|
CallaFirestormBW -> RE: To CAPITALIZE or not ? (12/1/2008 11:59:49 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
I understand your desire to follow the orders your Mistress gives you, brabb. However, to me, it would feel irresponsible to do that if I were to do it in all areas. To me, it's partly a question of who my Mistress can have control over. She's allowed control over me but it would be irresponsible of me to allow her control over people other than myself.
Communication involves two people at least: the hearer as well as the sayer - obviously. I don't feel I have the right to let a domina tell me how a recipient of one of my messages should influence what he or she hears. That person won't have bought into my D/s relationship and it wouldn't feel fair on him/her to allow my domina such control. In short: I can accept control over me by my domina - but I can't accept any desire by her to control others through me. That'd be irresponsible of me.
On a purely pragmatic level, I have to disagree with the underlying presumption of this response. It presumes that the -only- consideration in communication between two people is those two individuals, which isn't the case. If it were, then rules about communication set down by, say, a teacher or an organization would be an 'intrusion'. I think that, in general, we manage to incorporate 'rules' about how we communicate into just about -every- communication that we have. For those who are under the onus of having a dominant individual in hir life determine how xhe is to communicate, it is simply a matter of incorporating those rules into the existing dynamic of rules under which we already communicate. It is no more an intrusion than having one's parent-figures require certain sorts of manners and requiring those to be used in public, both in and out of those parental units' presence.
I think that much of the issue comes about because people are, typically, not fluent in the use and manipulation of the English language. Particularly in the United States, we've cut so many corners in our linguistic exercise in the interest of expedience that we've lost the flexibility to be able to seamlessly and effortlessly incorporate advanced linguistic exercises into our common speech. I disagree completely with the idea that "forcing" someone to hear well-spoken and well-considered language is an insult, or compels them into our dynamic... but I also feel that it is the responsiblity of the giver of such protocols to be fluent in hir own use of the language, to coach and instruct those who she gives such rules to, and the responsiblity of the one under onus of such rules to take the time to study and understand the structures that will make her communication understandable, and to give feedback to the rule-giver when xhe is having difficulty in presenting hir ideas in a way that can be understood.
I enjoy spoken and written protocols -- frankly, to me, they are invaluable in developing a disciplined mind, and, essentially, they're like 'communications cross-training'... the thought and consideration required of a servant in order to communicate gracefully and understandably ultimately, in my experience, improves hir ability to communicate in general, even in less formal situations. I will admit, though, that it has often seemed to me that it is laziness, rather than discomfort, that incites so much dislike for the idea of verbal and written linguistic protocol.
|
|
|
|
