RE: Why do sub/slaves not want to be called what they have declared they are?

RE: Why do sub/slaves not want to be called what they have declared they are? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master

Message

IronBear -> RE: Why do sub/slaves not want to be called what they have declared they are? (8/13/2005 9:55:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nella My mother always says, it cost so little to be polite, and it rewards both you and the other person grately in feeling well. Hi nella, my maturnal grandmother used to say that too. She was Danish, is it possible that the Vikings were more polite than others? Hmmmm something to pinder about [sm=tongue.gif]

nella -> RE: Why do sub/slaves not want to be called what they have declared they are? (8/13/2005 11:25:10 AM)
i dont know aboute the Vikings Iron Bear but i think it is a common thing to teatch young children in Scandinavia. my Mother just would not tolerate rudeness, it would not do.

sudja -> RE: Why do sub/slaves not want to be called what they have declared they are? (8/13/2005 3:40:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Isolde Simple answer: I'm a submissive, not your submissive. I only respond to that title when it's used by my dominant. Any other dominant addressing me as such appears presumptuous and disrespectful, as if they're assuming they can demand submission from me when I haven't given it. Any dominant other than my own should refer to me as a person, not a submissive, and therefore use my name. Thank you for saving me the typing time. sudja

arrow -> RE: Why do sub/slaves not want to be called what they have declared they are? (8/13/2005 4:27:36 PM)
i am a slave to no one but my Master; however, i do not object to being addressed as such by others because that is what i am. i believe true Masters would know that and do not intend any offense. They know what i am and know that i am not theirs. i am not a submissive - i am my Master's slave. i do not understand the confusion.

nella -> RE: Why do sub/slaves not want to be called what they have declared they are? (8/14/2005 2:30:18 AM)
i feel aboute the same way as arrow, i do not think, peronaly that a Master or Dom means any disrespect towards my Dom if they adress me in such ways.

OsideGirl -> RE: Why do sub/slaves not want to be called what they have declared they are? (8/14/2005 8:43:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: arrow i am a slave to no one but my Master; however, i do not object to being addressed as such by others because that is what i am. i believe true Masters would know that and do not intend any offense. They know what i am and know that i am not theirs. i am not a submissive - i am my Master's slave. i do not understand the confusion. There is no confusion. It's about accepting an individual's wish about how they wish to be addressed with grace and politeness. We were pointing out that it's not up to a so-called Dominant to choose that form of address for us, that power lies only with our Dominants. Until we have a Dominant, it is our choice to choose what we are called. In the case of collared subs or owned slaves, the proper thing would be to ask the Dominant/Owner if they may address the sub/slave and how the Dominant/Owner wishes the sub/slave to be addressed.

synrgy33 -> RE: Why do sub/slaves not want to be called what they have declared they are? (8/14/2005 4:46:08 PM)
I only read about half the responses, but I agree with the overall point of what everyone is making.. To me it sounds weird when people email with "greetings submissive/slave stephanie/syn" Just sounds odd.. I don't have an overall problem with it, but why do we have to be labled as such? I have a name.. use it. Either call me stephanie or syn either works, I answer to both. I am submissive. I am submissive to SadistDave... Simple. I tend to bottom to other people, but that doesn't make me less a submissive to Sir, it just makes me more for Him, to Him. Everything is about labels... People just need to realize, we're people first, Dominant Sir, Ma'am, Master, Mistress, Switch, submissive, slave, or bottom last. stephanie~SD~

sirrand -> RE: Why do sub/slaves not want to be called what they have declared they are? (8/15/2005 3:06:16 AM)
Thank you to all who answered this question. Especially to Bob who I agree with in that a better quality of Dom/Masters would make us all look good. I think I understand the sub/slaves that have answered and hope they understand that it was a question not a complaint. Disrespect is not called for by either party. When I said wannabe it was not a slight but a statement of fact the new to 'The Life' want to be either sub or slave or so they say. My original intent in putting that fact at the top of my introduction letter was to acknowledge that fact and also to ask is this what you truly want to be or are you kidding your self and me. That I believe was a valid question. I have since revised my position to only put their nick unless they have stated a name in their profile. I hope this clears up my position on the question but I hope that there will be some more responses from other Dom/Masters. This seems a sore point in the community, so some rules of educate and protocol will help us all. Bob your still a hoot, thanks for the laugh. Sir Rand

Leonidas -> RE: Why do sub/slaves not want to be called what they have declared they are? (8/15/2005 3:57:39 AM)
quote: I have noticed some subs act like brats and get offended if they are called, what they have declared them selves to be… You are assuming that slavery (or submissiveness) is a social status. In the vast majority of the BDSM world, that isn't the case. For most women, declaring that they are submissive or slave is little different than declaring that they are heterosexual. They are simply declaring an orientation. Saying that they are hetero means they are attracted to men, but not necessarily attracted to you . They don't cease to be hetero because they aren't attracted to you . They just aren't attracted to you . Similarly, a woman who says she's submissive doesn't cease to be so because she doesn't feel submissive toward you . Is it going to piss her off if you start treating her like she does feel that way when she's given you no indication that she does? Yeah, probably. Just like it would tend to piss her off if you start treating her like she's attracted to you when she isn't, and, worse yet, calling her a dyke (thereby questioning her hetero orientation) when she corrects you. Finding someone with whom you share a mutual attraction is hard. Developing that attraction requires a certain amount of social aptitude. Some men, (and maybe you are one of them, I don't know) think that they'll have an easier time of it in the BDSM world because all they have to do is act "domly" toward a woman and she should, if she is, as you said, a "true sub/slave" immediately assume the corrisponding role. That makes no more sense, my friend, than thinking a woman ought to be attracted to you because you're attracted to her. I belong to a small sub-culture within the BDSM world where slavery is considered to be a social status. If you found yourself invited into my living room (as some on this site have) my slaves would kneel at your feet, and refer to you as "Master" and would expect that you refer to them as "slave". That, however, would have little to do with what they thought of you. It would have to do with what I thought of you (i.e. that I invited you into my home in the first place). Even among us, where slavery is a social status, you must be accepted as a free man (the corrisponding social status) by your peers before any slave (other than your own) will treat you as such. I can only assume by the fact that you're asking this question that you are new. My best advice to you if you are is that the same social graces (more or less) apply in this world that applied in the world where you came from. If you are not new, and you are still asking this question, well, that's unfortunate.

IronBear -> RE: Why do sub/slaves not want to be called what they have declared they are? (8/15/2005 5:24:44 AM)
Greetings Leonides, I enjoyed you analogy regarding the use of heterosexual and the female being attracted to males but perhaps not attracted to you. A similarly if you will to she is submissive but not your submissive. quote: Similarly, a woman who says she's submissive doesn't cease to be so because she doesn't feel submissive toward you However with slaves and submissives, many may well feel their submissiveness to a particular male or all strong males generally but they have not submitted to any of those. In other words they are all dominants, which she recognises, but they are not her Dominant. Just splitting hairs perhaps but done without any malice and with respect. Like you, if you or any others here, and one or two have, visited me at my home, and if I have a slave in my personal or house collar, she would karta on the initial meeting and later, kneel and address all dominants as Master or Mistress

nella -> RE: Why do sub/slaves not want to be called what they have declared they are? (8/15/2005 6:57:46 AM)
i feel slightly submissive towards all Doms, but i would not obey any other than my Master, he is the man i love over everything in this world, while i ight call another Sir or Lord or anything else he would like to be called, i will never call another Master.

perverseangelic -> RE: Why do sub/slaves not want to be called what they have declared they are? (8/15/2005 9:51:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sirrand When I said wannabe it was not a slight but a statement of fact the new to 'The Life' want to be either sub or slave or so they say. My original intent in putting that fact at the top of my introduction letter was to acknowledge that fact and also to ask is this what you truly want to be or are you kidding your self and me. I understand what you're saying, but it still seems like you missed what we are saying. My objecting to 'slave' used as adress in an e-mail is not my objection to my choice to be owned, nor is objecting to such address indicative of the fact that I don't "really" want to be owned. It is indicative of the fact that 1. I don't want to be owned by-you- and 2. I don't operate in a system where I am submissive to everyone. (See Leonidas' post) If I opperated in a system like his, well, then not only would such address beappropriate, it would be expected. However, unless one has clearly indicated that is one's choice, it is unwise toassume so. Stating that one chooses not to be refered to as "slave" doesn't make someone a kidder. Heck, my partner can call me whatever he darn well pleases. It simply means that as an unowned person, they prefer to negotate ownership from a position of equality. I find that I need to set up the basics of a relationship while still relating as equals, in order to be able to clearly express my fears, needs, and worries.

nella -> RE: Why do sub/slaves not want to be called what they have declared they are? (8/15/2005 9:59:18 AM)
quote: Stating that one chooses not to be refered to as "slave" doesn't make someone a kidder. Heck, my partner can call me whatever he darn well pleases. It simply means that as an unowned person, they prefer to negotate ownership from a position of equality. I find that I need to set up the basics of a relationship while still relating as equals, in order to be able to clearly express my fears, needs, and worries. i agree totaly whit this, it is a werry good point.

sirrand -> RE: Why do sub/slaves not want to be called what they have declared they are? (8/16/2005 5:15:58 AM)
quote: You are assuming that slavery (or submissiveness) is a social status. In the vast majority of the BDSM world, that isn't the case. For most women, declaring that they are submissive or slave is little different than declaring that they are heterosexual. They are simply declaring an orientation. Saying that they are hetero means they are attracted to men, but not necessarily attracted to you . They don't cease to be hetero because they aren't attracted to you . They just aren't attracted to you . Similarly, a woman who says she's submissive doesn't cease to be so because she doesn't feel submissive toward you . Is it going to piss her off if you start treating her like she does feel that way when she's given you no indication that she does? Yeah, probably. Just like it would tend to piss her off if you start treating her like she's attracted to you when she isn't, and, worse yet, calling her a dyke (thereby questioning her hetero orientation) when she corrects you. I don't assume owner ship at all but I do try to honor their wishes by acknowledging the facts. I suppose I could have used a more direct question such as "Is this what you really want to do?" but it would seem to me like I was not trusting that they had good sense. So now I ask "If this is your true desire." No I am not new; I did take a break from 'The Life' to raise kids but always had a sub as an assistant. We did not interact in scenes but there was always a Dom/sub respect to the relationship. I maybe be rusty as to the protocols and to that end I believe I asked a clarification question for that reason. As IronBear says in his profile "People I can not Tolerate: People who are bigoted and Abusers and attackers of: The aged, the infirm, the young, women, religions and priests and priestesses (in any form) of any religion. I feel the same. It is a shame that people have not seen that in my writing. I never judge anyone it is not my job. It is God's (or what ever name you wish to put there.) job. So with that said I would like to add 'I don't suffer fools gracefully." I am not calling anyone a fool, nor am I being disrespectful. We all have very strong opinions on this subject and I'm glad I asked it, even though some of the opinions seem about me and not the question. I'm a big boy and I can take the heat and maybe like the first meetings thread a respect protocol will evolve out of this discussion. A champion of the weak and a Master to the strong. Sir Rand

DesertRat -> RE: Why do sub/slaves not want to be called what they have declared they are? (8/16/2005 5:46:15 AM)
Respect is needed. Whether or not it is granted is something that falls into the realm of one-on-one personal interaction. Making up rules about it is pointless; I could stand at attention and salute you and still think you're an idiot...for example. I don't think a "respect protocol" is needed. If you need one for yourself then, by all means, go get yourself one. That is my view, anyway. Bob

EmeraldSlave2 -> RE: Why do sub/slaves not want to be called what they have declared they are? (8/16/2005 6:04:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sirrand It is a shame that people have not seen that in my writing. I never judge anyone it is not my job. You know it might be statements like these that sure SOUND judgemental that have us confused. "I would think if you were truly looking that would be your attitude." "This seems that this sub/slave has learned her lessons well." "I suppose I misjudged the level of commitment of quite a few of the purported sub/slaves." "Putting sub/slave at the top over time evolved into a test of their commitment." I personally SUPPORT making informed judgements about people...but it seems very strange for you to make a proclamation that you never judge after all these statements...or is it just me?

DesertRat -> RE: Why do sub/slaves not want to be called what they have declared they are? (8/16/2005 6:22:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EmeraldSlave2 quote: ORIGINAL: sirrand It is a shame that people have not seen that in my writing. I never judge anyone it is not my job. You know it might be statements like these that sure SOUND judgemental that have us confused. "I would think if you were truly looking that would be your attitude." "This seems that this sub/slave has learned her lessons well." "I suppose I misjudged the level of commitment of quite a few of the purported sub/slaves." "Putting sub/slave at the top over time evolved into a test of their commitment." I personally SUPPORT making informed judgements about people...but it seems very strange for you to make a proclamation that you never judge after all these statements...or is it just me? Yes, I see a telling contradiction there, too. Bob

perverseangelic -> RE: Why do sub/slaves not want to be called what they have declared they are? (8/16/2005 8:53:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sirrand I don't assume owner ship at all but I do try to honor their wishes by acknowledging the facts. I suppose I could have used a more direct question such as "Is this what you really want to do?" but it would seem to me like I was not trusting that they had good sense. So now I ask "If this is your true desire." Again, you kinda missed what I was saying. Not wanting to be called "slave" does not mean that the individual doesn't want to be someones slave, eventually. It means that he/she doesn't want to be called slave by someone who doesn't own her. It is a fact that the person prefers submission in a relationship, however calling someone that isn't "aknowledging the facts" it's calling him/her by a name s/he doesn't want to be called by. Kinda like calling me "Linda" it's a perfectly nice name, and if you were my owner you could call me it as much as youwanted, but it isn't -my- name, so I prefer anyone I am not with doesn't call me it.

SirDomineer -> RE: Why do sub/slaves not want to be called what they have declared they are? (8/16/2005 11:42:33 AM)
A Slave by any other name is still a slave i remember my earliest experiences in owning my first subbies and the protocal of using these labels was to assure that i was still the one running the show and yes it provided sort of a stimulation as it takes humility in my girls to accept their role before there name, however i thrive on change and not being the status quo and not being a generic domme, labels such as these tend to get old for those whom live the lifestyle yet it is exciting for those whom are new or practice infrequently but actions speak louder than words in the aquisition of reverance and respect. A being that I get bills and junk mail refering to me as "Sir". So as i may describe the relationships of those who serve me, i abhor generic labels that could not possibly indicate all that they are to me and all that i am to them, each to their own as i beleive it should be up to the dominants discretion as to how they should be served just as it is the submissives discretion of whom they serve. If you are without a sense of context perhaps this life isnt for you, hope you all have a wonderful day- Sir Domineer

IronBear -> RE: Why do sub/slaves not want to be called what they have declared they are? (8/16/2005 1:43:52 PM)
Whilst I too am not always happy with generic labels which are either misleading because they didn’t give sufficient details, or are so inappropriate that they may as well not be used. However I also have become accustomed to most people using them. I am oft referred to by a variety of honorific, which I guess refer to the aspect of me, which is being addressed. It’s a annoyance, but it seems to please others. Yes a slave is a slave is a slave etc.. However the slave is not my slave so it may well be inappropriate for me to address her as such. Again it is better to ask her what is the appropriate form of address to use when communicating with her. No big deal and its good manners.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.1171875