perverseangelic
Posts: 2625
Joined: 2/2/2004
From: Davis, Ca
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sirrand
My mother raised me to be a southern gentleman but to be a good Dom/Master some of that training has to go out the window.
Why? Being polite and a gentleman is NOT being "undominant." Not doing something you want to do, because of what others would think -is- being "undominant" in my view. It pleases my partner to open doors for me. Does that make the opening of doors a submissive action? Nope. He did it 'cause he wanted to do it.
quote:
When Synocense said I don't feel my name and/or identity is being replaced when someone calls me "sub" or "slave" or "girl" - but that is because I can identify with each of those roles at some point, on some level.” I would think if you were truly looking that would be your attitude.
SOME people who are looking feel that way. Others, while knowing that they will eventually submit to someone, know that their submission is a personality trait, not a job. That is, they will belong to someone, they are not inherently a possession.
For example, I was recently "truly looking" for a job. I was looking to be employed by someone. So I eventually would be an employee. However, it wouldn't be correct to refer to me as "Employee." I was in the process of finding that job. I didn't have it yet. I see the serach for ownership as similar. One searches for a situation where one can submit. One will eventually submit, just as one will eventually be employeed. It still doesn't make it correct or polite to refer to someone by the job/place they eventually hope to fill.
quote:
That might be a way to asses a Dom/Masters abilities but if you are truly looking are you sure he is not just observing protocol and addressing you the way you see yourself.
But many of us DON'T see our selves as "submissives" We see ourselves as either belonging to, or hoping to belong to someone. I serve and submit, but only after I have come to know someone well enough that I know I -can- serve and submit to them.
quote:
Maybe he is trying out how you react to the reality of the role. Only true sub/slaves are proud of being called those names. That is not to say the ones in committed relationships are not subs but under the definition of a true sub/slave they have no rights except that which the Dom/Master gives them.
Oh the "true sub/slave" :) IMHO, no such thing. Only people who do things they way you like them to be done. I am proud to be called my owner's girl. Before I was my owner's girl, I was proud to be called by my name.
I am proud of who I am. My desire to belong to someoen is an innate part of who I am, but it is not -all- of who I am. I have intense pride in being open and aware of myself as I am right now, and pride in my ability to accept who I am. I want people to call me by my name, because -that- is who I am, not the role in authority transfer I play. That, really, is only one aspect of who I am.
quote:
Also think, as nella pointed out, the use of slut, bitch, cumwhore, or any other name is rude with someone you have just met, but if she was to introduce herself as EmeraldSlave2 would it not be appropriate to say slave Emerald.
no, it wouldn't, any more than it would be correct to address me as Angelic Perverse. My handle is perverseangelic, Emeralds is "EmeraldSlave." It's a proper name. You wouldn't call someone whose name was John Smith, Smith John, would you? Proper names aren't subject to gramatical rules. While Emerald is announcing her identity, she's also chosen a spesific name, and if one wants to get picky about grammatical rules, to change that name is improper.
quote:
I agree with perverseangelic "Bisexual female" is not a rank. But since I have spent quite a few hours in fem bars and well as a viewer of “The L word” the question of bi was always discussed, and after a while my sub of the evening was referred to as the bi-chick, even to her face, such as “Bi-Chick want to dance.”
Sure, if you know the person. I call one of my friends Bi-girl. I've also known her for about 10 years. If someone I just met called me "pansexual girl" I'd be quite irritated. Ditto "sub."
quote:
The respectful nenakajira said “In my training I was taught to refer to all men as "Master (insert name here)" and that offended plenty of people right off the bat because they werent my Master and so therefor I shouldnt use the term.” She went on to say…
“What I'm getting at, however, is that this isnt just a slave problem or a sub problem its a community choice. The majority of people seem to dislike being called by their station instead of their name for a variety of reasons ranging from considering it rude to considering it inappropriate for someone they are not involved with.”
This seems that this sub/slave has learned her lessons well. I’m sure looking sub/slaves are confused by this dichotomy of the community standards. I myself prefer all but mine to address me as Sir.
I don't think the problem here is in innitial address. I wouldn't get mad if someone, upon first contact, called me "sub" or "slave" or "girl" or "lil one." I -would- get offended if they continued to call me by that name.
I think that first contacts are always iffy. I'd prefer somoene just called me by my name, but I can accept not everyone does that. What frutsrates me is many's unwillingness to =stop= with names that bother me. I think it boils down to politeness. When someone says "please don't call me that, I prefer being called X" one should address that person as X. REGARDLESS of the roles of either party.
It is -not- "masterful" to continue to refer to someone by a name they dislike. It's simply impolite.
Similarly, to expect someone to use a title for you, after they've told you they'd prefer not to, is -also- impolite.
Again, I have no problem if someone tells me they'd prefer to be called "Sir" "Ma'am" "Lord" etc. I simply tell them that I prefer to address only the person I belong to by a title, and would appreciate another name I could use. (Even before I belonged t my partner, I said this.) It was only when the individual refused ot accept that that it became rude.
When someone insists I use a title for them, I politely discontinue contact. Again, it isn't "dom-ly" it's just impolite to expect someone to use deference for you, when they aren't yours.
Again with a real-world example-- it would be very impolite for a woman I had just met to expect me to call her "Mom" I would politely refuse and ask for another name. To insist on a spesific title, in -any- situation, where that title in inappropriate or makes anothe rindividual uncomfortable is, IMHO, impolite.
_____________________________
~in the begining it is always dark~
|
RE: Why do sub/slaves not want to be called what they h... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread