RE: Question of etiquette

RE: Question of etiquette (Full Version)

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

Message

SirDarkside357 -> RE: Question of etiquette (1/1/2006 4:20:59 PM)
All Masters do not assume that.....period.....any that do make an ass out of themselves..in my opinion.....what may or may not happen in the future is a different story.

KnightofMists -> RE: Question of etiquette (1/1/2006 4:33:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bloodredrose Do all Doms/Masters assume things like this,or have i just been unlucky?It just strikes me as both presumptuous and rude! mmmmmmmmmm well I don't know all Doms/Masters... but since I wouldn't take this persumptuous and rude action... then I have make the conclusion not all Doms/Masters would take this type of actions. mmmmmmmm now since I don't take this type of action and I consider my self to be a person generally polite and well manner in the interactions of with someone that is new to me... well I come to the conclusion that a Dom/Master of quality would demonstrated polite and well mannered behaviors and not be persumptuous and rude..... So... I have to question then.... was the person you talking to actually a Dom/Master in the first place in your opinion? I this type of behavior that this person the type of behavior you think a Dom/Master should or could exhibit? What I am saying... no matter how another labels themself... you have a right to agree with their label or not... if the behaviours demonstrated do not fit with the label as you see it... then well you have to reconsider their self-proclaimed label and Identify them with your own label... Wanker seems to be a good term for this person! but I am sure you have a more refined label than mine.

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Question of etiquette (1/1/2006 7:14:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists was the person you talking to actually a Dom/Master in the first place in your opinion? I this type of behavior that this person the type of behavior you think a Dom/Master should or could exhibit? Maybe I am missing something, but what, exactly, is un-domly/wankerish about letting a perspective slave know that when she belongs to him, he expects her to be open to involving her friends in their sex life? It seems like a pretty reasonable request of someone's property. I don't ask my cat if I can use it's toys...I certainly wouldn't expect my slave to tell me who and whom she will play with. I don't get monogamous Master/slave relationships. That isn't ownership, it's marriage... That isn't slavery, its matrimony. Taggard

Slaveless1 -> RE: Question of etiquette (1/2/2006 5:12:27 AM)
[presumptuous yep and just maybe....he is looking for it and not saying anything. I would bet that most men (master) want a poly situation if given the opportunity

HoosierScorpio -> RE: Question of etiquette (1/2/2006 5:33:53 AM)
I never assume every subs play with each other if they are together. I would had said I would love to meet your friends. It is nice to get to know the one you are with friends. If he changes that quickly then what else is he hiding deep or will he goes from nice then abusive. You got to feel convert able and safe with the one who will be your owner or Master. How long has this guy been in the lifestyle for if he been in it for very long that should not had been brought up but if he is a player would just see what else he will do. I would not lie I would love to play with two girls but I also know that I never assume every sub or slave I meet must play with me.

KnightofMists -> RE: Question of etiquette (1/2/2006 6:12:07 AM)
you right you are missing something.

wetrope -> RE: Question of etiquette (1/2/2006 6:32:56 AM)
Methinks that majority of dom's would not expect or anticipate such an attractive package as 2 for price of 1. But then all dom's r not all the same. Some are learning the hard way that sub's/slaves r not just sand that we use to keep from slipping on the ice. Stand up girl and let him have it 'tween the eyes.

Tristan -> RE: Question of etiquette (1/2/2006 6:41:28 AM)
Getting back to the original post, are you sure that dinner did not simply mean dinner? I don't think there is any way near enough information to know what was misinterpreted and by whom. Besides, very little real information is communicated in online chats. All either sees is a few words and sentences. None of the non verbal communication occurs that let's a person understand the intensions of the other person. Both put a lot of assumptions into their communication. If you are looking for r/l, I agree with some of the other recent posts on CM...get off the internet within a couple weeks. Tristan

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Question of etiquette (1/2/2006 8:15:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists you right you are missing something. I bet I'm not the only one... wink Taggard

KnightofMists -> RE: Question of etiquette (1/2/2006 12:38:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists you right you are missing something. I bet I'm not the only one... wink Taggard yup the world if full of "ill-manner presumptuous people" that can't seem to understand that there is a distinct difference between informing their potential sub/slave that they they could/would be involved in a variety of possible scenes with others including possible friends as compared to making the assumption that a potential submissive's roommate(friend) is going to be a play partner and they they are interested in him. Such a person is a wanker... idiot and simple.... Not Dominant in my sense of the word.

KnightofMists -> RE: Question of etiquette (1/2/2006 12:42:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tristan Getting back to the original post, are you sure that dinner did not simply mean dinner? I don't think there is any way near enough information to know what was misinterpreted and by whom. Besides, very little real information is communicated in online chats. All either sees is a few words and sentences. None of the non verbal communication occurs that let's a person understand the intensions of the other person. Both put a lot of assumptions into their communication. If you are looking for r/l, I agree with some of the other recent posts on CM...get off the internet within a couple weeks. Tristan well... considering she was obviously offended... since she did pose the question here... It is obvious she gained that perception from the wanker.... now maybe he was joking... or maybe a hundred and one things could of been.... But anyway you cut it... she got this perception for a reason.... At best... he poorly expressed himself... at worse he meant exactly how she preceived it....

KnightofMists -> RE: Question of etiquette (1/2/2006 12:47:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wetrope Methinks that majority of dom's would not expect or anticipate such an attractive package as 2 for price of 1. But then all dom's r not all the same. Some are learning the hard way that sub's/slaves r not just sand that we use to keep from slipping on the ice. Stand up girl and let him have it 'tween the eyes. aaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwww now wouldn't that be nice thou... 2 for the efforts of 1 .... wet dreams of many I bet G That is almost as good as having the HOT sisters like the dang Fonz always got... my Hero! But, your right... I am thinking that the great Majority of Dominants can appreciate that effort is matched with what one recieves in return.

nephandi -> RE: Question of etiquette (1/2/2006 1:09:04 PM)
Pepole, dont the other lady get a word in this to, it is not that one have to agree to play whit a Dom even if you are submissive and your frind is his. Also, the man asked a question, dont shoot the poor guy, talk whit him, find out how he feels, how is he not a gentlman for asking a question, you are not even in a relationship yet, and he can not ask a simple question. KnightofMists has a point when he says that the man may have expertations that dont overlap whit those of bloodredrose, that do not mean he is a bad person, only that he wants somthing differant and be thankful you find ut before there is a relationship there. Bottomline is, this man is getting yelled at alot, when he is not here to defend himself, he may not be a dishoset, lowlife, jerk, only one that asked the wrong question, and pepole, we all somtimes ask the wrong question.

OsideGirl -> RE: Question of etiquette (1/2/2006 1:16:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty Maybe I am missing something, but what, exactly, is un-domly/wankerish about letting a perspective slave know that when she belongs to him, he expects her to be open to involving her friends in their sex life? Actually, he's assuming that he will have access to her friend, simply because she is her friend. Which is wanker-ish.

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Question of etiquette (1/2/2006 4:07:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl Actually, he's assuming that he will have access to her friend, simply because she is her friend. Which is wanker-ish. Nowhere does bloodredrose say her paramour assumed he would have access to her friend. He simply informed the girl that when she became 'his' they would be inviting her to "dinner". A perfectly reasonable, and quite dominant, expectation of one's property. I can only assume, if the dom in question is a safe and sane person, that the choice to play would be entirely with the other girl...but he, quite reasonably and dominantly (is that even a word?), did not want a D/s relationship with a girl who was going to say "no" to such things. It seems to me, that there is quite range of ideas of what makes a "wanker" and what makes someone dominant. It is my (never humble wink) opinion that the man who expects his property to be the willing and eager participant of whatever the owner wants is much less of a wanker then the man who would be willing to own a girl who got to say no to bringing friends over for some play. YM, of course, MV. Taggard

RavenMuse -> RE: Question of etiquette (8/22/2006 3:55:07 AM)
I would think you are unlucky. A girl may have many friends from all sides of the dynamic as well as vanillas. Simply because one or more is also submissive why would there be any assumption that there would be any dynamic between the friend and the potential Dom? Unless he wasn't interested in 'people' and was simply a brainless asshole looking to get his end away in any convenient hole (To put it bluntly!) IF I happened to meet a friend of My girl, who was submissive and found there was a spark between us, the dynamic between us started kicking in and there appeared to be some compatability, sure I'd be interested in looking to see it something more could be built on it. That is about her as a person and Me as a person, but to just assume that would be the case from nothing more than the fact that she is submissive.... well, there are a LOT of HNG's around!

IronBear -> RE: Question of etiquette (8/22/2006 7:07:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bloodredrose I would respectfully ask the opinion of the Doms/Masters on the following situation...i have been talking with a Dom on this service,who initially seemed very polite and understanding...then just a few minutes ago i happened to mention during an online chat that the best friend i stay with when i visit the US was also a submissive,and immediately i received the response that if i became 'his' we would be inviting her over for "dinner".This is by no means the first time that Doms i have spoken to have assumed that she and i play together because we are both submissive,but this was the first 'gentleman' i have met through collarme who came out with the assumption. Do all Doms/Masters assume things like this,or have i just been unlucky?It just strikes me as both presumptuous and rude! Respectfully bloodredrose. On the surface, the thought is reasonable even more so if you have been talking about a collar. However it sound as though he is lacking the finesse to make such a statement without it sounding presumptious. This does happen with some dominants who are lacking in real time experience or are still unsure of themselves. If it had been a Gorean Master then I could have understood it completely as the comment would be typical of a no frills response.. You could of course, just remind him that his statement would only be true if and only if you accepted his collar.

Mavis -> RE: Question of etiquette (8/22/2006 8:57:34 AM)
i've had plenty of those convos. Can't tell ya how many seemingly decent budding friendships went off track after something like "So, do you think your friend would like to meet me too?" "gee, i'm not really sure, but if you're interested i her, i'll certainly bow out and ask her if she's interested in my leftovers..." Lordy. the other closely related topic is upon learning a girl is bi.. the string of "I have a hot red head gal I'm friends with, I'd love to see you both together". Because one is bi doesn't mean they're on auto-attract to all females in the known universe! Geeez. The reply i never had the nards to give? "Of course Sir.. my ability to feign sexual delight with just anybody should amuse you... and get you thinking.. click."

Dnomyar -> RE: Question of etiquette (8/22/2006 11:13:42 AM)
Stephan you sure take the long way around trying to get a point across.

TemptingNviceSub -> RE: Question of etiquette (8/22/2006 8:55:44 PM)
IMO..presumptuous is an excellent word for any Dominant who naturally assumes that if a submissive they have interest in has friend who is also submissive that said friend would make a good playmate..a comment like that to me would mean end of communication, block, delete....of course in my minds eye, I would be doing the chucharacha oh his crotcha...:0)....Tempting

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875