Honorifics by Gender

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

Honorifics by Gender

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

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> Honorifics by Gender

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Honorifics by Gender - 4/21/2004 11:52:47 AM

Posts: 1123
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

I received and email today from a bright, articulate and intelligent person I was a bit curious when I read the following quote.

quote:

You will note that I do not use honorifics with female
dominants
for the simple reason I am a slave to men and consider myself on equal
footing with any female.

This is the not the first time I have come across this sentiment amoung *slaves* of both genders. I wonder about that.

If a person of a specific gender is due respect not because of actions, education, ability and reputation but simply by the grace of god for being either male or female isnt that degrading to your own gender. I suppose what I mean is if there is no female worthy of honorifics doesnt collarate to mean that women are as a group less worthy then men and visa versa.
I am not personally one for titles myself but I am very much for respect. Because there are male and females who I have met and I have found worthy of the title of Sir.. or Ma'am regardless of my role.. I suppose I am curious about this view point because it is so completely alien to me. Does anyone else have thoughts on this and why it seems so prevalient among females?

_____________________________

“When women are depressed, they eat or go shopping. Men invade another country. It's a whole different way of thinking.” Elyane Boosler

Being a women is hard work Maya Angelou

RE: Honorifics by Gender - 4/21/2004 12:20:31 PM

Posts: 247
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Las Vegas NV
Status: offline

I think she is trying to say that she is submisive to men but probably has no interest of submitting to women. It personaly does not offend me, that is just her preference.

_____________________________

D/s makes the world go round~~
www.Domina.ms/love

(in reply to Sylverdawn)

RE: Honorifics by Gender - 4/21/2004 12:57:38 PM

Posts: 1123
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

Is a form of respectful address submitting?

_____________________________

“When women are depressed, they eat or go shopping. Men invade another country. It's a whole different way of thinking.” Elyane Boosler

Being a women is hard work Maya Angelou

(in reply to GoddessMarissa)

RE: Honorifics by Gender - 4/21/2004 1:25:14 PM

Posts: 247
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Las Vegas NV
Status: offline

If someone respectfully addresses someone that does not mean you are submitting to them , it just means you are giving them respect as a person.

_____________________________

D/s makes the world go round~~
www.Domina.ms/love

(in reply to Sylverdawn)

RE: Honorifics by Gender - 4/21/2004 1:42:37 PM

Posts: 865
Joined: 2/4/2004
From: Scotland/Tennessee
Status: offline

In the email that you received, Silverdawn, the submissive stated that she does not use honorifics with female dominants because she is a slave to men and considers herself on equal footing with any female. That may be true in the "vanilla" scene, but in lifestlyle interactions that would not be the case. I am a Woman and a Dominant, and would honor another Dominant Woman by using her title in address out of respect in a lifestyle situation, as she would me.

It isn't a matter of what gender one chooses to serve as a submissive, but rather demonstrating respect for onself and others.

< Message edited by LadyBeckett -- 4/21/2004 1:43:50 PM >

_____________________________

Lady Beckett

_______________________________________________

"Submissive boys yearn to fall into their proper place, so the rest of their life will." ~ Lady Beckett

(in reply to Sylverdawn)

RE: Honorifics by Gender - 4/21/2004 2:24:49 PM

Posts: 49
Joined: 1/1/2004
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline

For my part, I base everything on merit. There's far too many people running around as 'Masters' and 'Mistresses' and 'Goddesses'. There's far too few who deserve their self-proclaimed titles. If I see qualities in someone that reflect well on the title, I may refer to them on occasion as 'Master X' or 'Mistress X'. Otherwise, they get 'X'. (Or they get ignored all together).

But then, that's just me.

< Message edited by Erusvi -- 4/21/2004 2:32:18 PM >

_____________________________

Schno
ErusVI
Los Angeles
Owner of dahanala
www.esenem.net
[image]http://www.esenem.net/Gallery/albums/2005_08_Savage/SM_1.thumb.jpg[/image]

(in reply to LadyBeckett)

RE: Honorifics by Gender - 4/21/2004 2:31:28 PM

Posts: 49
Joined: 1/1/2004
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline

To address the original post:

To my mind, unless mandated by their owner, it is entirely a sub's prerogative what manner is used when addressing dominants. I would not expect any slave/sub/bottom other than my own to call me 'Master'. If they choose to do so, it's gladly received. If not, then... so what?

If you're someone who gets rabid over these kinds of things, I suggest a switch to decaf. There are a lot of tasty brands on the market these days that taste as good as the real thing.

_____________________________

Schno
ErusVI
Los Angeles
Owner of dahanala
www.esenem.net
[image]http://www.esenem.net/Gallery/albums/2005_08_Savage/SM_1.thumb.jpg[/image]

(in reply to Erusvi)

RE: Honorifics by Gender - 4/21/2004 2:32:24 PM

Posts: 729
Joined: 1/11/2004
Status: offline

Sylverdawn, the reason my comment was made to you offsite rather than on the begin with is you chose to write Master offsite rather than make your comments here to be passed on and he allowed me to respond. Should you wish to quote me in the future, please mention where the quote is from. Should you have a question on what I am thinking, feel free to ask. I never hide my thoughts.

As far as the original comment goes, I will explain it a bit more clearly. No where does it say I am slave to ALL men, only that I am a slave ONLY to men. Respect is a two way street. I show everyone equal respect and continue to do so as long as they do the same to me. If they do not, I feel no reason to continue. If you read through the entire boards, you will note that I often call male dominants by their names also. That is not a lack of respect, it is just that as I do no know them from Adam, I don't *owe* them more than the basic courtesy my mother taught me to show anyone.

To call someone *mistress*, *sir*, *master*, *lady* etc. when it is not apply with my interactions with them makes the titles less meaningful. If every submissive or slave called Ross *master*, it would make it less of something that is unique for us in our relationship.

LB, so you know, there is nothing submissive about me. Also, my lack of an honorific is not disrespectful, it is just not needed. I do not force others to accept my beliefs and in return do not allow them to force me to live by theirs. It is only Master that can tell me I have to do something I do not agree with, unless it is in the rules of the place I am, and it is not mandated in this forum or I would not have joined it.

I personally think it poor English at best and downright silly at worse for you to capitalize things like *woman* LB, just because you are speaking of a dominant. You don't have to agree with me (and probably won't), and don't have to. You are entitled to follow poor writing skills as I am to attempt to follow proper ones.

Marrissa, again, not using an honorific is not the same not being respectful. I am as respectful to others are they are to me. I am deferential to those I know in real life and/or have reason to be so with, but even in that case do not use an honorific with those they do not apply to within the guides of my own life choices.

< Message edited by EStrict -- 4/21/2004 2:37:00 PM >

_____________________________

Sandy

Don't take life too seriously, no one gets out alive anyway...

(in reply to Sylverdawn)

RE: Honorifics by Gender - 4/21/2004 2:38:05 PM

Posts: 729
Joined: 1/11/2004
Status: offline

::Smiles:: Welcome back Erus, it is a pleasure to see you again.

_____________________________

Sandy

Don't take life too seriously, no one gets out alive anyway...

(in reply to Erusvi)

RE: Honorifics by Gender - 4/21/2004 2:44:14 PM

Posts: 1123
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

E I think your jumpin the gun here the email raised the question in my mind again.. so thats why I used it.. it was in no way reflective of the quality of email I recieved from you. I didnt attribute the quote to you because it was a general question not a specific question about why you would do it ..but what thinking pattern is involved here and as I clearly stated its not the first time in speaking with submissives of either gender that its come up..I didnt personalize it as I didnt want it to appear that I was questioning you specifically rather have questions about the mindset.

but as you owned up it to it..you say you wont use honorifics with females but you will with males.. as you are slave to men.. I read that to mean that if I had written your Master and was a male the reply would have been.. Dear Sir.. or Sir.. or MasterWonderful .. rather than the familar use of my name.

For me its about resonable manners and equiette in the Vanilla world .. and respect and honor in the Lifestyle.. Ettiquette proscribes the use of familar names ie given names unless invited and so until a person said "no please call me Mary".. I would always say Hello Ms Brown.. In the lifestyle if someone was introduced to me as MasterLordof theUnivese I would say good afternoon Sir.. its polite it doesnt overstep bounds and if he said no I wish to be called Master lord of the universe.. I would be polite say thank you for the information and probably refrain from speaking to him again.. but I would introduce him as MasterLord of the Universe should the occassion araise. Perhaps protocol and etiquette are simply my bugaboo..

But really my question is why would honorifics be denlinated by gender.. is it a socially based thing, its is that idea of submitting to your own gender makes you appear weaker.. is it that a submissive fears that by using such titles they invite a Dominat to overwhelm and they are for lack of a better term homophobic.. is it that the submissive believes in Male or female supremacy and therefore no one of their own gender can be seen as Dominate.. I am simply curious.

< Message edited by Sylverdawn -- 4/21/2004 3:04:31 PM >

_____________________________

“When women are depressed, they eat or go shopping. Men invade another country. It's a whole different way of thinking.” Elyane Boosler

Being a women is hard work Maya Angelou

(in reply to EStrict)

RE: Honorifics by Gender - 4/21/2004 3:00:14 PM

Posts: 729
Joined: 1/11/2004
Status: offline

quote:

I didnt quote you because it was a general question not a specific question about why you would do it ..but what thinking pattern is involved here and as I clearly stated its not the first time in speaking with submissives of either gender that its come up..

::Smiles:: but that is the point. You *did* quote me. It is what I wrote word for word, copied from the letter. So the request remaims, if you are going to quote me, please state it is me you are quoting. If you don't wish to quote me, please paraphrase the comments in your own words instead of copying what I say word for word.

BTW, I do agree I am not the only one that feels as I do. And have to wonder why some dominants are so thin skinned to see it as implied insults. That is a general comment, I do not know if it bothers you from your words or not.

_____________________________

Sandy

Don't take life too seriously, no one gets out alive anyway...

(in reply to Sylverdawn)

RE: Honorifics by Gender - 4/21/2004 3:31:08 PM

Posts: 247
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Las Vegas NV
Status: offline

Let me rephrase what I said before. I do not think using an honorific means your showing respect. You show respect by the words you use, not titles. I do not expect anyone to address me with honorifics unless they are serving me.

_____________________________

D/s makes the world go round~~
www.Domina.ms/love

(in reply to EStrict)

RE: Honorifics by Gender - 4/21/2004 4:19:23 PM

Posts: 1633
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

Sylverdawn,

i've made the mistake when tired. It is impolite to post a private e-mail.

Sandy,

I can't speak for her but I doubt offense was intended.

BTW, I have a penis and am not your equal

. (Sorry, I could not resist that. {Yeah, I know, I should have tried harder.

} I also am responding to your words via a third party and letting her put the words in your mouth. I admit that is wrong and only do it for sake of a dick joke.)

And i have a different view of LadyBeckett's capitalization.

Sylverdawn,

I have a different problem with honorifics. I drop the Mistress in Dread, Kiss, and Mary's name after a short while.

As I'm sure they'd tell me, they are not my "Mistress". Although it may appear rude on my part, I don't think I have a choice. I have similar problem with anyone with “Master” in his name, although I see less of them.

I could be wrong but you are treading near a nerve here. (If I continue here is where the avalanche starts). (Sorry, M'Lady, i don't think it would be an interesting enough avalanche.) I would suggest everyone abandon this thread.

In short, Sylverdawn, you have a legitimate question that will not be answered. It is like Jazz.

Oh a great line

quote:

If you're someone who gets rabid over these kinds of things, I suggest a switch to decaf. There are a lot of tasty brands on the market these days that taste as good as the real thing.

Bravo Erusvi. BTW, we both have penises so I am your equal, OK? (Sorry, Sandy any excuse to make a dick joke.

)

_____________________________

When the Lady smiles i can't resist her call. As a matter of fact, i don't resist at all. Well that depends if it is a smile or a grimmace.

(in reply to Sylverdawn)

RE: Honorifics by Gender - 4/21/2004 4:25:19 PM

Posts: 418
Joined: 1/6/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessMarissa
... You show respect by the words you use, not titles. I do not expect anyone to address me with honorifics unless they are serving me.

Is it possible the topics of "respect" and "courtesy" are being used synonomously in this thread? I see a broad lack of "courtesy" often when the subject at hand rubs the person the wrong way, and to me there is a distinct difference between "common courtesy" and "earned respect".

A mindset of "I do not have to show you courtesy until you earn it, or appease me in some way I like" is ludicrous at best, as is combining the seperate topics in synonomous use.

"Respect" and "courtesy" are different... just as males and females are different.

Inyouagain

_____________________________

Careful with that axe, Eugene

(in reply to GoddessMarissa)

RE: Honorifics by Gender - 4/21/2004 4:44:57 PM

Posts: 1123
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

Sylverdawn,

i've made the mistake when tired. It is impolite to post a private e-mail.

I didnt post a private email I posted an email I recieved ..its my property once in my email and therefore mine to do with as I see fit.. I didnt attribute it to anyone because that would have been rude.. I posted it as a foundation to a question..and should I wish to post the impolite email you sent me I will do so..

Regards
SD

PS this in response to iwillservu

< Message edited by Sylverdawn -- 4/21/2004 4:47:34 PM >

_____________________________

“When women are depressed, they eat or go shopping. Men invade another country. It's a whole different way of thinking.” Elyane Boosler

Being a women is hard work Maya Angelou

(in reply to inyouagain)

RE: Honorifics by Gender - 4/21/2004 4:49:01 PM

Posts: 729
Joined: 1/11/2004
Status: offline

SD,

First, I will say that I find it poor taste for you to totally edit the post asking me all kinds of questions after I had already replied to it, but I will respond to the new parts anyway.

quote:

but as you owned up it to it..

This comment has caused me to lose a great deal of respect for you as person. To *own up* to it implies I denied the comments. That is not true, as I am the one who first brought to the board that you quoted me without saying it was me.

quote:

you say you wont use honorifics with females but you will with males.. as you are slave to men.. I read that to mean that if I had written your Master and was a male the reply would have been.. Dear Sir.. or Sir.. or MasterWonderful .. rather than the familar use of my name.

No, actually I said I *don't* not I *won't*, and I have already explained it is simply because they do not apply. I am as dominant a female as any other, thus the terms are inappropriate. You are only partly correct on the rest. If they signed with their given name (as you did in your first post and Erus did in this string) there is a good chance I would respond in return. If they signed it *Master Joe-Shcmo*, I would have either replied *Sir* or *Joe-Schmo* depending on to many factors to go into here.

quote:

For me its about resonable manners and equiette in the Vanilla world .. and respect and honor in the Lifestyle..

As it is for me. We just don't agree on what is proper. Isn't it wonderful to have a forum such as this were we can discuss of differing views as equals?

quote:

For me its about resonable manners and equiette in the Vanilla world .. and respect and honor in the Lifestyle.. Ettiquette proscribes the use of familar names ie given names unless invited and so until a person said "no please call me Mary".. I would always say Hello Ms Brown.. In the lifestyle if someone was introduced to me as MasterLordof theUnivese I would say good afternoon Sir.. its polite it doesnt overstep bounds and if he said no I wish to be called Master lord of the universe.. I would be polite say thank you for the information and probably refrain from speaking to him again.. but I would introduce him as MasterLord of the Universe should the occassion araise. Perhaps protocol and etiquette are simply my bugaboo..

As is your right. I have the equal right to disagree on what the *proper* or *needed* etiquette is. BTW, the first post I read of yours was signed SylverDawn. To me that is my invitation to address you as such. My posts are always signed Sandy, yet you have chosen to reply to *E*. Since you are even more familiar than I had been, I am sure you won't mind that I have shortened it to SD.

As for these next three, I can only respond with my own views and in no way imply it is the feelings of all slaves, even those who feel the same about me in the use of using an honorific.

quote:

But really my question is why would honorifics be denlinated by gender.. is it a socially based thing, its is that idea of submitting to your own gender makes you appear weaker..

Even though I am not Gorean, I actually agree with some of their basic philosophies. I consider men the naturally dominant species (and have stated such in other strings). I see them as physically stronger in general, the protectors and providers. I personally blame society for that having changed, but again, that's just my personal thoughts. As far as my thoughts on submitting to your own gender showing weakness, no where have I ever said or even implied that. It is quite simply that I am neither submissive in general, nor are other women dominant in their dealings with me. That is a fact.

I have no problem with the concept of bottoming to a female, but it is really a waste of time as neither of us would get satisfaction from it since I would just be going through the motions and only to please Master. Luckily it's not something he really has in interest in though, so I don't have to do something that just has no interest to me.

quote:

is it that a submissive fears that by using such titles they invite a Dominat to overwhelm and they are for lack of a better term homophobic..

Again, you are missing the basic point. There is no fear. The term doesn't apply. If President Bush went to Iraq, do you think they would call him *President* just because it his *title* to those who follow democracy? There are so many tangents under the umbrella of the term BDSM. Just because I do not follow yours does not make yours invalid. Just because you don't understand mine doesn't make them invalid either.

As far as being homophobic goes, I have played AS EQUALS with women more than once. It was all about sex. There is nothing homophobic about me, sorry.. Actually, thinking about it, I did more than equals, but I was always the top. Go figure.

quote:

is it that the submissive believes in Male or female supremacy and therefore no one of their own gender can be seen as Dominate.. I am simply curious.

BTW, I don't believe in *any* supremacy. I believe I am as intelligent, capable, bright and *worthy* as any person, be they male, female, dominant, submissive, switch, slave, TV, bottom, top, lesbian, heterosexual, etc., etc., etc. But I also do not see my not using an honorific in reference to a female in anyway implying I see only males as dominants. I fully agree that there are many woman who are dominant in all aspects of their own interactions with others. I personally am dominant to my children, and when I worked, to those who worked beneath me. However, as I stated earlier, in general I consider female dominance to be something that was created by society. That is not to imply that it is good, bad or indifferent, just the way that I see it.

PS. I just edited this. And I edited an early one. But when I edit, it is only spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors I later notice.

< Message edited by EStrict -- 4/21/2004 5:00:35 PM >

_____________________________

Sandy

Don't take life too seriously, no one gets out alive anyway...

(in reply to GoddessMarissa)

RE: Honorifics by Gender - 4/21/2004 5:00:32 PM

Posts: 247
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Las Vegas NV
Status: offline

Well I sure did contradict myself there. You are right, respect is to have regard, and courtesy is to be polite.

_____________________________

D/s makes the world go round~~
www.Domina.ms/love

(in reply to inyouagain)

RE: Honorifics by Gender - 4/21/2004 6:18:07 PM

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

He's Baaaaaaaaaaaaack!

I, for one, have missed your participation. I'm glad you're poking your virtual head in again.

_____________________________

-- Sherri

Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.

(in reply to Erusvi)

RE: Honorifics by Gender - 4/21/2004 6:44:40 PM

Posts: 1123
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

if you check the time stamp I was re editing while you were posting it was merely a case of you replying before my final post was up.. not done after your response intentionally.

Own up.. is a pattern of speech... not implying you had denied anything

My mistake I suppose here is applying my definitions for what slave, submissive and bottom mean to me to others.. clearly that assumption that our definitions are anywhere at all similar is a mistake.

Please feel free to call me SD all my friends do.. and no I dont mind at all thank you for asking.

I wasnt calling you either homophoic or supremist.. I was asking about potential reasons for this mind set.. those came to mind..

society created female domination .. well .. lets not tell Isabel of Spain, Lucrecita Borgia, Elizabeth I, Joan of Arc, Eleanor Roosevelt, Victoria I, etc...etc..etc.. they might get a bit pissy about it all.. Female Dominates are born not created in my opinion. but then again that and a 3.65 will get you a starbucks coffee..

Thanks for your imput.. as always thought provoking.

_____________________________

“When women are depressed, they eat or go shopping. Men invade another country. It's a whole different way of thinking.” Elyane Boosler

Being a women is hard work Maya Angelou

(in reply to EStrict)

RE: Honorifics by Gender - 4/21/2004 7:09:23 PM

Posts: 1881
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

You will note that I do not use honorifics with female
dominants
for the simple reason I am a slave to men and consider myself on equal
footing with any female.

The thing that stands out most to me is not whether or not this person chooses to use an honorific (as I tend to think that is a personal thing and that honorifics are given, not required, or they stop being honors). The thing that stands out for me is that she sees submission as an inequality.

To me dominant/top/mistress/pick your nomenclature ("pyn") is not in a hierarchical relationship with submissive/bottom/slave/pyn, but rather a balance of equals. One is not above the other, they are flip sides of the same coin.

I have heard other submissive/pyn people (I've heard similar from men) say similar things. I usually reply with "Excuse me, but being submissive is not "less than equal" to anything or anyone; in this situation I would probably add "and doesn't have anything to do with who you would wish to honor."

I've had submissive men get quite upset with me when, in the course of conversation, I called them sir. "Pardon me, sir, but I must insist on this or that." They took it to be some sort of sideways statement about their lack of submission. Until they said it the thought hadn't even occurred to me.

I can not relate to the hierarchical mindset in this regard. It's not a part of my BDSM.

_____________________________

“The more you love, the more you can love—and the more intensely you love. Nor is there any limit on how many you can love. If a person had time enough, he could love all of that majority who are decent and just.”
- Robert Heinlein

(in reply to Sylverdawn)

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> Honorifics by Gender

Page: [1] 2 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 © 2024

Terms of Service

0.438