RE: "Etiquette" between Masters (?) (Full Version)

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



Message

Rover -> RE: "Etiquette" between Masters (?) (7/24/2007 2:26:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Touching my slave is like touching my balls unless you know me really well you had better ask first, LOL.


Well, crap.  I hugged her and rather enjoyed it.  And now I just wanna take a shower.
 
John



julietsierra -> RE: "Etiquette" between Masters (?) (7/24/2007 2:28:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tr8nmyholes

It was a group that was meeting in Denton, TX on the campus of the Texas Woman's University, back during my college days in the 90s.


OH MY GOD!! And there I WAS!!! ON campus that whole time and never knew it was there?!

Hey.... maybe we graduated together!!

1997?

lol...

juliet



Rover -> RE: "Etiquette" between Masters (?) (7/24/2007 2:29:25 PM)

You did not know the secret handshake.
 
John



tr8nmyholes -> RE: "Etiquette" between Masters (?) (7/24/2007 2:33:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

You did not know the secret handshake.
 


I truly hope you were referring to Juliet - and not Archer!  ;-)



HypnoticDan -> RE: "Etiquette" between Masters (?) (7/24/2007 2:33:47 PM)

I remember a week I spent with orthodox jews in Israel.  I imagine that's about as close as you can get to an unfair TPE community, minus the kinky toys.  I mention it because there were several rules of etiquette between the men that were almost identical to the "rules" that PAcpllooking spelled out.  Looking at a married woman was a no no.  Talking to a married woman was a no no.  Acknowledging a married woman's existence was (usually) a no no.  Touching wasn't even a question.  All married women work a scarf or a wig.  All single girls looking to stay single dyed their hair or shaved their heads.  Most of the single girls would (had I bothered to ask) refused to even shake hands.  No woman reveal any skin below the wrists and the neck.  Not a single woman in that group looked happy or even well-rested.

I guess all I'm saying is that, IMHO, it would take a very special person to willingly accept and enjoy all those rules, here in western society.



Archer -> RE: "Etiquette" between Masters (?) (7/24/2007 2:34:01 PM)

LOL Rover, maybe I should modify that a little, LOL
But it usually works really well at getting the point across.



julietsierra -> RE: "Etiquette" between Masters (?) (7/24/2007 2:37:04 PM)

Let's see...

My expectations for gatherings:

I can never expect behavior out of others to be any other way than how THEY choose to act. The only expectations I have for behavior are in how I choose to behave. Those are based on how my Master expects me to act. If someone doesn't fit that bill, it's entirely my responsibility to inform them that I can't participate in such a way as to not embarrass them, but still get my point across.

As to how, I let Emily take care of that. According to Emily Post, when a gentleman wants to approach a level of familiarity he is not entitled to, for instance, hugging or other such familiar improprieties, a woman need not draw attention to herself. Merely step back, offer a hand and do not draw attention to his faux pas. If the gentleman persists in the inappropriate familiarity, it should be no problem to step back one more step, smile and excuse one's self from that activity. It is an impropriety to expect a lady to engage in such activities. It is a greater impropriety to call attention to the gentleman's faux pas.

Pretty simple and it's always seemed to work for me - regardless if I was owned or on my own.

I love Emily.

juliet



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: "Etiquette" between Masters (?) (7/24/2007 2:54:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HypnoticDan
I remember a week I spent with orthodox jews in Israel.  I imagine that's about as close as you can get to an unfair TPE community, minus the kinky toys.  I mention it because there were several rules of etiquette between the men that were almost identical to the "rules" that PAcpllooking spelled out.  Looking at a married woman was a no no.  Talking to a married woman was a no no.  Acknowledging a married woman's existence was (usually) a no no.  Touching wasn't even a question.  All married women work a scarf or a wig.  All single girls looking to stay single dyed their hair or shaved their heads.  Most of the single girls would (had I bothered to ask) refused to even shake hands.  No woman reveal any skin below the wrists and the neck.  Not a single woman in that group looked happy or even well-rested.

I guess all I'm saying is that, IMHO, it would take a very special person to willingly accept and enjoy all those rules, here in western society.

Well I know I actually have no problem accepting cultural/social standards and I've learned fairly well on how to balance between respecting them and yet not following them or not staying true to myself (I think living abroad helps with that a lot).

The main differences are that
1) There is a breakdown of people into various social classes based on some nearly universal permanent trait
2) It is nearly universally accepted and enforced to follow a particular set of rules of behavior based upon social class
3) It is very clearly and immediately visible who is in what social class

The kink community has none of those



MadRabbit -> RE: "Etiquette" between Masters (?) (7/24/2007 3:34:32 PM)

You know...I love reading these threads, because its when you get on the subject of etiquette and protocol in a sub culture sense, you can tell who is in fantasy land and who isnt.

Basic etiquette and protocol regarding groups and dungeons is a rehash of kindegarden manners and not any different then the same basic respectful manners we use in any other social atmosphere.

Any additional etiquette and protocol is purely a creation of the group itself. I can go to CHASM here in my city and there will be zero difference between what goes on there and what goes on at the local knitting social circle.

However, if I were to go up to Columbia and visit T3WD which has more of a Leather influence and I will notice more of a reverance for titles and the "elders" of the group.

The idea that a "Dominant" can walk into a BDSM group and gain instant formal social status above the "Submissives" is horribly, horribly false. I've met people who clearly at informal social status and reverance in groups, but this had to do with their character, knowledge, experience, and contributions to the group itself.

The only exception is "High Protocol" groups, one of which I was invited to. Its a bunch of people who get together and form special etiquette and protocols for Dominants and Submissives in an attempt to create a small mini society. It was exclusive, close knit, and invite only.

The final exception is the Dominants who are clearly drunk off their own ego and feal that they do in fact deserve some special social status as they are clearly "God's Gift to BDSM". I cant help but notice these people are the one's usually laughed at very heavily.




MasterFireMaam -> RE: "Etiquette" between Masters (?) (7/24/2007 3:41:40 PM)

Here is a Dominant's Creed that the group I co-founded came up with when we could find no such document online.

http://www.geocities.com/female_artists_of_domination/Creed.htm

Master Fire



emdoub -> RE: "Etiquette" between Masters (?) (7/24/2007 4:44:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tr8nmyholes

In other words, you feel I am mistaken and driven by unrealistic, naive ideals when expecting a higher standard of principle and behavior from a Dominant individual in the lifestyle?


If you expect __X__ behavior from someone simply because of their role in the BDSM (or any other) community, then yes - you're being naive.  Most people have that unfortunate tendency to be individuals, not cardboard cutouts.

However, I *must* ask - does your question imply that you expect a lower standard of behavior from subs, bottoms, and switches?  If so - why?

Midnight Writer



MagiksSlave -> RE: "Etiquette" between Masters (?) (7/24/2007 4:54:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tr8nmyholes

With all due respect - disagree to a certain degree. In my eyes, a Dom/Master is in a position of dictating respect not becuase they call themselves such, but because of their innate 'honorable' behavior that stems from hlding themselves to higher principles and standards. It is thus that as a sub, I feel the natural urge to kneel, not because of some pretentious name or title.

So, yes, you are people - but people, from whom I (personally) expect a higher level of conduct, behavior and standards.



Hmm last I checked Doms where just people like all others, and honestly as a sub, this is a bit insulting!! Why is it you think Doms are for whatever reason better mannered behaved or better anything because they are Doms?? This view seems a bit ill informed and romantic.

ms



MagiksSlave -> RE: "Etiquette" between Masters (?) (7/24/2007 4:56:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: emdoub

quote:

ORIGINAL: tr8nmyholes

In other words, you feel I am mistaken and driven by unrealistic, naive ideals when expecting a higher standard of principle and behavior from a Dominant individual in the lifestyle?


If you expect __X__ behavior from someone simply because of their role in the BDSM (or any other) community, then yes - you're being naive.  Most people have that unfortunate tendency to be individuals, not cardboard cutouts.

However, I *must* ask - does your question imply that you expect a lower standard of behavior from subs, bottoms, and switches?  If so - why?

Midnight Writer



exactly!!!!! Also I find it insulting that someone would think that beeing a sub means you have less of a moral compass or something

ms



KnightofMists -> RE: "Etiquette" between Masters (?) (7/24/2007 5:12:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tr8nmyholes

In other words, you feel I am mistaken and driven by unrealistic, naive ideals when expecting a higher standard of principle and behavior from a Dominant individual in the lifestyle?


FUCK YEAH!!!  Why should one expect some sort of Higher Standard of Principle and Behavior from a Dominant and not a submissive.

SHIT..... polite behavior looks good on anyone.. rude behavior looks bad on anyone.



KnightofMists -> RE: "Etiquette" between Masters (?) (7/24/2007 5:15:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tr8nmyholes

With all due respect - disagree to a certain degree. In my eyes, a Dom/Master is in a position of dictating respect not becuase they call themselves such, but because of their innate 'honorable' behavior that stems from hlding themselves to higher principles and standards. It is thus that as a sub, I feel the natural urge to kneel, not because of some pretentious name or title.

So, yes, you are people - but people, from whom I (personally) expect a higher level of conduct, behavior and standards.


Nothing like having a principle that gives you an excuse to behave poorly.



KnightofMists -> RE: "Etiquette" between Masters (?) (7/24/2007 5:18:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer
Touching my slave is like touching my balls unless you know me really well you had better ask first, LOL.



AAAAAAAAWWWWWWW DAMN.....

(recalls hugging Elegant last November)  If only I would of known I had Archer's Balls in my hands..  I would squeezed harder!!!!


Alandra, Kyra.... If October goes as plan... You remind me of this thread!!!!!!!



slaveluci -> RE: "Etiquette" between Masters (?) (7/24/2007 6:42:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tr8nmyholes
In other words, you feel I am mistaken and driven by unrealistic, naive ideals when expecting a higher standard of principle and behavior from a Dominant individual in the lifestyle?

Yep.  Absolutely............luci



Arpig -> RE: "Etiquette" between Masters (?) (7/24/2007 7:44:19 PM)

quote:

In other words, you feel I am mistaken and driven by unrealistic, naive ideals when expecting a higher standard of principle and behavior from a Dominant individual in the lifestyle?


pretty much



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: "Etiquette" between Masters (?) (7/24/2007 7:59:35 PM)

She hugged me!!!!



LadyHeart -> RE: "Etiquette" between Masters (?) (7/24/2007 9:11:18 PM)

Sorry if I've missed something in this thread, but it seems to me that the whole question would not have arisen had you acted with correct etiquette in the first place. The second Dom only found out about the one you were meeting because you named him in your Journal and in another part of this forum, if I've understood what you said correctly. You say you are "out" so that's not a problem. But it IS a problem. You don't know the other person's circumstances, and it is indiscrete to post like that without their prior permission (I don't know the exact circumstances, so if I'm wrong in my interpretation I apologise)

In BDSM you can never be too discrete - and that's etiquette whether you are Master or sub

:))
LH



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875