People take their cultural assumptions into bed with them. I think it's useful to examine those assumptions and be aware of which ones one's taking in.
Yes, and I'm trying to figure out whether I should post a followup, or start in comments.
Specifically, the conversation was about culture, patriarchy, and kink, and the degree to which the one is or is not self-aware about the interplay between one's assumptions and one's activities.
(The whole "this is where you get your nightmares" piece is something I'm not as qualified to comment on, as I rarely have nightmares.)
Moreover, I'm in turn curious as to what sub-cultural assumptions, and how you're drawing the distinction between cultural and sub-cultural assumptions.
I had a... discussion with someone about this recently. She was saying that one can't bring one's assumptions into a new relationship, that everything has to be renegotiated. And I said, yes, sure, but they're THERE, they don't just vanish when previous relationships end. I guess in that sense, it goes for all learned patterns, whether inherited from the larger (sub)culture or from prior one-on-one relationships. And it's not clear to me that they're always up for renegotiation.
Anyway, yes. They are there, and they don't just vanish. You don't start a new relationship a clean slate, any more than you start anything else an entirely clean slate. Obviously, you would like to take a new relationship for what it is, and not have it unduly influenced by your assumptions, but your assumptions are part of who you are.
What I would say is that while many things can up for renegotiation it's unclear that everything (anything?) can be reset without regard to the past. Sometimes, the negotiation ends in "Sorry, we clearly can't come to an agreement."
You can't bring your previous relationship agreements into a new relationship whole [1], but you have to bring some of your assumptions and expectations in, and sometimes that's a good thing. If I didn't, for example, bring in the assumption that the other person was going to be basically honest with me, I wouldn't go into the relationship.
[1] I'm poly, which means that I am bringing in some aspects of my existing relationship agreements into a new relationship, notably that the existing relationships exist, and matter, and that my partners will know what's going on.
This seems dead obvious as soon as you look at sexual orientation. I've heard there's a Latin American concept that men are not gay if it's their penis in another guy's butt or mouth, and I forget where lesbian means "I play with other women in front of my male partner", not to mention all the ancient Greek stuff and the cultures where anal sex is more common than vaginal in order to avoid pregnancy.
But these things are so obvious they are taken as part of the framework; I suspect the things you're alluding to are more subtle and narrower in scope. Myself, having been kinda kinky for about five years before encountering the scene community, it took me years to adjust to the whole top/bottom labeling thing and the assumptions it brings.
Sure. My original post was a "moment of the obvious", as dpolicar likes to describe them. I do emjoy posting them as both a note to self as if in a paper diary, and to spark comment on my LJ.
Having said all of that, I think you're right; the things I'm alluding to are more subtle. I'm not sure they're narrower in scope, and in fact they may be wider in scope, because issues of gender are pervasive.
What are the adjustments you had to make regarding top/bottom labels? And did they differ from the related dom/sub labels? I've been thinking about those, myself.
The same kind of adjustments one makes with the sexual labels I alluded to above; let's say you're gay, then you move to a country where gay means something different. I think you'd end up both reanalyzing your own identity in terms of the culture you find yourself in, as well as doing mental translation where things didn't fit.
When there isn't a good term in the target language for what you want to say, you can use a term that isn't what you want, substitute an explanatory passage for a single word, or not say what you wanted to.
My first relationship had a lot of complex power dynamics both in and out of bed, tidal forces that shot back and forth. It never occurred to me that people would have relationships with mostly fixed roles.
the terminology difference (dom/sub vs. top/bottom) seems to be one more of connotation than clear definition. If someone says "Oh, I was domming" to me that's pretty much the same as "I was topping". But it gets tricky when you get away from b&d situations, because the simple physical boundaries aren't there; I think to me dom/sub says more to me about personality and top/bottom says more about physical activities, but I can't think of any situation in which substituting one for the other would be wrong, just the shades of meaning would be slightly different.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
randomness![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-15 11:40 am (UTC)Both "yes, and that can be tricky as well as useful" and "yes, and are there specifics you'd care to share?"
(I'm assuming for the moment you mean "bed with other people" rather than "this is where you get your nightmares.")
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-15 03:22 pm (UTC)Specifically, the conversation was about culture, patriarchy, and kink, and the degree to which the one is or is not self-aware about the interplay between one's assumptions and one's activities.
(The whole "this is where you get your nightmares" piece is something I'm not as qualified to comment on, as I rarely have nightmares.)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-15 03:23 pm (UTC)(See above comment for details. As I said, I'm trying to work out whether I want to continue this thread in comments or by posting.)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-15 03:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-15 03:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-15 05:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-15 04:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-15 05:42 pm (UTC)Anyway, yes. They are there, and they don't just vanish. You don't start a new relationship a clean slate, any more than you start anything else an entirely clean slate. Obviously, you would like to take a new relationship for what it is, and not have it unduly influenced by your assumptions, but your assumptions are part of who you are.
What I would say is that while many things can up for renegotiation it's unclear that everything (anything?) can be reset without regard to the past. Sometimes, the negotiation ends in "Sorry, we clearly can't come to an agreement."
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-16 12:57 am (UTC)[1] I'm poly, which means that I am bringing in some aspects of my existing relationship agreements into a new relationship, notably that the existing relationships exist, and matter, and that my partners will know what's going on.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-15 06:49 pm (UTC)But these things are so obvious they are taken as part of the framework; I suspect the things you're alluding to are more subtle and narrower in scope. Myself, having been kinda kinky for about five years before encountering the scene community, it took me years to adjust to the whole top/bottom labeling thing and the assumptions it brings.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-15 07:27 pm (UTC)Having said all of that, I think you're right; the things I'm alluding to are more subtle. I'm not sure they're narrower in scope, and in fact they may be wider in scope, because issues of gender are pervasive.
What are the adjustments you had to make regarding top/bottom labels? And did they differ from the related dom/sub labels? I've been thinking about those, myself.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-20 07:16 pm (UTC)When there isn't a good term in the target language for what you want to say, you can use a term that isn't what you want, substitute an explanatory passage for a single word, or not say what you wanted to.
My first relationship had a lot of complex power dynamics both in and out of bed, tidal forces that shot back and forth. It never occurred to me that people would have relationships with mostly fixed roles.
the terminology difference (dom/sub vs. top/bottom) seems to be one more of connotation than clear definition. If someone says "Oh, I was domming" to me that's pretty much the same as "I was topping". But it gets tricky when you get away from b&d situations, because the simple physical boundaries aren't there; I think to me dom/sub says more to me about personality and top/bottom says more about physical activities, but I can't think of any situation in which substituting one for the other would be wrong, just the shades of meaning would be slightly different.