RE: Not using names during initial conversations

RE: Not using names during initial conversations (Full Version)

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

Message

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Not using names during initial conversations (4/26/2006 6:22:42 AM)
quote: Then we have a very different idea of just what is meant by "polite society." I doubt that. quote: If this guy's only flaw is that he refuses to call potential property by their given name, it really shouldn't be that big a deal...should it? It seems that there are a lot of people willing to toss the guy over board for what is a rather mild (for this bunch at least) excentricity and abuse of social norms. I didn't suggest any reaction to his rudeness. The best course of action when someone is rude in this situation is to say "I have to go, thanks for the chat." Nothing tossing overboard there. A rude reaction to a rude action makes everyone a rude person. quote: Now, this particular quirk might by symptomatic of a larger ass-hattedness, but I think, if done the right way, it could be an endearing character flaw... I said that in my first response- some people really get off on it. The issue is- she's made it clear SHE does NOT get off on it to him. Heck, she could hate it when he does it and then when some random guy tomorrow does it, she could LOVE it. And that's fine and dandy. While is is certainly presumptuous to give someone a name without a social closeness- it can be an acceptable risk that pays off. quote: Not beating people is a social custom that this bunch oversteps all the time. We all pick and choose the customs we honor...no? Yes we do. But there are general customs that are socially accepted and considered "polite" and "rude." Ignoring those customs is done at one's own peril. quote: Do they expect those who are dominant to not want to get their own way, even when introductions are being made? It is like the dominant is supposed to go from "mild mannered" to "master of the domain" only when the time is right for the submissive... I expect dominants to be mature adults who realize that social interactions aren't about "always getting what you want." My 5 year old nephew understands that concept. If what he wants is to form a solid relationship with someone- then behaving rudely is counterproductive to that for the most part. That doesn't mean he needs to change- just that many people will consider him rude. quote: The whole dominance thing doesn't really "turn off". If the guy doesn't want to use names, why would he give in to the request of some submissive he doesn't even know? I think if he sees polite requests in terms of "giving in" then he's got bigger problems than calling people by their requested name. Dominance isn't about getting what you want from everyone you pass- if he thought that way, then he would just rape whatever hot girl got his cock hard. I'm not suggesting rape is on the same level as name preference- but both are ignoring one's own choices in preference of personal desire. quote: So he can get to know her and then somehow magically earn the right to not use her name? Hogwash... That's what the courting process is all about- not earning the right, but growing that closeness. We have social bubbles for a reason. Forcing one's way past them is not cool. quote: I think that Master will be much better suited doing just what he did. Live his life and he will find the one who belongs to him... If he's ok with being considered a rude asshole by most people living an illusory life that everyone owes him exactly what he wants anytime he wants it just because he happens to be a dominant and does in fact find the slave of his dreams (which I actually completely believe he would), then that's ok with him. But he better hope to be able to keep himself reigned in enough to not physically abuse someone just to get what he wants. quote: Where are you getting that? He simply wanted to conduct his interview the way he wanted to conduct it. I have heard no mention of him forcing any desires or interests on her. She was free to leave at any time...I imagine. I didn't say he forced something- I said he was making it plain that he considered what HE wanted more important than what SHE wanted. And according to your post, dominants should expect to get what they want, even if it goes against what someone else not in a relationship with them wants. quote: I certainly agree with you, but I don't think we are a very representative sample of the lifestyle. And I hardly think the flaunting of one rule of basic social ettiquite is worth the ungodly wrath visited on this poor dominant. I never suggested ungodly wrath, or even godly wrath (and gods wrath is worse I think). Again, my sense of etiquette is NOT based on what someone else chooses to do. There is a polite way to response to rudeness.

Arpig -> RE: Not using names during initial conversations (4/26/2006 6:45:23 AM)
Personally I will have to say I agree with Taggard on this one....what's the big deal? However...to the OP...if it really bugs you that much, then let him know that if he continues to do it, you will give him the old heave-ho...and its back to the streets for him

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Not using names during initial conversations (4/26/2006 8:18:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross A rude reaction to a rude action makes everyone a rude person. My point is that I don't find what he did to be at all rude. He explained that in his interview process, he did not use names. He certainly is entitled to use whatever interview process he likes, and not be called "rude" simply because he choses to ignore some particular norm of society. This was not some random woman he approached on the street (or at a munch). It is someone who approached him because she thought there might be a compatibility. quote: The issue is- she's made it clear SHE does NOT get off on it to him. And that is her issue...not an issue of him being rude. quote: quote: Not beating people is a social custom that this bunch oversteps all the time. We all pick and choose the customs we honor...no? Yes we do. But there are general customs that are socially accepted and considered "polite" and "rude." Ignoring those customs is done at one's own peril. I don't buy into societies definitions of things...and you don't either. Unless, of course, they happen to align with our own, and then they are fine and dandy. quote: If what he wants is to form a solid relationship with someone- then behaving rudely is counterproductive to that for the most part. That doesn't mean he needs to change- just that many people will consider him rude. What did he do that was rude? This is the part I don't understand. He made it clear that he was used to doing things a certain way, and was not going to change. That is not rude. It is not rude to deny a request. quote: quote: The whole dominance thing doesn't really "turn off". If the guy doesn't want to use names, why would he give in to the request of some submissive he doesn't even know? I think if he sees polite requests in terms of "giving in" then he's got bigger problems than calling people by their requested name. Ah...now here is the interesting stuff. When establishing a relationship with a submissive, it really is important to be dominant. It can't all be in your name. While my style doesn't go the way this guy's does, I do make certain requests (and deny others) when interviewing, and there is a very fine line one must walk. quote: Dominance isn't about getting what you want from everyone you pass- if he thought that way, then he would just rape whatever hot girl got his cock hard. That is a straw man, and you should know it... quote: I didn't say he forced something- I said he was making it plain that he considered what HE wanted more important than what SHE wanted. And according to your post, dominants should expect to get what they want, even if it goes against what someone else not in a relationship with them wants. To quote you in another thread "it all comes back to self." Of course he considers what HE wants to be more important than what SHE wants. To live your life any other way would be foolish. I believe that all people (not just dominants) should expect to get what they want, even if it goes against what someone else wants. It is the "greed is good" principle. It is why the free market works better than any planned economy ever could. The trick is really knowing what is good for you... Taggard

heartfeltsub -> RE: Not using names during initial conversations (4/26/2006 8:28:45 AM)
Taggard, you and LA seem to be getting into this thread much more than i am (chuckling). That being said, i would like to clarify one comment that you made. You siad "My point is that I don't find what he did to be at all rude. He explained that in his interview process, he did not use names. He certainly is entitled to use whatever interview process he likes, and not be called "rude" simply because he choses to ignore some particular norm of society." That statement is not entirely accurate, he said that he doesn't use names UNTIL he has decided if the submissive that he is talking with is serious about the lifestyle, which he then said that he felt that i am serious about the lifestyle. His preference is for anonymity until that has been determined, and i concur that is ENTIRELY which in his rights to do so. After stating he found me not only serious about this lifestyle (which i am) and but also compatible enough to pursue more discussion about the potential of collaring me, it was then that i asked him to please use my name so that i could feel a connection person to person. You are correct he can do interviews in any way he wishes, my comment to him was that this behavior was inhibiting my ability to form a connection with him and i was merely asking him to temporarily use my name so that i could feel that connection.

Reasonable -> RE: Not using names during initial conversations (4/26/2006 8:29:39 AM)
I wish that alleged "submissives" could wrap thier minds around the fact that some dominants aren't going to behave like alan alda. If a guy has a different style and enjoys it-and you don't. Just give it a miss and move on. Rather than try and project how you feel he SHOULD behave. I'm constantly amazed at the contradictory fantasy constructs of women who say they want to be controlled by a strong man-then expect instant compromise at thier every whim. They don't want a dominant-they want a Harlequin romance novel. Gimme a break.[:D]

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Not using names during initial conversations (4/26/2006 8:44:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty My point is that I don't find what he did to be at all rude. And I think as long as we disagree on that basic point, then we won't really be able to work around the issue. Say I meet someone at a party, we get introduced. I say "Please, call me LA" and he says "Of course LA, please call me Tim." I say "Nice to meet you Tim." And we continue from there. That's a standard polite initial interaction. Pretty much any other response from Tim that goes along the lines of "No I'm not going to call you that but I will continue to talk to you" is rude. If he would just say "No, I'm not going to call you that but I understand if you consider that rude and wish to cease talking" then I would consider that odd, but acceptable. It has nothing to do with being a dominant. Being a dominant does not ENTITLE anyone to act any differently in social situations to people OTHER than who they have created a particular relationship with. Being a dom does not give you special anti-rudeness powers. If it's rude to do, it's rude to do. I don't care what orientation you are, or how many slaves you own. You aren't my dominant, you need to treat me as a regular person and I need to do the same. A dominant who feels they are entitled to act differently with no recourse and are completely justified in it just because they want to own someone is deluded. They can still find a slave of course, and it's great if they are honest about their feelings, but it is ridiculous. And the actions are rude. Now, anyone can take a risk- taking a persons hand at the movies on a first date, offering to pay the bill, insisting on paying for a cab, and so on and so forth. Those are all risks that you take when you want to try the social waters- see if they accept or reject your risk. But the only acceptable polite response to a polite rejection of your social risk is a polite acceptance of rejection. Trying to justify or deny ANY other response based on being dominant and somehow having anti-rudeness powers based on that is just ridiculous. A dominant who can't be polite AND secure in their dominance isn't someone I'd consider a mature adult.

Reasonable -> RE: Not using names during initial conversations (4/26/2006 8:47:29 AM)
quote: A dominant who can't be polite AND secure in their dominance isn't someone I'd consider a mature adult. Have you ever considered the possibility of someone being secure enough in thier dominance that they could be polite-but chose not to be?

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Not using names during initial conversations (4/26/2006 8:50:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Reasonable Have you ever considered the possibility of someone being secure enough in thier dominance that they could be polite-but chose not to be? Someone who chose to be rude when they have the option of being polite? Unless they were going with the whole "I'm trying to turn her on by being a rude bastard" option...what's the point?

TNstepsout -> RE: Not using names during initial conversations (4/26/2006 8:54:48 AM)
I'm with LA on this one. No one has suggested taking this guy out back and shooting him. But rude and inconsiderate is rude and inconsiderate. Period! If a reasonable request to show proper respect is ignored BEFORE a power exchange dynamic is agreed to by both parties, it is RUDE. It seems pretty simple to me. I don't know why anyone would do back flips to defend rude, borish, inconsiderate behavior from anyone, least of all from someone who calls himself "Master". Next thing you know we'll read that "on your knees bitch" introductory emails are perfectly acceptable for anyone who calls himself "Master". Next thing you know you guys will be telling us that "on your knees bitch" IS a proper introduction.

Reasonable -> RE: Not using names during initial conversations (4/26/2006 8:55:52 AM)
The point being, it's his style? He likes it? And doesn't really care if he chases away someone who can't take what he dishes out? Often reffered to as a "prefference" la.[;)] To be totally secure in who one is, requires no validation-internally or externally.

heartfeltsub -> RE: Not using names during initial conversations (4/26/2006 8:56:14 AM)
i'm sorry you don't know me and i don't know you so i am frankly confused by your representation of me as someone who wants a Dominant to cater to my every whim, i do not and anyone who knows me in real time could testify to that. i have not tried to bash anyone, i was merely trying to get an answer to a question. i have neither insulted anyone nor think i have said anything that should warrant the response you gave of calling me an "alleged submissive" and someone who has constructed a fantasy world that i want every Dominant i deal with to have to walk lock step in. my WHOLE premise in asking the question was he says that he wants A (to get to know me better) i try to facilitate that, but find i am hampered in giving him what he wants A by his action B (not ever using my name) because of the lack of connection that it caused in me. i merely asked him to please stop doing B so that i could make that connection. Again i did not slam him, cast aspersions on his Domliness, i merely asked him to adjust one behavior temporarily so that i could actual do what it was he was asking me to do. And as you are "Reasonable" i would think that you could see the inherent reasonableness of my request.

Reasonable -> RE: Not using names during initial conversations (4/26/2006 8:58:59 AM)
I'm Reasonable enough to try and help you see this from an outside perspective. If you desire to keep going down a single track,rather than look at others-I am more than happy to desist,and leave you in your box. Just give the word,and I'll bugger off.[;)]

yourMissTress -> RE: Not using names during initial conversations (4/26/2006 9:05:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heartfeltsub Hello, i recently started talking with a Dom who was recommended to me by someone on this site as someone who i might be compatible with, which i really appreciated. However, the Dom refuses to call me by my name. Please understand i have no trouble when my ex-Master called me different names and i can understand completely that reaction when someone is owned. However this particular Dom will only address me as slave or sub and not by my name even when i have asked Him to do so. i am wondering if this is common, as this behavior is making it very difficult for me to feel any sort of connection with this person at all. Again please understand inside of a relationship, i don't really care what i am called, but in forming one, it seems to me that getting to know the whole person is important. i also don't think i would have the same reaction if He was using terms like pet or girl as those seem more affectionate to me. Maybe it is just me. i don't know and that is why i am asking. Hope this wasn't too confusing and thank you all in advance for your answers. heartfelt I had some real life experience with this not too long ago. My sub, Deb (MouseTrapp) when we met, was also talking with another Domme in another part of the state. I spoke with said Domme on the phone and in our first conversation she was quite clear with me about calling mouse by any name other than her given name and went so far as saying "I don't even say the D word" as if her given name were a curse word. I was more than put off. To say something like that to Deb is one thing, dehumanizing her and keeping her in a submissive mind state. But to avoid saying her name to another person, Me, was quite telling of how she actually thought of not only Deb, but any submissive. Of course she went on to prove that point again and again in that first conversation, after which I fully informed her of my take on the whole situation and her as a Domme. Didn't go well from her perspective and went just fine from mine. That is neither here nor there. If someone that you are casually talking with and are not under any mutual agreement to submit to can't oblige your request to call you by name, my advice is to cease communication with said person. "Dismiss" him. I hear Doms hate that.

heartfeltsub -> RE: Not using names during initial conversations (4/26/2006 9:06:20 AM)
i do not mind word of insight, in fact i have received some idea of why he may choose this tact during the course of this thread and i have appreciated getting those as frankly there are times that Doms confused me to no end. However i do have a BIG problem with my submissiveness being questioned or cast into doubt by someone who doesn't know me and wouldn't know me if he or she saw me (sorry haven't looked at your profile don't know what gender you are) . The whole motivation for the question in the first place is i was trying to find a reason behind this behavior so it would stop bothering me so much. There are very few people with whom i am a potential match, one because i am a christian and am looking for a christian because i believe it is very important to have compatiblity on spiritual issues for ltr to work. And two because i tend to be into some extremes that most of the christian Doms that i have talked with find too extreme. And because this particular Dom seemed to be a match in those two areas, i was trying to find an answer to a question that was bothering me so that i could continue to talk with him and see if we are more of a match. Again i have no problem with words of advice or counsel, i DO have problems with having my submission called into question because i want to be called by my name. heartfelt

TNstepsout -> RE: Not using names during initial conversations (4/26/2006 9:06:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Reasonable Have you ever considered the possibility of someone being secure enough in thier dominance that they could be polite-but chose not to be? That's the most ridiculous justification I've ever heard. I imagine I would tell said "Master" to F-OFF! Even though I am secure enough in my submission to tell him politely I am simply not interested, I think I would CHOOSE to tell him to F-Off! Yes, I think I would.

Reasonable -> RE: Not using names during initial conversations (4/26/2006 9:11:35 AM)
Then that is your "prefference" Is your prefference the only one that exists, and has validity?

heartfeltsub -> RE: Not using names during initial conversations (4/26/2006 9:13:55 AM)
Did i ever say that, in any of the posts that i have made? i believe i have tried to calmly explain where i am coming from and we are now at the place where you are being deliberately obtuse. So per your previous comment. Please take the advice that you gave me earlier.

Reasonable -> RE: Not using names during initial conversations (4/26/2006 9:14:18 AM)
I did not refer to you personally-You chose to take my comments so. I really don't care how submissive you are,or not. I was merely giving you an alternate viewpoint as to how this fellow may tick. If you could somehow modify your narow views of this to include how he thinks.........it might no longer have the import you now attach to it. Get the picture?

Reasonable -> RE: Not using names during initial conversations (4/26/2006 9:16:07 AM)
Note that I was replying to the previous posting(TNstepsout)-pay attention.[:D]

jezzabelle -> RE: Not using names during initial conversations (4/26/2006 9:21:12 AM)
You're most welcome heart. I would feel the same way in your position and I know it would irk the hell out of me.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875