Tag: terms
Here’s a snippit of my latest post on The Femme’s Guide, though you’ll have to go there to finish it.
Much by accident I just came across this quote:
Marilyn was revered as a tigress, but she was loved (and pitied) as a kitten. In that sense her sexuality did not present a challenge; vulnerability made her manageable–it guaranteed her femininity.
The threat of other lustful man-killers is diminished by intimations of their androgyny. Mae West looked all girl but her style was decidedly butch. “It’s [men’s] game,” she says with trademark smarminess of her multiple, casual seductions in She Done Him Wrong. “I happen to be smart enough to play it their way.” Marlene Dietrich in tux and top hat is also both hyperfeminine and faux homme, a man in drag in drag. –My Enemy, My Love By Judith Levine p. 92
It goes on to talk about the book’s real point in bringing this up: the antipode to the Seducer or femme fatale, The Slave. But, that’s not really what intrigued me about it. I especially love this line: Mae West looked all girl but her style was decidedly butch. It is an angle I hadn’t really contemplated before, but basically Mae West as femme. It’s pretty damn obvious now that I’m thinking about it, but it just wasn’t a connection I’d made before. Though she wasn’t queer in the sense of sleeping with women, but she did have an affinity toward gay men and wrote The Drag.
The two ways used to describe Mae West and Marlene Dietrich are both incredibly queer, while Marilyn Monroe is more of an archetype for traditional femininity. Mae West was femme in look, butch in action, or simply a description of a type of queer femininity, or simply femmeininity. Marlene Dietrich was a man in drag in drag, a queer masculinity on a female body so that it is not the same as masculine because it is also overtly feminine.
So I, basically, shun the word “slave” as many of you may know, and yet I still use the term Master. I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately, and the more I think about it the less I like the term “Master.” It implies some of the same things that “slave” does, only from the other end of it, my problem thus far as been the lack of a better term.
The terms Sir and Lord just are not that appealing to me either. I can appreciate the appeal, but I just don’t have a strong tie to either of them, so they don’t do much for me. While I can understand the desire for either, neither of them click with me, they don’t seem quite fitting. I hear Sir flung around like crazy online, and Lord just seems like a little much.
I like the term Owner, it’s a little more neutral than Master, though has similar connotations, not all of them bad, however. Owner is closer to what I want than Master is, but it’s still not quite right. It sounds strange to call someone Owner, such as “Owner just said something funny,” it doesn’t quite work the same way Master does, it just sounds a little funny.
I like the term Dominus as well, technically it means both Lord and Master, and doesn’t have all the same connotations as Master or even Owner does. I talked extensively about my use of the term Domina just last Sunday, and I feel similarly with the term Dominus, it’s regal and delicious. I left the post by asking about why people don’t use the term Dominus, and maybe I will begin to. The problem with Dominus is similar to Owner, “Dominus just said something funny,” sounds strange as well. Perhaps I just need to either shift my perspective on it, or choose one.
The biggest component of this, really, is how Master/Owner/Dominus feels about it. I haven’t really talked to him about it, but I plan on it. I like referring to him by a title, as he is the only one which I do call by a title. It takes a lot for me to call someone by a title, just as it takes a lot for me to say anything which I mean and which could make me in the least bit vulnerable. He is one of the few people that I have ever called Master, and possibly the last.
Semantics Sunday is the day for me to write my own definition of a word, how I feel about a word, and how it relates to me personally and my own identities. This could be anything sexual, gender, bdsm, and poly/relationship oriented, or anything else I feel like throwing in. This is simply my definition and understanding of the word, and not meant to be the only definition that is or could be. If you have an alternate definition, if you agree with my interpretation, or if you have something to add which I left out or which needs correcting, feel free to let me know in the comments!
For my first Semantics Sunday I figured I should use a word that is near and dear to my heart. Since I have already given my lengthy definition of cuntpet I decided I should focus on the other of my identities: Domina.
I recently created a new channel on irc.bondage.com, where I am quite frequently, called #Fiery_Dominas. This is the first channel with Domina in the channel name, which is part of the reason why I started it, however it has inspired comments such as “What is dominas? Dommes plural?” which is relatively ridiculous considering for one thing, Dommes is Domme plural, and for another thing Domina is a fantastic and real Latin word, unlike Domme, which is a slang term.
Now, on one hand, I feel there is nothing wrong with slang terms, and think that they should be used and incorporated, and Domme basically incorporates Dom and Femme (as in french for female, not queer femme), which is not horrible in general, and is rather logical. However, now that I have discovered and embraced Domina, Domme sounds silly to me, it is nowhere near as linguistically luscious or regal-sounding as Domina is, and it doesn’t inspire the same awe. I also feel that Domina is a much more feminine term than Domme, which is partly why I’m so partial to it as well.
Basically, Domina comes from the Latin root dom- found in other such words as dominate, domify, domicile, and domestic, as well as domin- such as dominant and dominus. From various sources I find that “dom-” actually relates to a household or realm, and the actual Latin translation of Domina or Dominus (the male counterpart), is “Lady or Lord of the house/realm.” This makes sense, considering dom- relating also to words such as domicile and domestic. The prefix domin- alone (supposedly) indicates regal status, such as Lady/Lord, or Mistress/Master, which is why Domina is the feminine and Dominus is the masculine (the suffix -a being feminine, and the suffix -us being masculine).
This brings us to the question, if we use Dom and not Dominus, why should we use Domina and not Domme? Well, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t ever use Domme, I’m just saying that I don’t want to use Domme, and furthermore, we could use Dominus as well, should a male dominant desire to be called that. I’m not going to condemn others for using the term Domme, but I do not identify with the term and will not be using it for myself or for others unless specifically requested.
A fast-write to help me with my paper, and to entertain you all, of course.
How is it empowering to be a female submissive in a heterosexual relationship? That’s the question, really, and sometimes I’m not sure how to answer it. Although I feel empowered within my relationship, in many ways, it’s also a question of power and choice. If I was ordered about and such in a relationship where I had no choice, no power, and was still ordered and bossed around it would be far from empowering. Or, in a relationship where I was spanked, slapped, and had my hair pulled on a regular basis and I didn’t enjoy it or didn’t want it or didn’t request it, I would be far from empowered.
I’ve heard the argument said that since patriarchy imposes these ideas of submission onto us, as female subs we are essentially just buying into that patriarchy, into that system which subordinates us, into that perpetuation of gender stereotypes and roles.
Now, I’m not one who believes in gender supremacy. I don’t think that just because my Master is male he therefore has some right to be dominant or some right to be above me. That’s just not true. It’s due to my desire to serve and his desire to be served that we come to these roles, and not anything else. Now, speaking as a feminist as well, I can see the previous argument. I can see it as a valid argument, I just damn well don’t agree with it. I believe in individuality, which could also be said to be a product of the culture we live in. However, I extend individuality to much more than male/female roles.
I use the terms M/f and F/m and so on because there are these ideas such as gender supremacy and patriarchal brainwashing which often accompany bdsm (and wrongly so in most cases). I think there are some trends that many M/f couples follow and many F/m couples follow, and there are differences, but those are largely regarding individual differences and choices. While there may be similarities, I don’t think that those are wholly based on gender. However, I do think the terms M/f and F/m and M/m and F/f are all useful, just as I think labels in general are useful. That is: as long as we don’t stick to rigidly to them. I use these terms because of the patriarchal and social connections to them, but not meaning to generalize to those groups.
That said, I don’t really identify as a femsub. I identify as cuntpet and submissive, but female isn’t really something I cling to, though femme is, but I still don’t identify as femsub, mostly for the reason I’ve already mentioned. The majority of the time, there is some sort of lumping or categorization of all fem subs as this and all male subs as that, and etc. And I just don’t buy it.
Now, back to the original point: empowerment. How is BDSM empowering? How can I say that through giving up power to another person I am empowered? Well, BDSM is all about power, it’s all about playing with power and what it means to have power. Through playing with power we are able to recognize that there is no innate or natural power which one person has. All power is constructed, all power is socially given, and none of it is inherent to the person.
Now, through play with power and the recognition of this I am able to realize that, also, there is great power in the giving up of power. Even though vulnerability is so devalued in this society, that does not mean that there is not power in it. I also get to practice passive aims, which I do not see as a bad thing. Passive aims can be described as “being active through being passive,” and can be considered manipulative, though I don’t believe that they always are. Through giving over power I am putting myself into the passive role, into the subordinate role, but in doing that I am achieving my aim, my desire, and getting just what I want out of it. If I wasn’t getting what I wanted out of it, I wouldn’t be doing it.
That brings me to another point. All power play, even that which is commonly referred to as Master/slave, where, basically, the slave has no power, no rights, and has little ways to get out of the situation short of leaving it all together, there is still the ability to leave. Even in Venus in Furs we are able to see that Severin is able to leave, and he does so when it goes too far, though he realizes that he is a man of his word. Granted, there is a lot of psychological turmoil which may occur due to leaving a situation which you have agreed upon and pledged your life to, but there is always the choice, even if we can’t make it.
Because the sub always has the choice of leaving, or safewording, or calling limits, the question comes to: who really runs the show? Is it the Dom/me, even though the sub has continuous veto power? Is that like saying that the President has no hand in passing bills, even though s/he has the power to veto them? I don’t think anyone would make that claim. It’s the same here. However, that’s not to say that the sub has all the power, but it is a power exchange, not just power giving and taking. There is power given up on both sides, otherwise the Dominants of today would look much more like the sadists of DeSade.
Which brings me to my next point: masochism and sadism ala Deleuze. While I agree with Deleuze’s points, that sadism and masochism as literary forms, taken right from the works of Sade and Masoch, are not complementary. Sade’s sadists Sade-ists, if you will, are remarkably different from the contemporary use of the term sadist. Sade-ists do not desire consent, and, even, desire no consent. Their play is completely one-sided. Contemporary sadists, however, are generally part of this greater term BDSM, and submit to either RACK (Risk Aware Consensual Kink) or SSC (Safe, Sane, and Consensual), and are not rapists or mutilators, but partners. Sade-ists as depicted are rapists and mutilators and humiliators, and ones which are not desiring of consent.
This brings me to yet another point: consent. BDSM is not BDSM without consent. Not in my view at least. Consent is key, as can be evidenced by two general theories of bdsm play previously mentioned: RACK and SSC, both of which center around consent. If there is not consent, it is abuse. I believe that in order to get consent, there must be trust on both sides. Master and I have had a lot of trouble with our relationship specifically because of lack of trust, either in each other or in ourselves. We both have struggled with trusting ourselves in these roles. I have struggled in trusting that he will not see me any differently if I submit to him (logically I know it’s true, but I still have struggled with it). And so many other little things which have hindered our process.
Without trust, consent is impossible. Without consent, BDSM and RACK or SSC are not possible. However, when you have both of these, the feeling is amazing.
As I’ve mentioned previously, Master and I have been looking for a cuntpet name for me for quite some time, but have been unable to find one that has fit. I’ve been wanting a name as an aid to training, an aid to submitting, a little extra control over me.
So, today, Master found my name for me. I was pondering changing my username on livejournal. The two options I first came up with were scarletlotus and feministfucktoy. Both Master and Kat voted for scarletlotus. So, to Master, I mentioned that I agreed, was leaning toward that, and asked what he thought of having scarlet be his name for me.
His response: I was thinking about just that this morning.
How’s that for kismet?
In addition to it fitting me like a custom-made corset, it also has spiritual associations for both Master and myself. In addition, as Kat calls me her lotus or her flower, being able to use scarletlotus is a blending of Master’s and Miss’ names for me. It just fits so well for this section of my life.
~scarlet lotus sexgeek~
Someone posted about being named today, and it got me thinking. I have been wanting a slavecuntpet name for quite some time now, yet Master and I have yet to find one which suits. Kat has been calling me “lotus” and “flower” which I do love, but that would be my name with her, of course. I’m wondering if she wants me to call her something, like Miss or Ma’am, though I’m more partial to Miss, or something else entirely… I was thinking about that as we were talking today, but I didn’t take the time to ask… I’ll ask her about that tomorrow.
But, my name with Master is one I would like to be able to adopt. He thought about arani, which I like but there’s something slightly off about it… not quite me, I guess. My self-chosen aliases of quadishtu and magdalena aren’t suitable either, as they do have different contexts, and we both want one which can be for him and me only, really. Cuntpet is more of a term for me than a name, as it’s my alternative to “slave.” So… where does this name come from, then? I know a lot of people say “wait, it’ll come” and that we’ll find it when we’re ready, and maybe that’s part of it, but I also want one now so that we can start working with it. Perhaps cuntpet just needs to be that for now, although that is also an alias I chose for myself, not something he chose for me.
The concept of having a name given to me, or chosen for me by my Master or Kat is one which I enjoy. It definitely creates an atmosphere of submission, without really having to do very much. It shows the hold they have over me, as they have the will and ability to change my name at any given moment. I love mental aspects of BDSM, and this is one that would fall into that category. I also believe that names hold great power, that they influence one’s life profoundly, which is also why when naming anything (generally pets) I have rules which I follow (I got this from my mother), and I make sure they always have three names, and names which fit them.
It’s finding a name with Master that’s the trouble. I’m sure he would like to name me a goddess, arani is a goddess of sexual fire, and I’m sure that’s the theme he’s wanting, but nothing seems to fit. I forget the other option, but I liked it much less than arani. I will probably just have to wait and see what we come up with, but in the meantime I want to start conditioning that switch in me to be associated with a name. However, I will just have to wait. Perhaps we need to find one in the meantime to work with, aside from cuntpet. I do enjoy cuntcake, it’s one I thought up today, hehe, but it wouldn’t be a name. Perhaps something simple, like lotus is simple and pretty and me, I love that she chose that for me. Maybe tigerlily, or simply nymph…
Any suggestions? Do any of you have names you’re called, or have you named your property something else?
I have been trying to come up with better terms for what I engage in than Master/Mistress and slave. I think I need a combination of Owner/cunt, Owner/pet, and Owner/(sexual) servant. So maybe I’m a sexual service cuntpet? Heh. Perhaps pet can encompass all of these?
What I mean by this: Owner/cunt as described by cunt is something I take to mean as having fun with bratting, in many ways, and being able to mouth off and protest and curse and do all the things a “proper slave” is supposedly not supposed to do. These are things I enjoy to do at times, though not at others. Well, correction, I’m a smart-ass all the time, regardless, and I am a brat quite often, though not always for the aim of being forced into submission. I enjoy being forced and overpowered and just, well, dominated. I definitely have a force fetish. However, I do enjoy service also, I do enjoy other aspects of slavehood, not just being forced. Thus, the other aspects.
My service is primarily sexual, though not only. I enjoy doing for him in whatever way he needs, as a symbol or signal of my submission to him and as a gesture of my love, adoration, and worship of not only him but also our chosen dynamic. I love serving him sexually, being told what to do, ordered around, and also just giving that service to him. We have expanded my service to other mundane things such as making and serving him food and drinks (which I would do anyway, but we have made it into more of an expression of my submission by adding gesture and word to it should we be alone, or simply eye contact and both of us mentally acknowledging my gift at that point). I enjoy doing menial mundane things for him as well as the sexual service which I readily and eagerly provide.
Master calls me pet, I think it’s his favorite term for me, really. I have always fancied my submission as being a mixture of pampered pet and dirty whore, and my idea of Owner/pet is that of a pampered pet as well as an eager follower. Pets can be strong and willful, independent, stubborn, and spirited, while at the same time being able to be tamed or broken. One of my favorite quotes, which Kat introduced me to, and I don’t remember who it is by, but she may let us know in a comment and I will amend this: “A wild horse doesn’t need to be broken. If she is tamed properly she will still have fire in her eyes while eating out of the palm of your hand.” This is really what I mean when I say “broken.” I don’t mean broken in an unhealthy sort of way, or in a way that would squelch my spirit and self, but in a way that would tame me for the time being, with the knowledge and desire for me to become strong and willful and etc. again, but also be able to have this “broken” or tamed space within which I can be as well.
This may be the best for an overall idea, Owner/pet, though I think that “pet” carries different connotations than those I would be using them for, but maybe that’s okay, because, really, no matter what word I use it will have some sort of connotation or another. Perhaps I just need a new word altogether, but even that would carry a connotation in a sense. Perhaps “cuntpet” is a more fitting and accurate term, which carries with it damn near the connotations that I would like associated with it and me and my submission. So, after all this musing, I come back to what I said at the beginning of the entry: so maybe I’m a sexual service cuntpet. Or just cuntpet for short.
Though, this doesn’t address my generalization issues, as mentioned in the last post as well, that this is rather specifically a female term, and though I do know some boys are called cunt too, I’m not sure if it would work. However, at this point I’m not as much worried about it generalizing as I am about just wanting something which is individually mine. Maybe that’s all that matters. Cuntpet is me, and very specific.
I’m intrigued by the notion described here by cunt at underhishand.com. I have long been searching for better terms than Master/Mistress and slave to describe what I engage in. I enjoy using the terms Owner and slave, but that still carries the ‘slave’ connotations, which are part of what I want to get out of. This is part of the idea behind slavehood vs. slavery as described by Miss Abernathy, but even this is not perfect, and still uses the term slave.
cunt’s idea is that of Owner/cunt, and some of her descriptions are close to what I want as well: “I get to have my “force fetish” scratched without it having hidden meanings of anything bad. I get to dance out of reach and sing “make me” and then run like hell, because he will make me and it will hurt.. and I love it. I get to say ‘no’ and ‘fuck you’ and ‘kiss my ass’ and I get to be stubborn and willful and difficult. I get to cry and I get to say how much I hate it and I get to ask for something more and I get to tell him that he is wrong sometimes.”
I’m not sure if this would really apply to me, though. I mean, I like those things, I also want to be taken and broken and made to submit, and be able to be a brat (we even have a brat clause in our contract), but I also want to have times where I am simply giving to him, when I am in that subspace that I love so dear and when I can just give to him instead of being forced. But, this hasn’t happened, this idea is more of a theoretical one as far as our relationship goes. I mean, there have been times when I’ve done that, but there are also times when I want to act like described above. I guess the trick is to find when one will mesh with what Master is wanting and when it won’t.
I do like the term of Owner/cunt better than Master/slave or Owner/slave at this point, and perhaps I will talk with Master about it (or he will simply read this) and so we can switch our terminology from slave to cunt as far as our protocols and such. My only negative about using it in general is that it is not generalizable to any gender, it is rather specific, as the word cunt is rather specific, and I’m not sure of a term that would work in the same context for other genders. I’m not sure if I would want to go this far so quickly, though, and, of course, it will depend on what he has to say about it and what he thinks about it.
Of course, I disagree with her comments about not getting the spirituality and bdsm connection, and the service part to an extent. Like I said, I have times where I want to serve, but there are also times where I just want to be broken and forced and dominated wholly. Sometimes these things don’t mesh with what Master wants. There are times when I want to be forced and told what to do when at the same time he is just wanting me to serve him and do without being told. This poses a problem. I sometimes am in a head space where I have to be forced in order to get out of said head space, and mostly these are due to emotional reactions to something, and when I am feeling like that and he wanting me to just serve without direction, this doesn’t work.
This is something we need to work on, obviously, and I’m not sure how to go about it. Part of me says that I should be the one to compromise, obviously, since I’m the submissive in our relationship. However, when I am in a space of emotional reaction logic like this does not come easily, or well, it comes and I see it as the right thing, but I cannot accept it no matter what I do, because I’m in an emotional headspace. I’m not sure how to get out of it without something to snap me out of it. So, perhaps he is the one who needs to command me to get out of it, thus snapping me out of it and telling me what to do, and perhaps getting me to another space where I can serve without being told what to do, effectively being sort of a double-compromise (maybe?).
I have these dual wants in me as mentioned, the desire to serve and please and be a good little girl who does everything right and the desire to be a brat and be difficult so that I may be forced and broken and made to submit. I’d like to be able to retain both of these, and I know that Master enjoys both of these at different times, but only the latter when he’s in the mood for it.
I have never really been throughly broken by him, the time that I can think of that came close was during an asphyxiation scene, it was very casual, and we were just watching Angel and he began to asphyxiate me. I got light headed and a little dizzy (in a good way) and slipped instantly into that service mode. I was floating, and felt amazing and wonderful. I would like to do this again, which I actually mentioned the other night in bed.
I have much more to say on this, but I will save more for a later post. Now: I must write a paper.