Stock Rants #4: Labels

[kiya]

When you tell me you don't believe in labels, what I hear is that you don't believe in communication.

"Label" is a fancy word for "noun or adjective", and it's not even all that fancy.

You just want to be, man, without all of these words harshing your mellow. That's very nice for you. I hope you never, ever have to communicate outside of your smug bastion of solipsistic privilege in which "just being" is something you never have to explain, never have threatened, or never actually need to care about. You are not a category, you are a free person! You are colour-blind! You don't see gender! Your response to referring to someone as the wrong religion is, "But these labels, they separate us! Why can't we all just get along!"

If you respond to someone trying to make sense of distinctions with "Why define? Just be!" you are saying that precise and specific information exchange is irrelevant. I can only hope that you never wind up in a situation where you actually need to explain something you find important in a manner that requires the use of actual nouns.



The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter--it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning. -- Mark Twain

(This rant brought to you by a conversation the other day with oneironaut in which he asked if there was a "labels" stock rant yet, and "Why define? Just be!" posted as an answer to a "What's the difference between..." question on FetLife.)

Comments

[fierceawakening.livejournal.com]

Or, the specific example that came up today, "Don't define, just be!" in response to, "I'm trying to get a handle on what the difference between a 'submissive' and a 'slave' is, can anyone help me understand how these words are used?"

Eh, I gotta admit to a little bit of sympathy there, but only because many people's definition of "slave" is so obviously a bizarre construct built out of generic wankfodder, Story of O, and Gor.

[kiya]

No argument there.

[fierceawakening.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I wince when I see "well, a submissive doesn't give up control everywhere, and a slave gives up control in all things" because, well, I still, ten years on, have no slagging idea what "all things" is supposed to mean.

OTOH, explanations that suggest that "submissive" might (but of course doesn't always) mean someone who sexually enjoys feeling helpless or ceding power, but isn't necessarily interested in serving as a deep, over-time, commitment she needs for personal fulfillment while "slave" probably means someone who is deeply service-oriented make sense to me.

That might be wrong or might not be, but at least that's something I can coherently discuss. The first is not even something I can parse, most of the time.

[elf]

The difference is in my mind as:
A submissive gives consent to the dom's control each time, for each act. The power-play is ongoing, and a crucial part of the relationship.

A slave gives consent exactly once, and it covers the entire relationship. There is no power play; the relationship is one of mutual obligation of pre-established terms.

(I could be wrong; I'm not actively involved in either. But those are the dynamics as I've come to understand them.)

[fierceawakening.livejournal.com]

That's what people say, yes, but I can't parse "exactly once." It just plain doesn't make sense. It's understandable as a fantasy concept: "I don't want any way to back out of this." But real life is never so black and white... and the vast majority of Master/slave couples I've known have broken up. "I give consent exactly once" would mean "I can never withdraw it."

That's not real life, and I (at least; YMMV of course) have found that people who use this definition tend to have elaborately bizarre explanations for why obvious exceptions do not count as impugning the once-consent.

But if that's so, then they haven't been honest about the once-consent in the first place, and are talking nonsense rather than telling me how their relationship truly works.

[elf]

Well. "Exactly once," meaning, "for the relationship." The terms might be re-negotiated later, but when the consent is withdrawn, the relationship is over. Or no longer the same relationship. (Some married couples divorce & remarry; some boyfriend/girlfriends go through on-again, off-again phases.)

The consent is given for whatever-the-terms-are, which may include various exceptions. The consent isn't "anything and everything;" it's "whatever we've agreed to." (Which is sometimes not very well thought-out, sigh, resulting in a need for weird re-negotiations and both parties insisting the other is "doing it wrong" because neither wanted to actually spell out what the consent did & didn't cover.)

And there's no reason the two concepts can't be mixed. A relationship can include overall consent for a wide range of actions, and a submissive component for, for example, some BDSM activities.