Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Titles


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Titles Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Titles - 8/18/2004 10:20:25 PM   
smilezz


Posts: 2156
Joined: 6/18/2004
Status: offline 		Growing up...my parents required my sister and i to address adults as Sir or Ma'am when speaking to them. As the whole Military thing kicked in later in life...the whole aspect of addressing people as these has become part of my everyday vocabulary. I was recently speaking with a General and called Him 'Sir'...He told me i did not have to address Him as that... my reply was: Welllll Sir, i am 44 years old...was raised with manners, i can't see this changing anytime soon. He chuckled an approving nod.

~smilezz~

_____________________________

=It's not my fault that when I was a baby I was dropped in a box of Glitter & I have been shinin' ever since=

�*:-.,_,.-:* � �*:-.,_,.-:* � �*:-.,_,.-:* � �*:-.,_,-:* �

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Titles - 8/19/2004 5:14:27 PM   
WayHome


Posts: 237
Joined: 8/4/2004
Status: offline 		...it wasn't a rhetorical question at all. I was making the point that...

That is the definition of a rhetorical question: one asked to make a point rather than to solicit an answer.

Clearly you have taken offense. I can only say that it was not my intention to offend or insult. It was only my intention to suggest that simple gramatical practices might not mean to everyone what they mean to you.

You take the use of a lowercase as demeaning. Not everyone does. You commented on people addressing you as a dominant because of your capital letter negatively. Perhaps they are just trying to be respectful and adhere to the protocol of a subculture that you are not a part of.

My wife is a submissive. She doesn't generally use a lower case either, for some of the same reasons as you. Because it just doesn't feel right to her or convey an image that she feels represents her as an individual. But we understand that it does work for others. That it does work for others and there is nothing wrong with that was my only point.

I only use titles in the context of a scene. That works for me and to do otherwise would seem silly or restrictive. For others, not using titles can have the same effect.

Again, no offense was intended, but your taking offense does speak to the core of my point.

(in reply to snowleopard)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Titles - 8/20/2004 12:05:41 AM   
snowleopard


Posts: 18
Joined: 8/16/2004
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WayHome

...it wasn't a rhetorical question at all. I was making the point that...

That is the definition of a rhetorical question: one asked to make a point rather than to solicit an answer.


Even when I have stated the question was not rhetorical you decide to tell me it was. It was a question used in this context as a verb, meaning "place in doubt or express doubtful speculation".

quote:

ORIGINAL: WayHome

Clearly you have taken offense. I can only say that it was not my intention to offend or insult. It was only my intention to suggest that simple gramatical practices might not mean to everyone what they mean to you.


Whilst your intention may not have been to insult you never the less chose to tell me that you "knew" I intended the question as rhetorical, even when I responded and said no, in fact it wasn't, you returned to tell me that it was. I'm sorry but without being inside my head I'm afraid that it is quite impossible to "know" what my intentions were.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayhome:

You take the use of a lowercase as demeaning. Not everyone does. You commented on people addressing you as a dominant because of your capital letter negatively. Perhaps they are just trying to be respectful and adhere to the protocol of a subculture that you are not a part of.


And perhaps that very subculture is eroding the meaning and value of the term "respect". Why should I or anyone have respect for a subculture which by it's actions and lack of understanding of the the term and of it's place in the lifestyle fosters the mythology that a dominant is somehow to be treated as some kinda superior being merely because they term themselves "dominant"? Why should anyone who has actually lived the lifestyle they claim also to love accept without challenge a subculture which fosters and promotes the impression which vanillas seem to think makes all subs weak doormats and all doms domineering bullies. Why should we unquestioningly accept that a "new" and online only "subculture" must be respected when by their very actions and beliefs they are disrespecting the lifestyle that we all love?

This whole "respect" nonsense has become both shield and lance to the online subculture, they have seized it and use it to justify their activities. What the online subculture fails to recognise and take responsibility for, is that what they do is highly visible and is used by those who already have negative preconceptions about bdsm to reinforce them. This affects them how? They exist in an online subculture where that kind of negativity has minimal impact upon their choices, for those who live this lifestyle offline as well as online the consequences can be far more damaging.

quote:

ORIGINAL : Wayhome

My wife is a submissive. She doesn't generally use a lower case either, for some of the same reasons as you. Because it just doesn't feel right to her or convey an image that she feels represents her as an individual. But we understand that it does work for others. That it does work for others and there is nothing wrong with that was my only point.

I only use titles in the context of a scene. That works for me and to do otherwise would seem silly or restrictive. For others, not using titles can have the same effect.


And you made your point that you felt there was nothing wrong with it quite clearly in your original post, which I responded too pointing out that I disagreed and taking the time to explain why. You have not addressed a single one of the points I made or questions I asked.

quote:

ORIGINAL : Wayhome

Again, no offense was intended, but your taking offense does speak to the core of my point.


Whether or not you intended to offend is not the issue, I didn't intend to stub my toe on the step this morning, nonetheless I did so, and it caused an emotional response, I can't blame the step because it's an inanimate object that couldn't have avoided my toe even if it had the ability to want to do so. My response speaks to the core issue that your post written by you as a direct response to mine made assumptions about me based on little or no evidence and indeed illustrates my entire point quite beautifully. Even in apologising you chose to label me "offended" yet I did not once claim to be so affected. I responded to your post and challenged your assumptions, I commented upon how your tone had appeared to me, but not once did I state that I was offended by it.

_____________________________

~submission is something inside you, not something you convince others of by faking an attitude~
Rowenas Ramblings
Snow Time Forums

(in reply to WayHome)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Titles - 8/20/2004 4:30:20 AM   
WayHome


Posts: 237
Joined: 8/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

That is the definition of a rhetorical question: one asked to make a point rather than to solicit an answer.


Even when I have stated the question was not rhetorical you decide to tell me it was. It was a question used in this context as a verb, meaning "place in doubt or express doubtful speculation".

I think the problem here (like the subjecy) is just a matter of semantics. When you make a statement in the form of a question in order to make a point such as to "place in doubt or express doubtful speculation" then that meets my definition of a rhetorical question. What is your definition?

quote:

Clearly you have taken offense. I can only say that it was not my intention to offend or insult. It was only my intention to suggest that simple gramatical practices might not mean to everyone what they mean to you.


Whilst your intention may not have been to insult you never the less chose to tell me that you "knew" I intended the question as rhetorical, even when I responded and said no, in fact it wasn't, you returned to tell me that it was. I'm sorry but without being inside my head I'm afraid that it is quite impossible to "know" what my intentions were.

Now you attribute the word "know" to my reply when it only ocurred in my original statement. That word implied no omnipotence or magical insight into your motivations. That word was simply used in acknowledging that I intended to answer a question that did not apear to request one. You seem to agree by saying you intent was to express doubtful speculation.

And perhaps that very subculture is eroding the meaning and value of the term "respect". Why should I or anyone have respect for a subculture which by it's actions and lack of understanding of the the term and of it's place in the lifestyle fosters the mythology that a dominant is somehow to be treated as some kinda superior being merely because they term themselves "dominant"?

Perhaps they are doing all of that and thus are not worthy of your respect or mine, but I don't see how they can accomplish all that simply through creative use of capitalization.

Why should anyone who has actually lived the lifestyle they claim also to love accept without challenge a subculture which fosters and promotes the impression which vanillas seem to think makes all subs weak doormats and all doms domineering bullies. Why should we unquestioningly accept that a "new" and online only "subculture" must be respected when by their very actions and beliefs they are disrespecting the lifestyle that we all love? This whole "respect" nonsense has become both shield and lance to the online subculture, they have seized it and use it to justify their activities. What the online subculture fails to recognise and take responsibility for, is that what they do is highly visible and is used by those who already have negative preconceptions about bdsm to reinforce them. This affects them how? They exist in an online subculture where that kind of negativity has minimal impact upon their choices, for those who live this lifestyle offline as well as online the consequences can be far more damaging.

You bring up some interesting questions in that paragraph. Probably worth a discussion if we could do so with civility.


And you made your point that you felt there was nothing wrong with it quite clearly in your original post, which I responded too pointing out that I disagreed and taking the time to explain why. You have not addressed a single one of the points I made or questions I asked.

This seems to be evolving into a fight and I'm still uncertain what it is you are fighting with me about. Is it my stance on whether it's ok for someone else to use nonstandard capitalization as a means of communicating aspects of their online interaction? If so, then I don't see it being worth a line-item response. I'm sure we're already boring most of the forum.


Even in apologising you chose to label me "offended" yet I did not once claim to be so affected. I responded to your post and challenged your assumptions, I commented upon how your tone had appeared to me, but not once did I state that I was offended by it.


Now I have to ask what your definition of "offended" is. It seems to be different than mine. This to me sounds like someone who is offended:

quote:

WayHome I am fully aware why it's done online, I have been online for 7 years interacting in various chatrooms and message boards, it wasn't a rhetorical question at all. I was making the point that in r/t if you and I met neither you nor I would have a capital or lowercase letter emblazened on our forehead, instead we would interact and yes even ASK questions to find out more about each other. WHY is it so important to know what my orientation is BEFORE I am deemed worthy of interacting with? THAT is what annoys me about much of the online scene.


It's not just the words, but also the use of capitalzation which implies to me an emotional response. I called it "offended" but maybe you would prefer "annoyed". I don't consider either adjective an insult and the meannings are not that different. You said, "...Whilst your intention may not have been to insult you never the less chose to tell me that ..." The "never the less" part implies that I did insult you. If I insulted you, then I offended you ("offense" and "insult" being synonyms in this case). Though I certainly did not mean to insult you by saying that I offended you, intent does not seem to pardon me from the offense.

We seem to be caught up in a fight over semantics regarding a discussion of semantics, can we at least share the humor of that?

< Message edited by WayHome -- 8/20/2004 4:35:51 AM >

(in reply to snowleopard)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Titles - 8/20/2004 5:55:16 AM   
snowleopard


Posts: 18
Joined: 8/16/2004
From: UK
Status: offline 		Using the exact same quote that you have done to illustrate why you felt I sounded "offended"

quote:



WayHome I am fully aware why it's done online, I have been online for 7 years interacting in various chatrooms and message boards, it wasn't a rhetorical question at all. I was making the point that in r/t if you and I met neither you nor I would have a capital or lowercase letter emblazened on our forehead, instead we would interact and yes even ASK questions to find out more about each other. WHY is it so important to know what my orientation is BEFORE I am deemed worthy of interacting with? THAT is what annoys me about much of the online scene.


Even on rereading it and speaking aloud I am completely at a loss to hear anything in that exchange which denotes offense at anything you had said, in fact I was attempting to denote that it was the online protocol in and of itself which I feel is open to challenge.

Yes I can see the humour although not when someone keeps telling me how they imagine I am feeling or what I was feeling when I wrote something, at best they are guessing at worst projecting. I agree that semantics are boring to some however they are essential when attempting to explain meaning. Perhaps with this exchange we will have helped others to understand us, at the very least it hopefully has helped us to learn and understand a little more about each other. Neither of those things are bad.

Taken from something I wrote a long time ago about online conflicts:

When we talk to someone in person, we see their facial expressions, their body language, and hear their tone of voice. Someone can say the exact same thing in a number of different ways, and that usually effects how we respond to their remarks. Calling someone a prick for example can be either a fond amused comment to a friend or a gross insult, face to face it is far easier to determine which of those meanings the word holds since one could assume a smile and fond chuckle, perhaps even an accompanying touch of the hand would clearly show no offence was intended. In online communications, we have no visual or auditory cues to help us to decipher the intent, meaning, and tone of the messenger. All we have are the words on a computer screen, and how we hear those words in our head. While people who know each other have a better chance at accurately understanding each other's meaning and intentions, even they can have arguments online that they would not have in-person. The truth is, how we read text, often says more about ourselves than it does about the message or the messenger.

All of our communications, online and in real-time, are filled with projections. We perceive the world through our expectations, needs, desires, fantasies, and feelings, and we project those onto other people. For example, if we expect people to be critical of us, we perceive other people's communication as being critical - it sounds critical to us even though it may not be. We do the same thing online; in fact we are more likely to project when we are online precisely because we don't have the visual or auditory cues to guide us in our interpretations. How we "hear" an email or post is how we hear it in our own heads, which may or may not reflect the tone or attitude of the sender.

We also should not assume that our definition or emotional response thats is termed "offense" or "offensive" is the same as anyone elses, it can help as you have done in your recent reply to me to explain what it means to you personally, but to assume it means the same thing to everyone is a mistake that can lead to all kinds of misunderstanding as has been clearly illustrated.

I certainly didn't and don't feel that we are involved in a "fight", merely a discussion about the differences in our thinking and I can't see that it is necessarily a bad thing at all to get it cleared up before we enter into a discussion of emotive subjects.

I would be interested in hearing what your thinking is about the points I raised in my last post.


< Message edited by snowleopard -- 8/20/2004 5:59:50 AM >

_____________________________

~submission is something inside you, not something you convince others of by faking an attitude~
Rowenas Ramblings
Snow Time Forums

(in reply to WayHome)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Titles - 8/20/2004 10:06:52 AM   
WayHome


Posts: 237
Joined: 8/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: snowleopard


I would be interested in hearing what your thinking is about the points I raised in my last post.



OK.


Why should anyone who has actually lived the lifestyle they claim also to love accept without challenge a subculture which fosters and promotes the impression which vanillas seem to think makes all subs weak doormats and all doms domineering bullies.

They shouldn't. But then I'm not convinced that describes all or nearly all of the online groups. I've popped in to many chat areas as a complete unknown where I could just as easily have been a vanilla and generally been greeted with civility. I might get ignored until someone thinks they might be interested in cruising me, but it is a common trait of all sorts of chats, vanilla and otherwise that people don't pay attention to you until you give them a reason to. It's nothing personal, just the nature of the media that to do otherwise and give equal attention to every tourist that pops in would get tedious very fast.


Why should we unquestioningly accept that a "new" and online only "subculture" must be respected when by their very actions and beliefs they are disrespecting the lifestyle that we all love?.

Maybe I just haven't seen enough of them. I'm pretty new to the online scene. I was previously a part of several email groups related to local munches, but that is a completely different animal since most everyone has or will meet face-to-face and the constituency is well defined.


This whole "respect" nonsense has become both shield and lance to the online subculture, they have seized it and use it to justify their activities.

I see clueless individuals and horn dogs doing that, not a defined subculture. On the other hand, I am not a submissive female and thus my experience may be limited. I see the "cap code" kinda like the old hanky code. There will be people who use it, and people who abuse it.

What the online subculture fails to recognise and take responsibility for, is that what they do is highly visible and is used by those who already have negative preconceptions about bdsm to reinforce them. This affects them how? They exist in an online subculture where that kind of negativity has minimal impact upon their choices, for those who live this lifestyle offline as well as online the consequences can be far more damaging?.

On the other hand, a lot of good goes on online. People find people. Communities are formed. Information is disseminated (along with misinformation of course). There is a lot of both good and bad there. I think that if real time folks just write them all off rather than being an active influence, the problem just gets worse. Look at collarme. This forum bears little resemblance socially to the "other side" of the site.

(in reply to snowleopard)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Titles - 8/20/2004 11:56:31 PM   
snowleopard


Posts: 18
Joined: 8/16/2004
From: UK
Status: offline 		OK so now we are getting somewhere, you say you are new to the online culture, well I'm not, as stated many times I have been online 7 years, for 3 of those years I made my home in a dedicated D/s chatroom. For 6 of those years I have run my own bdsm online community of one kind or another, first on msn then when I gained enough technical skills I bought my own domain and built my own website and forum. During the past 6 years online I have worked voluntarily as an editor for 2 of the main BDSM search engine resource sites for the BDSM forums and chatrooms catagories.

In the 6 years I have been doing this I probably visited thousands of forums and chatrooms, I can appreciate that your experiences to date may not have exposed you to the negativity of the online subculture that it has me and applaud it. Far from being a real timer who condems or dismisses online as not real or inferior to real time, I have spent a considerable amount of my time working with online groups and working to support their right to have their preferences accepted by the real life only people.

Just for my own curiosity I just did a very rough calculation of the amount of hours I can conservatively estimate to have spent doing this in the past 6 years, even if I spent 3 hours a week in the past 6 years doing this I would have invested over 2,000 hours of my time, in fact it is quite probably double that amount.

I have been in all kinds of chatrooms and fora, for every kind of fetish, from IRC rooms to email lists.

Again if you check out my own site you will find many articles speaking in support of the online subculture and probably an equal number which challenge aspects of it which do little to help their/our cause.

You see I don't consider or think of myself as real time only or online only, I manage to combine both.

When I speak critically of the online subcuture and aspects of it I do so from a position of knowledge and experience, far from wanting to see it fail I want to see it work because I am a part of that subculture, indeed every one of us here on this forum are a part of it.

There is another thread in this very forum discussing forms of address and titles, the vast majority of people posting are asserting that they value respect they have earned as a unique person through their actions and consistency. That is what I feel the online subculture has to answer for, the diminishing of that respect by insistance upon a protocol which has absolutely no relation to real time culture.

Any title I acknowledge will belong to someone who has shown through their deeds that they are worthy of it and it will have nothing at all to do with my ability or theirs to use a shift key.

Might I perhaps suggest that you try logging into chats as a submissive female or submissive male, or rather, just log in without a capital letter in your name, it would be good research and perhaps expose to you a facet of the online subculture which does it no credit whatsoever.

What the online brigade need to do is clean up their act, decide if they are a "subculture" who wish to be taken seriously as part of the bdsm larger community in which case they should be working towards keeping it real online or are they just fantasists indudging a desire or fantasy? There is absolutely nothing at all wrong with being a fantasist, where it becomes problematical is when a fantasist loses touch with reality and thinks that the fantasy is real, thats dangerous for them, and even more dangerous for us as bdsm'ers when they attempt to rationalise it and make it OK by bringing others into that fantasy life and promoting it as real.

< Message edited by snowleopard -- 8/21/2004 12:07:17 AM >

_____________________________

~submission is something inside you, not something you convince others of by faking an attitude~
Rowenas Ramblings
Snow Time Forums

(in reply to WayHome)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Titles - 8/30/2004 10:03:43 AM   
Krow


Posts: 6
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline 		here is something that I thought might be of intrest to this thread http://www.domsub.info/honorifics.html

(in reply to lrishlass)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Titles - 8/30/2004 10:19:01 PM   
WayHome


Posts: 237
Joined: 8/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Krow

here is something that I thought might be of intrest to this thread http://www.domsub.info/honorifics.html



Great article. Very well thought out and reasonable. I think there are a number of sentences that I will be replaying in my head in the future.


Leto

(in reply to Krow)
Profile   Post #: 49
[Deleted] - 8/31/2004 6:35:35 AM   
Deleted User
 [Deleted by Admins]

(in reply to WayHome)
  Post #: 50
RE: Titles - 8/31/2004 10:20:15 PM   
LadyShoshin


Posts: 492
Joined: 7/19/2004
From: Burlington, Ontario
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sylverdawn

I prefer to be referred to as Ma'am or Ms... in general conversation with submissives.

I dont require it .. it is just my general preference and if asked I respond with my preference.



I agree, Ma'am or m'Lady works. I don't allow subs to call me Mistress until the collar of consideration goes on & then only if it comes from the heart, I don't require it.

I don't see a title as being a big deal, being called something doesn't make me that thing or person, it is the attitude, the behaviour, the skill and the experience. I would prefer to be called Ma'am & be respected because I had earned the respect. I could call myself Great Exalted Grand Poobah of the Universe and sahshay around like I owned the universe, but I am still just a woman like any other woman and don't deserve respect and honor I haven't earned.

_____________________________

PHLOX: “It’s unethical for a doctor to cause harm...I can inflict as much pain as I like.”

(in reply to Sylverdawn)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Titles - 9/1/2004 7:41:25 PM   
Wenchlette2


Posts: 4
Joined: 9/1/2004
Status: offline 		[/bI personally have never been one to see the need for titles.Online it is used most and I always tell those I meet no matter if they are Dominant/submissive or slave to call Me Debbie unless thier protocol requires then to use title.
Labels and titles do not and never will make a person who or what they are...that comes from within and personally...anyone demanding title in My opinion has an issue with thier ego*smiles*

(in reply to lrishlass)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Titles - 9/2/2004 6:52:29 PM   
stormiKnightBEAR


Posts: 306
Joined: 3/14/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SherriA


Do you address people who identify as submissive or slaves as Sir/Ma'am as well? Just curious....



Actually most of the time yes stormi does address everyone as Sir or Ma'am now
there are those that are addressed that way including stormi in a fun yet sarcastic manner... mainly
because at the ripe age of 45 it still bothers this girl to be called Ma'am.

Just another point.... while understanding that it is a pet peeve...most of the Leather slaves/boys/bois that
this girl know do the exact same.. Sir and Ma'am regardless. Exception is if we've been given free speech
time.

Have a great week and sorry it took so long to answer,.... We recently purchased a house and have been
moving.

Thanks.
stormi
property of Master Bear

_____________________________

owned white silk slave of TEMJI aka Master Bear

PROUD TO BE TEXAN AND AMERICAN BY BIRTH~
GOD BLESS TEXAS AND THE U.S.A !!!!

(in reply to SherriA)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Titles - 9/2/2004 7:16:43 PM   
SherriA


Posts: 544
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: stormiKnightBEAR

Actually most of the time yes stormi does address everyone as Sir or Ma'am
<snip>
Just another point.... while understanding that it is a pet peeve...most of the Leather slaves/boys/bois that
this girl know do the exact same.. Sir and Ma'am regardless.


Thanks for answering. :)

I don't have a pet peeve about people who use sir/ma'am for everyone, regardless of role. I have issues with people who say it's a "sign of respect" but only use it with those who identify as dominant, suggesting that anyone who is submissive doesn't deserve respect. That's my pet peeve.

_____________________________

-- Sherri

Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.

(in reply to stormiKnightBEAR)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Titles - 9/2/2004 7:25:59 PM   
siamsa24


Posts: 2426
Joined: 2/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:

I have issues with people who say it's a "sign of respect" but only use it with those who identify as dominant, suggesting that anyone who is submissive doesn't deserve respect. That's my pet peeve.


I agree with you 100%, I feel that even though I am a submissive I am worthy of just as much (and sometimes more, depending on who you are speaking about) respect as eveyone else on this site.

(in reply to SherriA)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Titles - 9/2/2004 7:26:14 PM   
SherriA


Posts: 544
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ModeratorSix
Way back when, we just thought that things like cap codes and brackets to indicate a collar made it easier for real live BDSMers to communicate in a text only medium. It was never intended to be a culture all its own. Then AOL opened up to the 'net, and the rest is history.


"Way back when" (I was online then too), we paid exhorbitant rates per minute or for specific amounts of data transfer, so short hand of this sort was a necessary evil of sorts. That's simply not the case these days. Pretty much everyone has unlimited minutes/month from their ISP and practically unreachable limits on the amount of data that can be sent (if any limits at all). There's no need for those kinds of short hand, in these days of high speed connections and unlimited online time.

As I said, I was around then too. I didn't like the X/x conventions then any more than I do now. As a switch into SM rather than d/s, the cap/lowercase conventions and the {collar} crap was pretty much useless - confining and inaccurate at best.

So? It's no one's job to accomodate my preferences. I found places to hang out where it wasn't expected, which anyone can do these days as well. Some people like those kinds of online games, and good for them. I don't...and I choose to spend my time places where those things aren't important or even accepted generally. Works for me.

_____________________________

-- Sherri

Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.

(in reply to Deleted User)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Titles - 9/3/2004 10:34:40 AM   
squirrelfury


Posts: 44
Joined: 8/20/2004
From: Houston, Texas
Status: offline 		I tend to stick with "Sir" and "m'Lady" as basic beginning titles, changing to something more familiar/friendly/affectionate based upon their preference and our comfortability level/relationship to each other. Also, one of my first questions when negotiating a scene with someone new is how they wish to be addressed.

From the example, if he really wants and prefers being called Sir, I see no problem with it. *shrugs* Sir is a damned useful word for any male whom you would approach respectfully or politely, so extending it to one who asks for it in the context of a BDSM relationship doesn't seem a hardship to me.

_____________________________

~Squirrel~
I wept for I had no shoes, then I met the bastard who took them. Who's crying *now*, fetish-boy?

From a word to a word I was led to a word, from a deed to another deed.

(in reply to lrishlass)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Titles - 9/22/2004 6:32:11 PM   
knees2you


Posts: 2336
Joined: 3/15/2004
Status: offline 		If a Master or Mistress likes a certain name used, I would use it collared or not collared.

Just Shows Respect.

Sincerely, eyesofAslave




Attachment (1)

(in reply to lrishlass)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Titles - 9/22/2004 8:10:20 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline 		Irishlass,
My "Irish Lass" beth, calls me Master. What I call her is subject of a different thread. But I introduced myself, and got to know her, by my given name. I never required or asked her to call me Master, she asked me permission to do so.

Like respect, the title Master should be an earned. I've noticed that titles are more prevalent on-line. But if real time is the goal and chatting is just a way to get to know each other, demanding a title from the very beginning may be a warning sign.

Any 'self appointed' Master or Mistress lacks the confidence to expect he/she will someday earn and deserve that title.

(in reply to lrishlass)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Titles - 10/10/2004 1:55:34 AM   
Suleiman


Posts: 1127
Joined: 9/9/2004
Status: offline 		Dude. I am Dude, you are Dude, he/she/it/they are all Dude. Any other title requires a certian degree of respect. Respect can not be commanded, insisted upon, or expected. You have to right to be treated with the basic respect and dignity due to any sentient being, and so is everybody else in the room. Anything more is icing, and you gots to get in good with the kitchen fairy before you can lick the beaters.

_____________________________

Think of my verbosity as a sort of litmus test for our relationship. I write in a manner identical to how I speak and how I think. If you can not cope with what I have written here, it is probably for the best if we go our separate ways.

(in reply to lrishlass)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Titles Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.078