CanisMajor
Posts: 42
Joined: 9/2/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ImpGrrl quote:
My partner had a bit of a stumbling block over calling people "sir," .... This logic only works if *all* men/masculine-ID'd women (who have stated that they prefer it) are called "sir" - not just d-types. Let's just stop right there for a second, because I think we're approaching this issue from very different perspectives. My partner and I do not engage in this lifestyle because it is "logical," and we do not choose our activities and rituals within the lifestyle on the basis of how logical they are. If we did, things would be considerably less interesting and exciting than they are. For example, most of the orders I give to canisminor are completely illogical - they would not stand up to even a modest inspection of their intellectual rigor. However - and for us this is absolutely key - those orders lead to us having a lot of fun and deriving a lot of satisfaction from the lifestyle even though they aren't a result of a logical framework that governs our behaviour. Regarding salutary matters specifically, we have never set out to define a protocol specifying forms of address that can be arrived at through a hierarchy of boolean tests, and I don't expect our practices would meet any similar criteria. quote:
If it's just d-types that are being called "sir", then the logic fails. I've seen that "logic" used a lot by people who mean "all d-types" when they say "all people" in that statement - I'm not saying *you're* saying that. Well, I really don't understand where you are coming from, nor do I understand what sort of logic you are describing here. I just don't "get" it, but that's ok - I know where we are coming from and what our practices are and mean for us. My partner's difficulty was with showing people proper respect. I didn't think she was respectful enough around others, and when it was discussed with her, she agreed. But she also explained that she had a lot of anxiety when performing the various activities through which this respect is expressed in our society. So she tended, as a result of this anxiety and consequent shyness, to appear to be somewhat arrogant and aloof to others. When I say she had difficulty showing respect to people, I mean people - I don't mean d-types, I mean our insurance agent, our next door neighbors, or whatever. One manifestation of this difficulty was an especially strong reluctance on her part to use the word "sir." She felt that using the word "sir" in reference to another person was a form of degrading and humiliating obeisance that stripped her of dignity. In discussions with my sub about proper respectful behaviour toward others (in and out of the lifestyle), I discovered she had this attitude about "sir" which was very foreign to my own. Growing up in an English household, and having had military service, I consider "sir" to be a routine element of everyday courteous salutation. As a result of our discussion and some practice on my partner's part, she eventually overcame these issues to an acceptable degree. Now, you bring up d-types, and women, as some sort of contraindication to the use of the word "sir." For whatever reason, canisminor has never had as much reluctance to use the word "ma'am" in reference to her female acquaintances, so this wasn't an issue I felt I could use as an example of how to overcome old and bad habits. So I didn't bring that up in reply to the OP. For reasons that should be obvious, I don't have a particular problem with canisminor referring to d-types as "sir" (or "ma'am") - if our insurance agent rates this sort of expression, surely a dom deserves as much (at least until they show themselves to be complete tools). Nor would I consider it scandalous if she referred to an s-type as "sir." It is not her place to make snap determinations that certain people aren't worth her expression of respect. However, my general rule regarding people within the lifestyle is that once we understand someone's preference concerning form of address, it is most polite if we respect that preference; nevertheless, I don't generally feel a need to be slavish about pandering to those preferences at all times, as long as the overall attitude is appropriately respectful. Again, we do not engage in these practices (or their exceptions) because we think they are logical - we do it because we think it is appropriate and because we think it lubricates our journey through life. I don't have any problem at all with anyone conducting their BDSM practices on a logical basis, not by a long shot. It is just that Mr. Spock-like analysis is not the approach we've taken to exploring and resolving all the various issues we've encountered in this relationship. So that's my twenty cents.... Oh, and one other thing. Given my partner's strong feelings about the use of the word "sir," I am especially proud of her success at overcoming this issue. At one time, using "sir" was for all practical purposes a hard limit for her. It takes a lot of courage to move beyond such a limit, and that's one reason why my sub is particularly special to me.
_____________________________
The Big Dog
|