Do you respect a Master who's never owned a slave?

Do you respect a Master who's never owned a slave? (Full Version)

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

Message

LadyPact -> Do you respect a Master who's never owned a slave? (3/24/2008 12:14:11 AM)
There have been a lot of threads lately on what other things qualify a Dominant on whether they are a Master/Mistress or not. One thing I keep going back to is one thing in particular. That a Master/Mistress, to claim themselves as such, should have at one point owned a slave. They must have taken on the responsibility for another, lived within the dynamic, and held that position of authority. Not age. Not activity within the community. Not even skill. Not the debate between the definition of submissive or slave. Just the simple fact, that by collar or contract, they have held this position in a dynamce with their counterpart. Any thoughts?

Estring -> RE: Do you respect a Master who's never owned a slave? (3/24/2008 12:19:55 AM)
I totally agree with you. But I imagine that the "words mean anything you want them to" crowd will very much disagree.

BitaTruble -> RE: Do you respect a Master who's never owned a slave? (3/24/2008 12:30:19 AM)
~FR~ I can respect anyone. Whether or not they have ever owned a slave is unimportant to me. By far, the vast majority of slaves have never owned another slave and in my mind such are equally deserving of respect so long as it's earned. Celeste

GiantSteps -> RE: Do you respect a Master who's never owned a slave? (3/24/2008 12:51:52 AM)
I'm not sure the word "respect" is the one I'd use, LadyPact; I can respect just about anybody, until they prove not worthy of it. At the same time, I would have to say this... At least back in the old days, there was a difference - clearly delineated - between Dominant and Master. They weren't the same thing. A Dom topped - a Master owned, and that was the defined difference between them. Every Dom wasn't a Master, and every sub wasn't a slave... heaven knows the fur would fly if you tried to treat a sub like a slave... Personally, from the old school, I can't think of a Master who has never owned a slave any more than I can think of a driver who has never driven a car. The crazy stuff you go through as a Master has to be experienced to understand it, and heaven knows the responsibility level between Dom and Master is rediculously different. Calling yourself a Master without knowing how much damn work it is to actually live up to that responsibility... at best, that's presumptive. In truth, it's dangerously dishonest. Could I respect a false Master? If they knew their stuff and didn't pose, I could respect the person... but I would not, in my mind consider them a Master. Just a Dom with delusions of granduer.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Do you respect a Master who's never owned a slave? (3/24/2008 12:57:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact There have been a lot of threads lately on what other things qualify a Dominant on whether they are a Master/Mistress or not. One thing I keep going back to is one thing in particular. That a Master/Mistress, to claim themselves as such, should have at one point owned a slave. They must have taken on the responsibility for another, lived within the dynamic, and held that position of authority. Not age. Not activity within the community. Not even skill. Not the debate between the definition of submissive or slave. Just the simple fact, that by collar or contract, they have held this position in a dynamce with their counterpart. Any thoughts? I have owned several slaves, yet I am Master only to the one I own now. To everyone else I'm just a man.

MasterFireMaam -> RE: Do you respect a Master who's never owned a slave? (3/24/2008 2:32:14 AM)
I would have to meet them so that I could guage their self awareness and ability to function well in life. Do they have it fairly together and can they communicate with people in their life decently? That's what I'd base my decision on...and, actually, that's what I'd base my decision on if they DID own a slave. Would I call them a Master? Sure. I have no qualms about calling someone by the title they have chosen for themselves. It is nothing to me to use a word; everything is on them to live up to it. Master Fire

Focus50 -> RE: Do you respect a Master who's never owned a slave? (3/24/2008 3:06:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact There have been a lot of threads lately on what other things qualify a Dominant on whether they are a Master/Mistress or not. One thing I keep going back to is one thing in particular. That a Master/Mistress, to claim themselves as such, should have at one point owned a slave. They must have taken on the responsibility for another, lived within the dynamic, and held that position of authority. Not age. Not activity within the community. Not even skill. Not the debate between the definition of submissive or slave. Just the simple fact, that by collar or contract, they have held this position in a dynamce with their counterpart. Any thoughts? As far as the lifestyle is concerned, I only ever describe myself as a male Dominant. "Dominant" is a constant (like being male and hetero, for eg) and is not dependent on the presence of another to create a defining dynamic. "Master" is a whole other matter.... As far as I'm concerned, one actually needs to own a slave in order to call themself 'Master' - same for a slave. So, no, I can't say as I'd respect a self described "Master" who didn't actually have a slave to call his own. Yet I'd respect a first day newbie Master who does - so it's not about lifestyle "experience" so much as principles; mostly my own.... Disclaimer: Bear in mind that "Master" within Martial Arts does imply and require a degree of skill to attain; I'm only talking of the lifestyle here. "Master" is the lifestyle equivalent of "super"; the most over-used self-egrandising word in the dictionary! "Super-model", for cryin' out loud! My respect is infinite - and now I need a cool drink.... lol Focus.

Lashra -> RE: Do you respect a Master who's never owned a slave? (3/24/2008 3:21:08 AM)
I respect most people overall. However, I do know that some people do slap on the label of "Master or Mistress" and haven't a clue what it entails. Some of them have read books, chatted in chatrooms and think they know it all. But I feel until you have some real "hands on" experience under your belt that you should really just use the label "dominant". There is so much involved in a D/s relationship that a person cannot learn from a book or in a chatroom that only life experiences can teach. I know when I started out I didn't use the title of "Mistress", I just told people I was a dominant female. Then years later I felt I had earned the title of Mistress. This is just my opinion of course. ~Lashra

Evility -> RE: Do you respect a Master who's never owned a slave? (3/24/2008 4:12:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 As far as the lifestyle is concerned, I only ever describe myself as a male Dominant. "Dominant" is a constant (like being male and hetero, for eg) and is not dependent on the presence of another to create a defining dynamic. I agree with this and I do the same in regard to myself and everyone else, too. To me a dominant is a dominant, and that's that. I don't view master as a level someone can achieve in all of this akin to a particular belt in karate. I do occasionally refer to people as Master So and So only because that's their preferred manner to be addressed but I don't consider it a level of status at all - just a name. It's just like if someone wishes to be called Lord So and So or Lady So and So. Just a name to me. Sometimes my submissive calls me master or refers to me as her master but I do not consider myself to be a master. It's not a noun to me. To me we are all dominant or submissive. I don't recognize any difference between submissive and slave nor do I recognize a difference between dominant and master. I do denote a difference between dominant and top as well as between submissive and bottom, however. That's a whole different discussion. To me ownership or partnership with another is irrelevant. Someone can be dominant or submissive without having owned or having been owned just as someone has a certain sexual orientation whether they are a virgin or not. As far as respect goes there are a whole lot of folks who have owned submissives and refer to themselves as being a master who I have little respect for. The two do not go hand in hand for me.

Dnomyar -> RE: Do you respect a Master who's never owned a slave? (3/24/2008 4:19:19 AM)
A Master owns someone a Dom dose'nt. Do'es that make the Master a better person. I don't think so. I have seen some crappy so called Masters. You have to have a bad inferiorty complex to think that someone is surperiour to you.

Padriag -> RE: Do you respect a Master who's never owned a slave? (3/24/2008 5:07:22 AM)
I think the constant debate is a waste of time. Its a label, and that's about as far as it goes. People can and will call themselves whatever they want regardless of what any of us thinks. Personally I find this perrenial debate to be one of the sillier ones. It amazes me that so many concern themselves so much with what label some individual applies to themselves and less about who that individual is as a person. Are we going to start arguing who's the superior master next? Maybe we should form a council and start handing out master merit badges? Really give them something to compete over. What about a rousing debate on who has the right to call themselves a mistress... or a dominant or a domme or a submissive or a slave. Or how about we just leave people to their kinks and mind our own. Worry less about whether someone else is "worthy" enough to call themselves something and worry more about what we individually are worthy of.

GiantSteps -> RE: Do you respect a Master who's never owned a slave? (3/24/2008 6:01:09 AM)
Times may change, Padraig, but this is at least to me a question of definition. If somebody wants to call themselves experts at breathplay when their sole claim to that definition is that they held their own breath for 45 seconds while swimming a lap underwater, I would worry about the submissive who would trust him with a plastic bag and a length of bailing wire. The same goes for some guy who considers himself skilled at edgeplay because they made themselves a Freddy Krueger glove in the garage workshop. I have been a Master - did it for three years - and for the record, I'd never do it again. It's too much work and more responsibility for another human being than I'd care to bother with. It's not my kink. So, speaking as somebody who's been there and back again, I don't see this as a meaningless apellation, but a clear delineation of expertise that - unless allowed to be bastaardized by popular, careless use - describes a specific flavor. Not better or worse, but decidedly different. If we, as Dominants, are expected to be responsible, accurate and precise, then we have to keep our definitions clear. If a stern discipline does in fact pervade all nature, then certainly the meanings of words should not be given special dispensation to be maleable.

colouredin -> RE: Do you respect a Master who's never owned a slave? (3/24/2008 6:12:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 I have owned several slaves, yet I am Master only to the one I own now. To everyone else I'm just a man. This is basically what I would say, I refer to people as Dominants not as Masters because they arent my Master, the only time I use the word is if refering to someone elses relationship, for example "oh you know ____ yeah he is so and so's Master" otherwise I wouldnt use it. In terms of respect, well I respect people regardless of sexual oriantation, but if someone is saying I am a Master call me a Master I would respect him no more than I respect anyone demanding the word Sir from everyone. I think those words are for use within a relationship, but thats just me.

littlebitxxx -> RE: Do you respect a Master who's never owned a slave? (3/24/2008 6:43:12 AM)
It seems to be a Catch-22 situation. How can a person be called a Master who has never owned a slave, but then how does he get the experience of owning a slave if no one believes he's a Master? I wouldn't take my car to a "licensed" mechanic who has never owned a car. Or go to a Child Psychologist who has never had a child. Learning about something and getting a piece of paper that says you know what you're doing is a far far cry from actually having done it.

toservez -> RE: Do you respect a Master who's never owned a slave? (3/24/2008 6:48:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Padriag I think the constant debate is a waste of time. Its a label, and that's about as far as it goes. People can and will call themselves whatever they want regardless of what any of us thinks. Personally I find this perrenial debate to be one of the sillier ones. It amazes me that so many concern themselves so much with what label some individual applies to themselves and less about who that individual is as a person. Are we going to start arguing who's the superior master next? Maybe we should form a council and start handing out master merit badges? Really give them something to compete over. What about a rousing debate on who has the right to call themselves a mistress... or a dominant or a domme or a submissive or a slave. Or how about we just leave people to their kinks and mind our own. Worry less about whether someone else is "worthy" enough to call themselves something and worry more about what we individually are worthy of. That to me is pitch perfect of my opinion in this. People wanting top make a word represent something special are not commenting on others but are commenting on themselves. What makes someone a Master is if someone else wants to call them Master or they call themselves one while alone. People hung up on who calls themselves what and what it takes are revealing more about themselves and not in a good way. What makes one “worthwhile”, “qualified” and any other colorful term is strictly up to another person that wants to be with them. This is another example of trying to make something tangible “If I do this and this and for long enough this makes me this” therefore “I am better then you and/or all available submissives please put me on top of your list”. You can poke holes or make a case for anyone if you try to define qualifications. I have x amount of experience in this type of play and teach seminars in this but never lived 24/7. I have trained dozens of submissives but have you ever been in a long term relationship. I have had several long term relationships then how come you cannot hold on to one. I have x amount of experience and in a long term relationship but need others to know how special I truly am. It is a giant waste of time and usually backfires on the people that push the tangible view.

DesFIP -> RE: Do you respect a Master who's never owned a slave? (3/24/2008 6:49:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GiantSteps At least back in the old days, there was a difference - clearly delineated - between Dominant and Master. They weren't the same thing. A Dom topped - a Master owned, and that was the defined difference between them. B.S. Dominants aren't just tops. I know subs who enjoy topping, but they don't have any desire to lead in their interpersonal relationships. And that's what a dominant is, the leader in the relationship. As far as back in the old days? You're about 40 years too young to claim being a member of the Old Guard, not to mention wrong gender orientation.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Do you respect a Master who's never owned a slave? (3/24/2008 7:22:09 AM)
quote: Do you respect a Master who's never owned a slave? The statement alone doesn't provide enough information. I'd ask a question to a self proclaimed "Master" or slave too for that matter; Master of who or what? The terms Master/slave imply a relationship context to me. You can be dominant or submissive independent of another. Those labels imply identity which can appropriately be made by self determination. Master implies something else is necessary to know what it means. Equate it to the world. Someone says they have their 'Master's Degree'; the knee jerk response is; "In what?" Same hold with these titles. "Hi, I'm 'Master XYZ'; implies to me a symbiotic relationship. On their own, Master/slave are honorariums. Give enough money to a school and you can be given the title 'Doctor'. You wouldn't want one to operate on you until/unless you were sure they are capable of doing more than donating money. In the case of a self proclaimed Master validity comes once you know context. Another case of no universally accepted definition. It's a personal thing, an ego thing, a cause of angst. Not worth more than a raised eyebrow to a position of certainty on either side of the issue. Speaking for us, if our relationship dissolved, we would use dominant and submissive to describe our lifestyle orientation; however, no introduction would start with 'Master' or 'slave' as a name modifier. Respect, doesn't enter into the equation. Using a 1-10 scale, everyone starts with a neutral '5' rating adjusted as our time together dictates from shared experiences and interaction. In that regard it is a lot like trust. However this labeling issue has too many variances. People use it to make themselves appear experienced. People use it to highlight their expertise in a certain skill. The bottom line is this issue isn't one worthy of much of an adjustment on that sliding scale, and the response wouldn't have to be in agreement with mine to have it raised upward.

Leatherist -> RE: Do you respect a Master who's never owned a slave? (3/24/2008 7:25:32 AM)
You can be a former master if you have owned a slave in an M/s dynamic. Or a Master with one. Calling yourself master with out the previous two is pretty much like calling yourself an american asrtonaut-without ever having been to nasa. [:D] In other words, ludricrous. Just because you want to,does not mean you ARE.

MzMia -> RE: Do you respect a Master who's never owned a slave? (3/24/2008 7:29:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact There have been a lot of threads lately on what other things qualify a Dominant on whether they are a Master/Mistress or not. One thing I keep going back to is one thing in particular. That a Master/Mistress, to claim themselves as such, should have at one point owned a slave. They must have taken on the responsibility for another, lived within the dynamic, and held that position of authority. Not age. Not activity within the community. Not even skill. Not the debate between the definition of submissive or slave. Just the simple fact, that by collar or contract, they have held this position in a dynamce with their counterpart. Any thoughts? As far as the lifestyle is concerned, I only ever describe myself as a male Dominant. "Dominant" is a constant (like being male and hetero, for eg) and is not dependent on the presence of another to create a defining dynamic. "Master" is a whole other matter.... As far as I'm concerned, one actually needs to own a slave in order to call themself 'Master' - same for a slave. So, no, I can't say as I'd respect a self described "Master" who didn't actually have a slave to call his own. Yet I'd respect a first day newbie Master who does - so it's not about lifestyle "experience" so much as principles; mostly my own.... Disclaimer: Bear in mind that "Master" within Martial Arts does imply and require a degree of skill to attain; I'm only talking of the lifestyle here. "Master" is the lifestyle equivalent of "super"; the most over-used self-egrandising word in the dictionary! "Super-model", for cryin' out loud! My respect is infinite - and now I need a cool drink.... lol Focus. Hello Focus! I agree with you {as I often do}. I was born a Dominant woman, and I will die a Dominant woman. I have never considered myself a "Mistress" or a "Master", really. I am simply ME, a Dominant human being. For many of us, the ONLY person that NEEDS to consider us as "Master" or "Mistress", is THE slave/submissive we are involved with. Respect for ME, is not based on experience, it is often based on what I think of that person as a human being. I CAN admire your skill set, and not respect you as a person. In that case, I don't really respect you/if I don't like you as a human being, and I don't care how long you have been swinging a whip, how many submissives you have had, or even if you evented BDSM and all that pertains to it. Many of us {myself included} are far more into the D/s dynamics and not into a lot of heavy duty S/m "play" activities. I often wished CM, would seperate those more into D/s as opposed to S/m. Some of us can have the D/s dynamic and not "play" much at all! Imagine that ! Especially if we are living this way, on a daily basis. So for me, this question is not really an issue, because in my world, there are Dominants and submissive's, and not too many "Masters" and "Mistresses". A lot of life comes down to semantics! Great thread, LP!

DesFIP -> RE: Do you respect a Master who's never owned a slave? (3/24/2008 7:59:40 AM)
Respect him more if he had his life together, knew exactly what he was looking for, wasn't settling for less and was preparing by taking classes, becoming technically proficient than I would someone who owned someone else, mistreated them, didn't bother seeing to their needs, punished them for things they were never told not to do, when traffic was bad, kept getting laid off for incompetence etc. Sorry for the run on sentence there. Just that it's a lot more complicated than the question allowed for.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875