addicted2it
Posts: 322
Joined: 5/31/2004
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MistressLorelei
There are lots of terms within the realm of bdsm that on the surface can sound "silly". Mistress, slave, slut, pet, etc.
MistressLorelei,
I suppose that what I am saying is that the "boy" term when used in reference to a mature male sounds silly. And I only assume that the use of the word depends upon the way it is said and interpreted. For some reason, and unbenounced to me, terms like "slave, "slut," and "pet," are a turn-on for me. However, I DO look upon myself as an adult, and outside of a scene or a relationship, it DOES sound silly to me. What can I say?
quote:
If I have decided to involve myself with someone, I am going to consider him to be a worthwhile human being regardless of what I might call him. Generally, when refering to the male gender, I use the word male, and never boy(s), but often in one-on-one communication I use boy (good boy, silly boy). I used to call a former submissive "geek boy" when he would go on about computers. "Hush geek boy" always made him smile.
Using "boy" in that context really sounds like you care for your submissive. And often it is said in gest, and not meant in demeaning way. In my opinion, using a word in a demeaning fashion is not necessarily a bad thing, just as long as there is an understanding that it is used in an affectionate way, or that it is used within the context of a scene where the word is part of the interplay.
quote:
Most of the time, when a Dominant is referring to her submissive, I would imagine that she cares for him, regardless of what she is calling him. If the term seems silly to you, it sounds more like your hang-up rather than there being a negative, demeaning intent in the term itself.
Well, it might very well be my hang-up. But the term "boy," when used in a particular way, and when a dominant is just meeting a sub for the first time, seems akin to the sub calling her "mistress" without her permission or with respect to protocol.
Example: "Tell me what you look for in an ideal Mistress, boy!"
Eek! How impersonal!
If a domme can call a submissive, who she has never met, "boy," then why is it a breach of protocol to refer to a dominant female as "Mistress" when there is not yet a personal relationship?
quote:
As a believer in Female Supremacy, I would assume that you would hope yourself to be placed in a lower leadership role than the woman you are involved with. I think "boy" (should this be her term of choice) seems appropriate in such a relationship. I personally would expect my submissive to be happy with whatever I choose to call him as he knows it pleases me.
Yes, and it would be an appropriate term for a Female Supremicist, or for that matter any Mistress, providing there was an established relationship between the two; but outside of that, being called "boy" without that relationship, in my opinion, is being presumtuous.
Also, and in my opinion, once a relationship is established between dominant and submissive, she has the right to dictate the terms, as well as to refer to me in whatever manner she decides.
I hope that I have put this topic to rest, but one never knows. Anyway, bring it on if you will!
_____________________________
"What I lack in wisdom and intelligence, I more than make up or with age."
|
RE: What is with this "boy" thing? - 
Profile
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