On Labels and Such

Lady Julia recently wrote:

"Earlier tonight, I read a comment in which someone was explaining what a "genuine submissive" would do in a particular situation. The crux of the statement was, if you're a genuine well-trained submissive, you won't be that effected by your own orgasm.

First of all, whenever I read the phrase "a real submissive" (a real Domme, etc) or something similiar, I want to bang my head on something hard. Well, actually, I want to bang someone else's head on something hard ;) (Now you know I'm just kidding ... sort of). Frequently I'll hear people in the D/s, LFA (Loving Female Authority), BDSM lifestyles profess they think the vanilla world should loosen up and be more open-minded to alternative ways of looking at things - yet often they are just as quick to create a different but equally constrictive box within the lifestyle. Is there such a thing as a "real" Domme or a "real" submissive? If there is, I want to know who set the definition :) "

Well, let Me say this about that.

I am a guilty party here, I suppose, since I do frequently make a distinction between a fetishist, and a "true" submissive. Why do I engage in this apparently egregious behavior?

It's not to create a box, at least not in the negative sense. But some . . . personal blog background is necessary here for this to make sense.

This blog is not a "reportage" or "erotica" type of blog. While I find those often interesting (many are well-written, exciting, funny, and genuinely erotic), I'm after something different here (presumably everyone's open-mindedness allows for that LOL). And in order to that, to write about D/s the way I write about it, it's necessary to attempt to define certain things, to make certain distinctions.

And here is the crux of the matter: These defintions and distinctions are not made to judge, constrict, denigrate, belittle, or marginalize any person or any person's definition of themselves or of their relationship/situation. They are made solely so that there is some basis on which to construct rational arguments and foster further comment based on more-or-less agreed-upon terms.

The words "more or less agreed upon" are the key there. I do not expect to create be-all and end-all defintions of certian terms. That would be a futile effort, and certainly reasonable people can and will disagree. But, certain terms can and should carry a meaning that is more or less commonly understood. An example.

Consider two people. Person A's D/s life consists of going to fetish clubs and getting flogged by strangers or relative strangers. Person A is perfectly sane, happy, and satisfied with his or her activities and overall situation. Person B is a live-in submissive in a long-term relationship with his or her Dom/me, and serves both sexually and non-sexually. Person B is also sane, happy, etc.

Now, without judging anyone's kink, and respecting Person A's choices in life, it's simply silly to assert that there is no qualitative difference in the D/s lives of Person A and Person B. They can be categorized, not for the purposes of dehumanizing them, but simply for the purpose of being able to discuss those qualitative differences. And there is value in being able to discuss those. Now, to Me, I'm not uncomfy with referring to Person A as a pain slut and Person B as a "true" submissive -- becasue I use those terms non-judgementally, and because most people can appreciate the qualitative difference, even if they might quibble with the exact terms of the labels used. They intuitively understand the overall accuracy of the term without necessarily buying into every item of what the laundry list for those terms might be.

Perhaps the problem lies in the word "true" or "genuine." We have come to a point in our society where complimenting one person/group is somehow seen as implicity denigrating all other people/groups who were not explicitly complimented. While I can understand that that's the way things tend to be now, I have to say that's simply a lazy thought process at work. The words "genuine" and "true" have an inherently positive implication -- in our relentlessly self-esteem driven society, apparently anyone not referred to in such a manner feels justifed in taking that as a slight. OK, I think it's a silly way to go through life, but I use the term "true submissive" because most people get the intended sense from it when I use it, and I don't want to spend the time trying to think up an alternative.

Anyway, that's My take on it. I judge no one's kink (the obvious despicable stuff --again we all know what those are -- aside). But I do need to able to draw distinctions, when said dinstinctions are accurate, useful, and engender more/better dicussion and understanding.