RE: You are a submissive in public refusing to address your Master as Sir.

RE: You are a submissive in public refusing to address your Master as Sir. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

[Poll]

You are submissive yet refuse to address Dom as Sir in public.

Agree

28% (12)

Disagree

71% (30)

Total Votes : 42

(last vote on : 2/14/2012 7:03:46 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

Aylee -> RE: You are a submissive in public refusing to address your Master as Sir. (11/8/2009 4:19:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HimNbabygirl All this hubbub seems to have steamed from the basic question of do you call your Master "Sir" in public. Actually, it has more to do with the premise that somehow, someway, calling your d-type "sir" in public makes you real and true than if you do not wish to do so. Anytime "onewayism" rears its head people tend not to care for it.

blacklion -> RE: You are a submissive in public refusing to address your Master as Sir. (11/8/2009 7:33:55 AM)
I like the butler post..I was sitting on that one...thinking of the fresh prince....that has to be the best version of a butler in the history of television."sir william" "master such and such"was number one in the ratings for years and is still on the air.clearly no one has an issue or takes offense to a comedy. the military trains new recruits to address superiors as Sir or Ma'am now days. Secretaries address their boss as Sir...in fact I have had so called subs refusing to address me with what I See is simple respect tell me they address their boss a "Sir because she thinks he gets off on it. I say so you will address a Dom as Sir if he is paying you? She says I guess so...I noted that. I find it so curious that one word 3 letters is the hardest thing for so many to choke down their misplaced pride and say. So many time I have heard over and over time and time again..I do not even call my father Sir...my answer well you should have I called mine Sir and ended up not being a submissive but quite the opposite.

cpK69 -> RE: You are a submissive in public refusing to address your Master as Sir. (11/8/2009 7:44:54 AM)
~fr~ I am confused as to what was actually being asked in the op. When I first read it, I thought it was meant as ‘Are you a submissive….’. I answered ‘no’ and stated why, but now it would seem, it was meant as ‘If you are a submissive…’ If that is the case, I change my answer to ‘yes’. I refuse to go through life basing my choices on other people’s fears. Also, like others have stated in this thread, I don’t 'play' D/s. Kim

Aylee -> RE: You are a submissive in public refusing to address your Master as Sir. (11/8/2009 7:49:48 AM)
Serious answer ~ The three things have different psycho-linguist ratings. 1. The clerk or customer being called "sir." In this case their is no emotional attachment, it is being used as the person's name is unknown. 2. Calling your "boss" "sir." ~ This is a business setting and different rules apply. Just as calling a judge, "Your Honor," when you are in court. Again, no emotional attachment is being applied to the usage. In fact, if you want to send me a weekly or monthly check, I will happily call you "sir." 3. Calling your d-type "sir." ~ Now we come to the crux of the issue. In THIS usage there is an emotional attachment being applied. There are several hidden layers of meaning that are being applied with this usage. Some people are not comfortable with this. Some people are comfortable with this. If it is important to you because YOU are placing an emotional attachment meaning onto this word, then I suggest you find someone with compatible beliefes. Otherwise, Suck it up, Buttercup!

hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: You are a submissive in public refusing to address your Master as Sir. (11/8/2009 8:12:42 AM)
When I call him sir - In Public - it's not different than me calling the cop on the beat "sir" or specific people in my medieval group who have attained a certain rank (in that group) by the Earned TItle of "sir" which is how they're addressed In That Group Specifically. It is a VERY infrequent thing for me to refer to him as "sir" or "master" even when we're in private, unless we're specifically In Scene. He doesn't need to constantly hear "sir" out of me. He knows who and what he is. I know who and what he is. He's damned well confident enough In Himself, and In His Position, and In His Power that he doesn't NEED the pretentiousness of a constant title. The same is true in the reverse. He doesn't call me "slave" - he refers to me either by My NAME, or by any of a variety of pet nicknames he's given me which are all perfectly acceptable in ANY situation. I know what I am. He knows what I am. It would be RUDE of us to shove our kink down everyone else's throat. It is RUDE OF ANYONE to shove their kink down the throats of the unsuspecting and non-consenting. It HAS NO PLACE IN PUBLIC. If you're in a kink club - that's not public, and everyone who goes knows to Expect things like that. In a grocery store, a resturant, at the mall, etc - people don't expect it, and haven't consented by default simply by being there.[/font]

cpK69 -> RE: You are a submissive in public refusing to address your Master as Sir. (11/8/2009 8:27:44 AM)
One man's kink is another man's relationship dynamic. Kim

Lucienne -> RE: You are a submissive in public refusing to address your Master as Sir. (11/8/2009 8:49:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne I didn't realize it was necessary to be an exhibitionist in order to be accepting of one's sexuality. Would you have called interracial couples60 years ago that wanted to be able to kiss in a public park "exhibitionists"? We only call things exhibition if other people treat it as something normal to who they are but we see it as come strange anomaly to common social mores. And, the topic is about as innocent an expression of such as can be thought up: the D/s relationship equivalent of calling your partner "sweetie" in a public setting. I didn't object to people using Master or Sir in public. I objected to the idea that failure to do so somehow meant a person was not comfortable with their sexuality or their relationship. That's not how I use the term exhibitionist. And your interracial couple is a wee bit melodramatic. If your slave called you Master in public, would you be worried about being lynched? I'm guessing not.

Lucienne -> RE: You are a submissive in public refusing to address your Master as Sir. (11/8/2009 8:58:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne Or, you know, *private*. People make private the things they have some fear of making public for personal and/or ethical reasons. Well, no. Some people keep some things private because it isn't public business. You seem to be approaching this from the perspective of closeted/out. Just as it's not necessary for a gay man to run around announcing that he likes to suck cock in order to be "out," it isn't necessary for bdsm folks to advertise in order to be comfortable with who they are. I don't object to gay men kissing in public (actually, I'd prefer to see two attractive gay men kiss than an unattractive hetero couple kiss) and I don't consider them closeted if they're just not into public displays of affection.

Hierodule -> RE: You are a submissive in public refusing to address your Master as Sir. (11/8/2009 10:32:12 AM)
I understand where you are coming from, Lucienne. Some people like to be affectionate in public some people don't. However I am sure even gay couples who prefer not to kiss in public would be horrified if another couple was told they could not be affectionate simply because they were gay. I don't think calling someone Sir or Master in public is required or should be required to prove your submission. However I do feel that if you are in a long time power exchange relationship with someone you trust, you should have the right to call them whatever non-vulgar pet name you want whenever the mood strikes you. Yeah, we should refrain from calling eachother "slut" "whore" or "cunt" in public because those words are overtly sexual (and by the way, those words are used by vanilla couples all the time in and out of a "play" context) But words like "Master" and especially "Sir" are harmless. Although "requiring" that kind of address in public is a little weird, it might be important to some Dominants, I don't know. Maybe they want to make their slave slightly uncomfortable push their boundaries a little. I'm not going to question someones methods who I am not in a relationship with. Its between the people involved. If calling someone Sir in pulic is a hard limit for the slave its something they should put on the table. And if the Dominant expects to be called Sir in public they should make sure their slave understands that pretty early on. The troll who posted this might have required this kind of address from a 19 y.o. girl the first time they met. Who knows? All I know is I would be comfortable calling my Master "Sir" in public if he wanted it. Although, we don't use that honorific. I have never called him that before. For us its either "my Master" (he likes the "my" part as much as the "Master" part) or his name. quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne Or, you know, *private*. People make private the things they have some fear of making public for personal and/or ethical reasons. Well, no. Some people keep some things private because it isn't public business. You seem to be approaching this from the perspective of closeted/out. Just as it's not necessary for a gay man to run around announcing that he likes to suck cock in order to be "out," it isn't necessary for bdsm folks to advertise in order to be comfortable with who they are. I don't object to gay men kissing in public (actually, I'd prefer to see two attractive gay men kiss than an unattractive hetero couple kiss) and I don't consider them closeted if they're just not into public displays of affection.

NihilusZero -> RE: You are a submissive in public refusing to address your Master as Sir. (11/8/2009 11:48:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne I didn't object to people using Master or Sir in public. I objected to the idea that failure to do so somehow meant a person was not comfortable with their sexuality or their relationship. I probably should have been clearer in differentiating between people for whom the use of the words as terms of endearment or titles is unimportant and those for whom it is but who think it's just publicly inappropriate. The former group choosing not to use ity publicly is not actually altering or censoring themselves for any perceived moral purpose and just has a different relationship style. Perfectly kosher, the way I see it (except when people demean another's desire to have the titles used as some indication of insecurity, as if the things they fervently want in a relationship dynamic could not just as easily be paraded as emotional needy drawbacks). It's the people who vehemently say things like "it has no place in public!" who strike me as either role-players who have no concept of the fact that these things can be more than that to other people. Even more self-defeating are the people who do privately use these titles and relationship nicknames but who secretly view their preferences as socially shameful (because they would refuse to make it known to people in general and especially close friends or family). quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne That's not how I use the term exhibitionist. And your interracial couple is a wee bit melodramatic. If your slave called you Master in public, would you be worried about being lynched? I'm guessing not. So intolerance is okay so long as it does not manifest itself in outright physical violence?

NihilusZero -> RE: You are a submissive in public refusing to address your Master as Sir. (11/8/2009 11:55:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne Well, no. Some people keep some things private because it isn't public business. How do you suppose an individual comes to assess whether X thing is or is not "public business"? quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne You seem to be approaching this from the perspective of closeted/out. Just as it's not necessary for a gay man to run around announcing that he likes to suck cock in order to be "out," it isn't necessary for bdsm folks to advertise in order to be comfortable with who they are. So now, it's okay but it's just "not necessary"? This is just an argument that you consider X form of expression to be too excessive on the "tact" scale for your taste. Why not have gay men curb their flamboyant effeminate talk too? Also "not necessary"? I mean, they don't need to be so extroverted if they are truly comfortable with their sexuality, right? And, yet again, we're talking about the use of two words in public. quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne I don't object to gay men kissing in public (actually, I'd prefer to see two attractive gay men kiss than an unattractive hetero couple kiss) and I don't consider them closeted if they're just not into public displays of affection. So this would not be "not necessary"? What if someone else finds it "not necessary"? What if a poll showed most people find it "not necessary"? What if was predominantly "not necessary", in such polls, in one geographical area but not in another?

mydestiny2043 -> RE: You are a submissive in public refusing to address your Master as Sir. (11/8/2009 12:07:43 PM)
[8\|]Why not tell us how you really feel? It's a tad harsh for a simple (ok maybe not that simple)question.I must be missing something.

dcnovice -> RE: You are a submissive in public refusing to address your Master as Sir. (11/8/2009 12:35:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hierodule quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice Probably not. But the fact remains that you got your kicks by taking advantage of another human being's social/professional position. You're apparently comfortable with that. Some people would not be. What if we were a gay couple and the waiter was homophobic or we were an interracial couple and he was racist? And instead of saying "My Master" I said "My lover" would you feel the same way? You raise good points, Hierodule, and I clearly need to give this topic more thought. Apologies for rushing to judgment!

Hierodule -> RE: You are a submissive in public refusing to address your Master as Sir. (11/8/2009 1:57:21 PM)
Hey Thank You! Some of the stuff NZ wrote on this subject made a lot of sense and really solidified the issue for me so I can't take all the credit for the "good points" It takes a big person to admit that they might have rushed to judgment. I want to follow your example and do more of that in my own life.

hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: You are a submissive in public refusing to address your Master as Sir. (11/8/2009 2:32:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero It's the people who vehemently say things like "it has no place in public!" who strike me as either role-players who have no concept of the fact that these things can be more than that to other people. Even more self-defeating are the people who do privately use these titles and relationship nicknames but who secretly view their preferences as socially shameful (because they would refuse to make it known to people in general and especially close friends or family). NZ, you look at things from the perspective of a dominant in the power exchange sense. No, I don't think it has any place in public, in the Power Exchange Sense. Why? Because that is, essentially, no different than expecting everyone around you to be accepting and open to watching you flog your submissive. In a strictly Kink setting - it's appropriate - because it is part of your kink. (You and Your being Generic for the purposes of this specific conversation, just so Everyone is clear about it, and doesn't get their panties in a twist!) In a Public, NON-KINK setting - displaying your kink openly is out of place and out of line. If your other half chooses to use that as a pet name... that's not a matter of kink or power exchange - it's a pet name. If it's required because OMG the big bad dominant decides that it's going to be all the time regardless of setting - that's kink, and it's pulling others into his kink without their consent. Without Their Consent. What do all of us generally consider NON-Consentsual Kink?? Oh yeah, that would fall under the heading of Abuse of those who are Non-Consenting. If Everyone in that Public, Non-Kink Setting has not been asked to participate in that person's kink - It's NON-CONSENTSUAL. That is what I object to. If the dominant partner in a power exchange wants to be called Masterful God-type Ruler of the Universe when it's CONSENTUAL BY ALL EXPOSED - fine - feel free. It doesn't mean I'm not comfortable with my own sexuality. It means I have at least some modicum of respect for those who might NOT be comfortable with MY sexuality.

BKSir -> RE: You are a submissive in public refusing to address your Master as Sir. (11/8/2009 2:56:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hizgeorgiapeach When I call him sir - In Public - it's not different than me calling the cop on the beat "sir" or specific people in my medieval group who have attained a certain rank (in that group) by the Earned TItle of "sir" which is how they're addressed In That Group Specifically. [/font] Thank you. You summed my thoughts up far better than I did. I tend to be a bit more verbose at times than I need to be.

DesFIP -> RE: You are a submissive in public refusing to address your Master as Sir. (11/8/2009 3:16:29 PM)
I don't care if you do this. What I object to is the op having the temerity to say that because I don't want to out myself to my family, that I turn my submission off like it was a light bulb. You want to do it, and you don't care that your ex would sue to refuse you visitation once it came to light, go for it. Maybe that does make you the best top or bottom in the world. I don't know. I do know it makes you a piss poor parent if you put this over raising your children.

BKSir -> RE: You are a submissive in public refusing to address your Master as Sir. (11/8/2009 3:42:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP I don't care if you do this. What I object to is the op having the temerity to say that because I don't want to out myself to my family, that I turn my submission off like it was a light bulb. You want to do it, and you don't care that your ex would sue to refuse you visitation once it came to light, go for it. Maybe that does make you the best top or bottom in the world. I don't know. I do know it makes you a piss poor parent if you put this over raising your children. One, I have to admit that I am thankful I don't have the UM thing to have to consider in this. I'd be a horrible parent anyway. Two, I don't fault anyone for being able to turn it on and off like a light switch. Obviously. Or I wouldn't have told my pet he didn't have to. That's entirely your call there, and you, I think, are making the absolutely correct decision on it. :) The thing that upsets me the most is the fact that some people out there have the audacity to call themselves adults, but are so sheltered or insecure or just generally pathetic that they expect me to pussyfoot around everything to protect them from hearing something. Also that they're so hypocritical that they deal with worse situations hundreds of times every day on tv and these here interwebs and on billboards, in magazines, newspapers, radio, etc. But when a real person sitting at a table behind them says something even remotely unusual which they shouldn't be eavesdropping in on anyway, they have a coronary. In a situation such as DesFIP's though, or, for example, if I thought for a second that the pets family was showing any signs of unease with it, I would have him stop calling me that immediately around them. DesFIP, a little advice if I may. Shrug off what the OP thinks. His opinions matter about as much as mine in the long run, which is to say, not at all. [;)] Your situation is yours, not his, not mine, not John Q. Public next door's. You deal with your situation how you feel is best. That, and that alone, is what matters. [:)]

blacklion -> RE: You are a submissive in public refusing to address your Master as Sir. (11/8/2009 5:36:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP I don't care if you do this. What I object to is the op having the temerity to say that because I don't want to out myself to my family, that I turn my submission off like it was a light bulb. You want to do it, and you don't care that your ex would sue to refuse you visitation once it came to light, go for it. Maybe that does make you the best top or bottom in the world. I don't know. I do know it makes you a piss poor parent if you put this over raising your children. What I object to is the op having the temerity to say that because I don't want to out myself to my family, that I turn my submission off like it was a light bulb. Really? and when did I mention your family in my question? For you to presume anything about you at all in itself is alarming . You are black text on my screen offering an opinion to my very basic question. So many of you are reading into what I made so simple. One went so far as to make it about her ailing father. You either fit my description and know what I was referencing or you do not. Lets not pull the victim card.

Lucienne -> RE: You are a submissive in public refusing to address your Master as Sir. (11/8/2009 6:03:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne Well, no. Some people keep some things private because it isn't public business. How do you suppose an individual comes to assess whether X thing is or is not "public business"? quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne You seem to be approaching this from the perspective of closeted/out. Just as it's not necessary for a gay man to run around announcing that he likes to suck cock in order to be "out," it isn't necessary for bdsm folks to advertise in order to be comfortable with who they are. So now, it's okay but it's just "not necessary"? This is just an argument that you consider X form of expression to be too excessive on the "tact" scale for your taste. Why not have gay men curb their flamboyant effeminate talk too? Also "not necessary"? I mean, they don't need to be so extroverted if they are truly comfortable with their sexuality, right? And, yet again, we're talking about the use of two words in public. quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne I don't object to gay men kissing in public (actually, I'd prefer to see two attractive gay men kiss than an unattractive hetero couple kiss) and I don't consider them closeted if they're just not into public displays of affection. So this would not be "not necessary"? What if someone else finds it "not necessary"? What if a poll showed most people find it "not necessary"? What if was predominantly "not necessary", in such polls, in one geographical area but not in another? I will totally own up to not being the most patient or diplomatic interlocutor, but, come on, man...the most generous read of your comments that I can make is that you're looking at public (and mild) presentation of a bdsm dynamic as an act in support of tolerance and acceptance of people who choose to live that lifestyle as non-deviant. Instead of honestly addressing that, you keep trying to push me into a corner of intolerance. As a general rule, I am a person who values privacy and does not present myself to the public as a member of a unit, regardless of my relationship status. I understand that I am in the minority in that regard. I don't expect the world to act like me. But I value people as individuals, and don't consider detailed knowledge of their relationship status or dynamic to be necessary. I don't care if they're true blue vanilla or gorean slaves. What matters to me is how that individual acts in relation to me. Which I don't expect to closely track their relationship with their significant other(s).

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 [8] 9 next > >>

Spam Policy

0.046875