spring wrote:
"I hate those smarmy lists like 'what a real dom is/isn't,' and 'guides for a true/natural submissive,' and 'natural submissives vs bedroom submissives' or 'submissives vs slaves' discussions.
They seem ok on the surface, like nice little guidelines to aim for, but when you really think about it, it's just another list of what a 'true' dom/sub is, and if you're not doing/acting what's on the list, then you're not 'there/real/doing it the right way.' "
This whole subject is really tricky and there have been endless debates about it whether there is a need or a force to any standards. I end up differentiating it as follows:
If there is a community, then there is some legitimacy to the concept of standards, norms, etc. If there is no community (or one is not a part of any community) then it is a totally one on one endeavor and standards and norms and terms like "true" submissive, etc., have no particular meaning.
Note that the community in question can be virtual. Since few people live in Gorean communes, The Other World Kingdom, The Estate, or The Femdom Ranch and Basket Weaving Cooperative, the notion of in-person community for most is severely limited. That's both a good and a bad thing. Since people feel invincible in what feels like the total anonymity of on-line, personality traits tend to get magnified. (For whatever reason the bad ones seem to get magnified more.) The norms that regulate in-person conduct are absent; in an arena like D/s that's emotionally charged to begin with that's especially dangerous, potentially.
So what about those lists, in this largely community-free existence?
I think spring had it right with her first impression: they are just nice little guidelines. Often when someone is writing about a topic that he or she is passionate about, the writing can take on a preachy, or dictatorial, or condescending tone.
But if one can separate out the tone, the passion, the incredible excitement that someone often feels after discovering the thing that makes his or her secret desire suddenly, magically seem OK, then honestly more often than not what you have is a bunch of motherhood and apple pie nice little guidelines. Common-sense things to aspire to.
A Ferrari and a Yugo require very different levels and kinds of maintenance, but both are capable of doing 60 in a 25 mph zone, and it's an equally bad idea for both. The speed limit sign doesn't offend us because it has no tone. If the sign said "if you were a truly good driver you'd be doing 25" the underlying message might be the same but there would be a lot of pissed-off drivers and nervous pedestrians.
4 comments:
An endless topic, to be sure.
Despite what one might think, from my occasional discussion of different types of submission, Dominance, etc., on my blog, I don't see value in 'normative' lists or definitions for their own sakes.
In some cases, though, it is useful, for purposes of understanding someone else's perspectives, comments, etc., to further describe and understand what they seem to mean by a term like "submissive," "slave," etc. I wrote recently that it is really only when we attempt to communicate our thoughts and ideas to others about this that the need for terms really arises.
That said, as you and I have discussed before, in chats and posts/comments, I'm not much for the 'community' aspect of standards in FemDom.
I find myself to be "submissive to" a Domina, not just "submissive" to anyone, or in the eyes of a group. Although, if you meant something more Nozickian, temporal and narrowly-focused as an 'association' solely for the purposes of, say, FemDom, in a specific context, then that might work.
So, I guess I'd conclude with observing that it is best when there are no value judgments implied by any type of definitions or descriptors of various terms in FemDom or bdsm. But that doesn't mean there are not situations in which some inquiry into people's behavior in a FemDom relationship doesn't benefit from understanding the types of relationship, the nature of the activities, the descriptors of the roles, in order to better comprehend the situation.
i think lists especially on this topic are inconclusive.
i find so many shades in this domain. i am not a true "sub" if you go by whatever definitions others go by. i am probably not a true "switch" either.
i try hard to be what i am. i do not want to restrict nor deny myself by a definition or list.
i love what i have with E and V. i love that we define our sexualities with each other and that we are able to do it with confidence.
i find walking to your own pace is the best. it keeps me and those around me happy.
i always like to think "lists" and "definitions" are for the tourists that don't know nor get it.
I think "shared vocabulary" is useful. It facilitates communication. So, IF we have some common understanding of what we all mean when we use terms like "submissive," or "Dominant," or "TPE," then it is easier (theoretically) for us to talk to each other. Of course, IF we all have some common idea of what we all mean when we use the word "tree," the same thing is true. The difference is that we usually do not load the word "tree" with a lot of baggage and judgement and weighted status. For most of us, there is no one "right" way to have or see a tree (unless it is holiday time).
I think you have it right that a lot of it is about tone. We often lose our ability to communicate when we start comparing and judging and measuring. That is really just too bad.
swan
Post a Comment