murky and begging for misinterpretation and/or misrepresentation, if only because no two minds will be using the exact same definition for the same word.

Hell, a really good friend of mine and I can't even agree on a color in a particular poster. He calls it purple, when it's really a deep navy blue. Purple actually needs some red in it. This color isn't even indigo, I swear...

Sorry. I digress.

The other side is, without words (or other symbols), Communication is impossible. So we need labels, even when they're inadequate or not absolutely correct. As I've said elsewhere, I call myself a Bi Switch, even though I'd really only consider myself a 2 on the Kinsey scale, and my switching is in part a function of reaction to conscious and subconscious cues I get from people I'm interacting with, and in smaller part a function of my own current moods and desires. I'm never "in the middle" for real, which is what some people seem to want to define "Switch" as, nor am I equally attracted to men and women, though that's what some people want to define "Bi" as. Heck, to some people, by saying "Bi Switch", they interpret that as "Gay Submissive in denial".

So labels are slippery bastards, but we can't escape them.

You said that well.

One of the largest reasons that attempts to avoid using labels in the lifestyle bothers me is because we use labels every day in our lives on a near constant basis...so I don't understand the point of trying to avoid them in a kink context.

I often identify as a lesbian even though I am probably more bi-sexual than anything since I DO enjoy sexual acts with men. I consider myself a lesbian because I identify that "label" as being more than just sex. I am attracted to women on not only a sexual basis, but an emotional one. I am not attracted to men emotionally past friendly affection. I have no desire to be in a relationship with a man, consider one a lover, or invest my time and admiration and love into being with a man. I just enjoy having a cock in my ass or mouth. I get a lot off grief for not being a "real" lesbian for this, but I feel that bi-sexual is even more inaccurate because those sexual moments with men are very very few and far between and as I said, involve no emotional attachment beyound friendship (and often not even that because I usually don't even know who they are as Ma'am enjoys watching me be used and is the one to arrange it.) To me, sexual identity is not defined purely by sexual acts alone, but emotional ones as well.

So labels can be as limiting as they are useful and are unendingly flexible, but we still use them often, every day in all walks of our lives. It just seems a waste of time to me to try to avoid them.

 

[neonflux]

Heck, to some people, by saying "Bi Switch", they interpret that as "Gay Submissive in denial".

SpectreT, you have NO idea how much this had me LOL... and how much I identify with it! as to labels being a necessary evil, I definitely agree...

But I have heard of groups in Montréal who do have expectations of how a sub must act, even on a first conversation, and will simply consider you un-submissive if you don't fit that specific mold : very strict rules, a code of conduct, etc. Now, I was never a member of these groups so I can't say for sure it's how it works with them, but I was cautionned by different people to be careful.

What I do know for sure though, is that everytime I have posted a personal ad looking for a D/s relationship (never here, but on a french web site for people in Montréal), many things were usually assumed and I was told over and over again that I was not a submissive because "this" or "that" wasn't something I was willing to do or because I wasn't willing to call them "Master".

Coming from "anything goes and everyone is soooooo individual San Francisco, I find this idea of strict rules, even within the context of an ad, fascinating (there are houses/bdsm families here too, modeled on the old gay men's leather community families, where protocols are very strict).

This forum is amazing because there are so many experienced people here that take what they do seriously and would not just assume anything from a label. This is by far the best D/s forum I have found.

I completely agree, this form is populated by absolute mensches !

 

[SpectreT]

You said that well.

One of the largest reasons that attempts to avoid using labels in the lifestyle bothers me is because we use labels every day in our lives on a near constant basis...so I don't understand the point of trying to avoid them in a kink context.

Thanks.

I often identify as a lesbian even though I am probably more bi-sexual than anything since I DO enjoy sexual acts with men. I consider myself a lesbian because I identify that "label" as being more than just sex. I am attracted to women on not only a sexual basis, but an emotional one. I am not attracted to men emotionally past friendly affection. I have no desire to be in a relationship with a man, consider one a lover, or invest my time and admiration and love into being with a man. I just enjoy having a cock in my ass or mouth. I get a lot off grief for not being a "real" lesbian for this, but I feel that bi-sexual is even more inaccurate because those sexual moments with men are very very few and far between and as I said, involve no emotional attachment beyound friendship (and often not even that because I usually don't even know who they are as Ma'am enjoys watching me be used and is the one to arrange it.) To me, sexual identity is not defined purely by sexual acts alone, but emotional ones as well.

So labels can be as limiting as they are useful and are unendingly flexible, but we still use them often, every day in all walks of our lives. It just seems a waste of time to me to try to avoid them.

That bolded part hits it on the head for me, as far as men go. I have to admit, I'm still grinning over that, and the "No emotional attachment beyond friendship." remark. (though the parenthetical doesn't apply at the moment) Interesting to see my own attitude mirrored on the other side of the infamous gender gap.

 

[Netzach]

D, T.

Switchable, but kind of in the sense that seri said, "sometimes I just feel like a cock in my ass" sometimes I just feel like taking orders or something, but it never lasts and it's not where I want to live.

 

[MasterPhoenix]

/ rant

I think labels have a great and valid place in the lifestyle, and I get really exasperated when people become so inflexible they completely abandon the positives that labels offer (like the whole PYL/pyl thing....just shoot me!) Using a word to describe someone doesn't mean you are forcing your ideals on them or making them something they are not. The only person that can really break that down is that person themselves. There is nothing hard to understand or accept about this...so if you use labels for communications purpose, just keep in mind that the other person may have different views and leave it at that.
>>>SNIPP<<<<

Soo...yes, I'm a fan of labels. I'm not a fan of abuse of labels. Simple as that.

/ end rant

Great post, and I completely agree.