More fun with semantics

So I’ve talked about semantics, and how there are as many definitions as there are members in the BDSM community.  It’s sparked countless debates, and countless arguments.  I always thought those arguments were petty, so I never really paid much attention to labels and the supposed differences between a sub and a slave, or a Domme or a Mistress.

Who cares?

But yesterday, a friend of mine told me about a website,, that lists every archetype I can think of, and offers an impressively logical, common-sense definition for each.  The test itself is not all that great.  It didn’t really tell me anything I don’t already know, but I imagine it would be quite helpful for newbies.

Still, it was amusing to see the results, and I do love those definitions.

== Results from ==
100% Bondage Giver
100% Degradation Giver
100% Dominant
100% Master/Mistress
100% Sadist
80% Non-monogamist
63% Voyeur
54% Exhibitionist
29% Primal (Predator)
20% Vanilla
4% Primal (Prey)
0% All-Rounder
0% Bondage Receiver
0% Degradation Receiver
0% Masochist
0% Slave
0% Submissive
0% Switch
See my results online at

So yeah, no real surprises there (although I don’t get the “prey” thing.  I’m thinking I must’ve accidentally clicked the wrong button on one of the questions).  But according to this site, there is a distinct difference between Dominant and Mistress, sub and slave, and all of that.

For example…

“Dominants like to be in charge. Some like to have their partner obey them without questioning, others like some resistance while taking it their way. Some are dominant only in the bedroom, others are dominant throughout their daily life as well (usually with limitations). Unlike the top roles (giving pain/bondage/degradation), being dominant is more about who decides what happens (and takes the responsibility that comes with it) than about the contents of what happens.”


“Masters/Mistresses receive complete control over the life of their slave(s), and all responsibilities that come with it. They go a step further than dominants in the sense that their power exchange is present 24/7 and in all aspects of their life (except for negotiated exceptions such as during their office jobs). Their primary focus is to create a stable and safe environment for their slave(s), to allow optimal servitude.”

So yeah, that’s a great way to describe those roles.  I still don’t put a lot of stock into titles or anything like that, and I have no desire to change my own title to Mistress Jen (I like the way Domina sounds better), despite the fact that, according to these definitions, I tend to lean more toward Mistress than Dominant.  Still, reading about all those different archetypes has been very educational.

And supposedly, this is a relatively new site, and once they get enough test results, there’s the option to have them email me with much more detailed information, such as how I compare with other people in my gender/age group/location, tips and trivia, what my ideal match looks like and how rare it is, and other stuff like that.  Pretty neat.

2 thoughts on “More fun with semantics

  1. Mrs Fever says:

    I’ve taken that “test” and got skewed results. For me, being on the receiving end of bondage is a hard NO activity. As in: ‘Try it and you better be prepared to fight me to the death’ kind of hard limit. But I came up at like 16% bondage receiver. There were a few other skews as well, but otherwise I can identify with the top 5 labels, and that makes it the most accurate survey of its kind I’ve ever taken.

    • Domina Jen says:

      I agree. The Dom who told me about the test got a similar result with submissive and switch, and there’s not a submissive or switch bone in his body. He thinks his results are skewed because he’s not a sadist. And a fellow sadist on fetlife was surprised to see something like 22% masochist. No, this test isn’t completely accurate (again, I don’t get the prey part. I’m right with you on the fight-to-the-death thing).

      Still, having the feelings and spotted history that I have with titles and definitions, I loved seeing them all in one place, short sweet and concise. That’s the primary draw of the site for me. I never understood why some people are so insistent on their titles and definitions. To each their own, but I just didn’t share those thoughts. Then I read that and thought, “okay, I get it now.” It’s still not going to change my general attitude toward the subject as a whole, but I feel like I understand it better.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s