RE: Early Use of Honorifics..

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Early Use of Honorifics..

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Early Use of Honorifics..

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

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Early Use of Honorifics.. - 7/20/2011 2:47:06 PM

IrishMist

Posts: 7480
Joined: 11/17/2005
Status: offline

quote:

but instructive for me because then I know that he's more involved in the fantasy side of things

Not necessarily.

Not everyone who wishes to be addressed with titles straight off is 'only interested in the fantasy side'. Some of them simply believe in a higher protocol than most of us do. That does not mean that they are living in fantasy though.

_____________________________

If I said something to offend you, please tell me what it was so that I can say it again later.

(in reply to risktaker9)

Post #: 41

RE: Early Use of Honorifics.. - 7/20/2011 3:32:28 PM

subtlyAlpha

Posts: 41
Joined: 7/14/2011
From: The United States
Status: offline

But, even if they are invested in a higher protocol, I haven't agreed to enter into that protocol with them. Or, is responding to an email and having a chat or two considered an implicit agreement to their protocol?
And you know, it they framed it as being about protocol - I could understand it better, but they frame it as a matter of respect. To me, those are two different things, that can and do exist independently of each other.

K.

_____________________________

That which yields is not always weak.

My opinions/clarifications relate to me and my dynamic/potential dynamic, and those involved in it. No one else. Srsly.

(in reply to IrishMist)

Post #: 42

RE: Early Use of Honorifics.. - 7/20/2011 3:46:02 PM

DesFIP

Posts: 25191
Joined: 11/25/2007
From: Apple County NY
Status: offline

The problem is that they're demanding you respect their authority and you haven't yet consented to give them any authority. And the basis of what we do is consent.

I would have no problem using a formal title to indicate respect but not authority, as long as they will call me by an equivalent title of respect. They want to be called formally as sir, then call me formally Ma'am.

I am as deserving of respect as they are. If they don't agree that I deserve respect, then that tells me right away that they aren't someone I will feel safe playing with.

Beyond that, I'm more laid back and find all that rather silly. If I don't think some guy is worth respecting, calling him sir won't magically change my opinion of him. I exempt a high protocol meeting from this, that gets its own rules for the length of the meeting. You either follow the rules or don't attend.

_____________________________

Slave to laundry

Cynical and proud of it!

(in reply to subtlyAlpha)

Post #: 43

RE: Early Use of Honorifics.. - 7/20/2011 3:58:52 PM

RqrCompanionS

Posts: 76
Joined: 7/16/2011
Status: offline

If someone who is an s-type contacts me to tell me they like a journal entry, that sort of thing, I'm not chuffed, whatever they call me, so long as it is not actively rude. If they are contacting me to express an interest in getting to know me, with the possibility of serving me in the future, they need to call me Ma'am or Mistress, for exactly all the reasons expressed.

As the old saying goes "Start how you intend to finish."

If they are contacting me to get to know me just as online acquaintances or friends, business related inquiries, about my artwork, etc. that they are fairly polite is enough and maybe they'll be using my name, but, more than likely, until we know each other better, they will still be calling me Ma'am. T hey don't have to, but, usually they just will.

So, obviously, I don't feel it is wrong to address people with early honorifics. In fact, under most circumstances, it is wrong not to. "Hey you" is certainly disrespectful, as is a failure to acknowledge them as a distinct person, at all. So, what do you call them, until they give you their name? What d you know about them, besides their sex? Call them Sir, to begin with, and, they won't have to demand it. Which, they shouldn't have to feel like they MUST demand respect from someone who is approaching them! If they want it, otherwise, if they want you to use their name, they will inform you.

If it's grating on your nerves, there is a problem. It is up to you, being in the situation, to discern if the problem is with them -are you getting that weak "Please call me Sir or else I'll throw a tantrum!" vibe from them? - , or, if it is with you. Do you have a problem with respecting people, for no other reason than that they are people? If you do, that's your issue, not theirs.

(in reply to IrishMist)

Post #: 44

RE: Early Use of Honorifics.. - 7/20/2011 4:08:29 PM

RqrCompanionS

Posts: 76
Joined: 7/16/2011
Status: offline

quote:

The problem is that they're demanding you respect their authority and you haven't yet consented to give them any authority. And the basis of what we do is consent.

I would have no problem using a formal title to indicate respect but not authority, as long as they will call me by an equivalent title of respect. They want to be called formally as sir, then call me formally Ma'am.

It is not respect for their authority over you - it is for their position. In much the same way you call an police officer "Sir" or "Officer" even if you are away from home, or, he is visiting from another country. It has nothing to do with consent. It is basic respect for a person, acknowledging their position.

And, this, you expecting to be called Ma'am, just highlights exactly what is wrong with you "submissive" types. You expect to be on equal grounds, and, yet, be taken seriously as submissives.

Well, deary, if I am looking for a dance partner, I want to see them dance. If I am looking for a maid, I look at the neatness of their tools and home or office. If I am looking for a chauffeur, I look at driving records. In other words, some evidence that they can do what they say I should want them for.

If I am looking for a submissive, I look for an attitude that says that they will respect me and will submit, and, if they come to me, and, expect me to believe that is what they are, they will damned well be on their best behavior.

Anyone who expected me to treat them as if we were equals, would definitely be treated as an equal, and, like all other equals, would never be considered in the position of slave or submissive, and, so, would be blocked for lying to me, by telling me submissive is what they are, despite all evidence to the contrary.

(in reply to DesFIP)

Post #: 45

RE: Early Use of Honorifics.. - 7/20/2011 4:09:33 PM

IrishMist

Posts: 7480
Joined: 11/17/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtlyAlpha

But, even if they are invested in a higher protocol, I haven't agreed to enter into that protocol with them. Or, is responding to an email and having a chat or two considered an implicit agreement to their protocol?
And you know, it they framed it as being about protocol - I could understand it better, but they frame it as a matter of respect. To me, those are two different things, that can and do exist independently of each other.

K.

Did you miss the part where I said that it comes down to choice? What I posted above was specifically in response to the previous statement that they must be living in fantasy.

_____________________________

If I said something to offend you, please tell me what it was so that I can say it again later.

(in reply to subtlyAlpha)

Post #: 46

RE: Early Use of Honorifics.. - 7/20/2011 4:57:44 PM

subtlyAlpha

Posts: 41
Joined: 7/14/2011
From: The United States
Status: offline

~FR~

IM - no, I didn't miss that at all. I'm trying to understand better - and I don't think there is a High Protocol board that I could post to. :) I agree with you, that HP types expect different behaviour - the Dom/Domme couple that I consider friends are VERY High Protocol, and I see how they interact with those who are potential as well as those they own - and, well, again, that shapes my opinion.

As I thought about it more, I think Des pegged in perfectly:

quote:

The problem is that they're demanding you respect their authority and you haven't yet consented to give them any authority.

And yet, I can see Rqr's point of view, as well, in the sense of 'Start where you intend to finish.' - my 'but' to that is that I'm not yet sure I WANT to finish there with them. They approached me. They made no mention of being High Protocol types. I would never say 'hey you' - and in a chat/email situation, that's not really needed. I would say Hello, Good Morning, etc, etc. and if I felt the need to add an address, I would use the nick or an acronym for their nick.
The fact that I'm using a chat nick/email that is exclusively theirs clears up any question of who I'm talking to. And in these cases, they had given me their first name, and when I said 'Hello Joe' they responded with 'Call me Sir'. So, perhaps it's that I'm a bit more cautious - in a matter of two days/four interactions, I'm not certain I'd want to be their submissive.

I don't have any problem with respecting people as people - I think that I handle that admirably, both online and in my personal life. What raises my eyebrow is the concept that I have to call them 'Sir' in order to indicate that I'm respecting them, or that I have the ability to submit to them.

I really appreciate the 'Yes, early honorific use is what I prefer and why' answers - they are giving me more insight to this phenomenon.

K.

< Message edited by subtlyAlpha -- 7/20/2011 5:00:27 PM >

_____________________________

That which yields is not always weak.

My opinions/clarifications relate to me and my dynamic/potential dynamic, and those involved in it. No one else. Srsly.

(in reply to IrishMist)

Post #: 47

RE: Early Use of Honorifics.. - 7/20/2011 5:09:53 PM

Dehumanizer519

Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2010
Status: offline

When I was in the military "Sir" or "Ma'am" could be construed to mean everything up to and including "Festering Shithead".

As many have said here, respect is earned. How it is expressed is up to the individual participants.

To me, it is completely unimportant. Showing respect is up to my partner, she knows the consequences of failing to do so when she enters into an agreement with me. I figure at that point I've earned at least some modicum of respect...or obedience.

(in reply to juliaoceania)

Post #: 48

RE: Early Use of Honorifics.. - 7/20/2011 5:34:13 PM

DecadentDesire

Posts: 234
Joined: 6/18/2011
Status: offline

FR

On the flip side, if a submissive were to address me as Sir in their first email to me, whether or not I would respond is in serious question due to a number of reasons, the big one being that it leads me to conclude that they are interested more in the "idea" or "fantasy" of me then the person.

_____________________________

I was once a Rabbit, driven Mad, by the Decadence of his Desires...

(in reply to Dehumanizer519)

Post #: 49

RE: Early Use of Honorifics.. - 7/20/2011 6:57:56 PM

LadyPact

Posts: 32566
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtlyAlpha

~FR~

IM - no, I didn't miss that at all. I'm trying to understand better - and I don't think there is a High Protocol board that I could post to. :) I agree with you, that HP types expect different behaviour - the Dom/Domme couple that I consider friends are VERY High Protocol, and I see how they interact with those who are potential as well as those they own - and, well, again, that shapes my opinion.

K.

There are boards that are specific to high protocol on other sites.

I happen to be a high protocol person. That doesn't mean that I demand high protocol from everyone. You will find that I don't bend on it in two different areas. The first being high protocol events. These are events where a certain level of protocol is mandated by the organizers and everyone attending the event agrees to that level to keep the atmosphere in place that the host is trying to create. These aren't unspoken rules that take people by surprise. The host will include the protocols for the event and when agreeing to attend, you agree to follow them.

The other place is in My dynamic. From the beginning, My dynamic with clip has been one of high protocol and I expect other people to respect that. There was a bit more latitude on this before I collared him. Now that he is collared, it is My position that people should respect that our dynamic is in place.

_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to subtlyAlpha)

Post #: 50

RE: Early Use of Honorifics.. - 7/20/2011 7:03:02 PM

subtlyAlpha

Posts: 41
Joined: 7/14/2011
From: The United States
Status: offline

~FR~

LadyPact - in both of those situations, I completely understand, and agree.

Perhaps a question that might help me clarify my thoughts a bit - for you, when did your dynamic with Clip begin? Was it a matter of 'this is the dynamic I want' from first contact, or did it take a while?

Thank you.

K.

_____________________________

That which yields is not always weak.

My opinions/clarifications relate to me and my dynamic/potential dynamic, and those involved in it. No one else. Srsly.

(in reply to LadyPact)

Post #: 51

RE: Early Use of Honorifics.. - 7/20/2011 8:42:26 PM

IrishMist

Posts: 7480
Joined: 11/17/2005
Status: offline

quote:

and I don't think there is a High Protocol board that I could post to. :)

You don't need a high protocol board to post to.

What you seem to be missing in what I am saying is that it all comes down to you and how you wish to interact with others. If you don't want to call someone Sir, or Mistress, or Ma'am...fine, no one can force you to do so. However, be aware that there are those out there...even those whom you just MAY be interested in, that expect no less than to be addressed as Sir, or Ma'am, or Mistress. By not honoring 'their' wishes, you are effectively telling them that you will never be interested.

Despite what many are saying, it actually has nothing to do with these people demanding that you 'submit' to them on the first contact...no one can demand anything of you that you do not give willingly. If it is your desire to pick up the gauntlet of 'I may be submissive but I am not your submissive' than please...that is your choice. There are none here that will berate you for that.

You, however, are turning this into a battle that does not need to be fought. Your original question asked if you were being unreasonable in NOT agreeing to grant the title. No one said you weren't.

I am simply trying to point out that just because some men and women PREFER a higher protocol...meaning that yes, they prefer to be addressed as Sir, or Ma'am, or Mistress, or even Master...does not mean that they are living a fantasy. It simply means that they are not what you are looking for if you can't find it in yourself to do as they PREFER.

It all comes down to choices. Choices YOU make, and choices THEY make. No choice is right or wrong. Simply different.

_____________________________

If I said something to offend you, please tell me what it was so that I can say it again later.

(in reply to subtlyAlpha)

Post #: 52

RE: Early Use of Honorifics.. - 7/20/2011 9:15:35 PM

subtlyAlpha

Posts: 41
Joined: 7/14/2011
From: The United States
Status: offline

:) Thank you for expanding on your thoughts, IrishMist.

It truly does come down to different expectations, desires, and choices.

K.

_____________________________

That which yields is not always weak.

My opinions/clarifications relate to me and my dynamic/potential dynamic, and those involved in it. No one else. Srsly.

(in reply to IrishMist)

Post #: 53

RE: Early Use of Honorifics.. - 7/20/2011 9:18:13 PM

LadyPact

Posts: 32566
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtlyAlpha

~FR~

LadyPact - in both of those situations, I completely understand, and agree.

Perhaps a question that might help me clarify my thoughts a bit - for you, when did your dynamic with Clip begin? Was it a matter of 'this is the dynamic I want' from first contact, or did it take a while?

Thank you.

K.

We actually started as play partners, so it was a top/bottom scenario in the S/m sense. (The old 'he happened to be submissive, but he wasn't My submissive' bit.) When we got to the point where we were becoming interested in a D/s dynamic, we spent a lot of time discussing what I would expect of him if he wanted to have that place in My life. Prior to collaring, we went through a period of consideration. That's when the rituals and protocols were put into place, both for My home and for events that we attended. Being a leather person Myself, I expected him to learn leather protocols for those events as well. I collared him as My submissive, but we did move to an even more formal M/s structure over time.

So to answer your question, it wasn't from the first hello. However, he did call Me by "Lady Pact" during our top/bottom phase and "M'lady" up until the point where I had decided that it was appropriate for him to call Me "Mistress".

_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to subtlyAlpha)

Post #: 54

RE: Early Use of Honorifics.. - 7/20/2011 9:30:15 PM

subtlyAlpha

Posts: 41
Joined: 7/14/2011
From: The United States
Status: offline

Thank you, LadyPact.

K.

_____________________________

That which yields is not always weak.

My opinions/clarifications relate to me and my dynamic/potential dynamic, and those involved in it. No one else. Srsly.

(in reply to LadyPact)

Post #: 55

RE: Early Use of Honorifics.. - 7/20/2011 9:31:27 PM

LanceHughes

Posts: 4737
Joined: 2/12/2004
Status: offline

I did NOT read all proceeding pages.

From my point of view, this is really moot.

Raised to be very, very polite, I "Sir" and "Ma'am" everyone.

I do not like it at ALL when bank clerks refer to me by my given name - which, BTW is very unusual and easily mis-pronounced.

I do not like it when grocery clerks look at the bottom of the receipt, and say "Have a good day, ___first name___." I fixed this by getting a new "Favored Customer" card with first initial and last name. The clerks look at the receipt oddly and say "Have a nice day, Mr. ___last name___."

I changed my bank account so that it has JUST first initial and last name. Branch clerks got to know me pretty good and then one day the clerk said "What should we call you? I replied, "Well, Mr. ___Last name___, of course." They badgered me for my first name and I wouldn't "give it up."

So, to me, "Sir" is nothing more and nothing less than being polite.

OTOH, forcing "Master" is a NO-NO!

< Message edited by LanceHughes -- 7/20/2011 9:33:04 PM >

_____________________________

"Train 'em the right way - my way." Lance Hughes
"Advice is what we ask for when we already know the answer, but wish we didn't." Erica Jong

10 fluffy points
50 nz points

Member: VAA's posse

(in reply to LadyPact)

Post #: 56

RE: Early Use of Honorifics.. - 7/21/2011 6:53:43 AM

LafayetteLady

Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RqrCompanionS

It is not respect for their authority over you - it is for their position. In much the same way you call an police officer "Sir" or "Officer" even if you are away from home, or, he is visiting from another country. It has nothing to do with consent. It is basic respect for a person, acknowledging their position.

Problem is, protocol or not, the "postition" at that time exists only in the mind of the dominant. This isn't the equivalent of meeting a boss for the first time, if the eventuality of a relationship is the goal.

quote:

And, this, you expecting to be called Ma'am, just highlights exactly what is wrong with you "submissive" types. You expect to be on equal grounds, and, yet, be taken seriously as submissives.

I'm so glad you resolved what is wrong with all us "s-types." Silly fools we are expecting to be on equal ground with strangers.

quote:

Anyone who expected me to treat them as if we were equals, would definitely be treated as an equal, and, like all other equals, would never be considered in the position of slave or submissive, and, so, would be blocked for lying to me, by telling me submissive is what they are, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Wow, the number of dishonest "s-types" you come across must be mind boggling.

(in reply to RqrCompanionS)

Post #: 57

RE: Early Use of Honorifics.. - 7/21/2011 7:33:16 AM

LillyBoPeep

Posts: 6873
Joined: 12/29/2010
Status: offline

i have to say i agree with LafayetteLady -- this so called "position" that we're supposed to respect only exists in the D's mind. it's a self-ascribed position, nothing at all like meeting a boss, who has actually earned that position through a successful record with a company, or anything at ALL like meeting a police officer, who is a representative of the State. to even suggest so is a sign of the kind of self-aggrandizing personality i really want nothing to do with. sorry, but i'm under no obligation to respect a self-ascribed position, and if someone is that self-aggrandizing as to expect that AND to judge my "submissiveness" by my unwillingness to cater to their self-indulgent demands, when i don't know them from Adam, then that's their problem. =p
that's the problem with you so-called "Dominant-types."

*eye roll*

< Message edited by LillyBoPeep -- 7/21/2011 7:35:22 AM >

_____________________________

Midwestern Girl

"Obey your Master." Metallica

(in reply to LafayetteLady)

Post #: 58

RE: Early Use of Honorifics.. - 7/21/2011 7:35:41 AM

DesFIP

Posts: 25191
Joined: 11/25/2007
From: Apple County NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RqrCompanionS

It is not respect for their authority over you - it is for their position. In much the same way you call an police officer "Sir" or "Officer" even if you are away from home, or, he is visiting from another country. It has nothing to do with consent. It is basic respect for a person, acknowledging their position.

And, this, you expecting to be called Ma'am, just highlights exactly what is wrong with you "submissive" types. You expect to be on equal grounds, and, yet, be taken seriously as submissives.

A police officer has authority over me, given him by the laws of the land. A random dominant has none.

And I am of equal value. I am not a piece of trash easily thrown away. Without me, there is no one to submit to him. He could order the thin air to refill his tea cup but it wouldn't do any good.

Oh and deary? Your attitude of condescension just makes you appear silly, not dominant in the least. As does your inability to understand the difference between equal in value and equal in authority. I strongly suggest that you learn the difference if you want to be able to find the submissive of your dreams. As for me? I've been with him for over eight years so that gives the lie to your comment that submissives who don't treat every random dominant with unearned submission will never enter into a mutually satisfying d/s relationship.

Although your profile makes it clear that you don't care about the sub's satisfaction.

< Message edited by DesFIP -- 7/21/2011 7:41:46 AM >

_____________________________

Slave to laundry

Cynical and proud of it!

(in reply to RqrCompanionS)

Post #: 59

RE: Early Use of Honorifics.. - 7/21/2011 8:48:51 AM

CelticPrince

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

This is something I've encountered a couple of times (and as I think about it, from the same 'demographic'), and I wanted to run it past the wide variety of opinions here, to see if I can get a better understanding of it.

I've been 'instructed' to call Dom's who I'm just starting to talk to (as in within the first few days) Sir.

It grates me. It makes me feel like they are demanding a level of 'respect' higher than the one that they have earned. It makes me feel like they are focusing on me as a submissive, rather than as a woman who submits. It makes me feel like they are trying to 'skip' the getting to know you part of a relationship, and heading full speed into 'kneel, bitch!'. It's usually accompanied by them calling me 'good girl' or 'little one', as well. *sideeye*

It's explained as being a matter of respect - as acknowledging them as Dominants, and respecting their position and authority. Well and good, from their point of view.

I'm new - I'll freely admit that. I only became consciously aware of my submissive tendencies about 9 months ago, and the one Dom that I had a brief (and long-distance) relationship with was, and is, a dear friend, so perhaps that's shaped my perspectives on how initial contacts and interactions should go. In my mind, there is a clear progression from one stage to another - stranger, acquaintance, friend, lover/Dominant. Those stages might take 3 years or 3 months to progress through, depending on the people involved - but it's a progression. It's not a leap from stranger to Dom, because that's the side of the dynamic they claim.
Play partners are a bit different, in my mind, as there isn't the same expectation that the individual who flogs me in the Club will ever be anything but a willing Top. And just because they are in the role of a Top, they might not even be a Dom/me.

I'm very polite, courteous, and diplomatic to a fault at times, and I tend to respect everyone - even those who have not yet 'earned' it. Being instructed to call someone I've just met in the lifestyle Sir, though? It - irks me. I feel like at the start of our interaction, we are equals - two humans approaching each other, and trying to learn enough about the other to see if we want to be more than ships passing in the choppy online waters. And there ain't no way they would call me Ma'am - nor would I want them to. Kiya is JUST fine.

To me, it seems like it would be more valuable to progress through a relationship to the point where I wanted to call them Sir. Where calling them Sir seemed simply natural. It would indicate a change in attitudes, perceptions, dynamic and expectations - on both sides of the kneel.

So.

Am I being unreasonable here? Is the progression of connection/relationship that much different in BDSM? Is it truly outlandish to expect to be able to consider a Dom a friend before one considers them their Dom? Is it exceptionally unsubby to believe I'm the equal of any Dom until we chose to enter into a power synergy/exchange relationship? (And I won't go into how I feel about equality as people/humans AFTER that. *wrygrin*)

And, perhaps the core question - how best do I express that I feel like they don't have the 'right' to demand a stranger call them Sir, without casting aspersions on their experience and dynamic? I usually handle it by not 'addressing' them at all.....

Thank y'all in advance for any insights on this....

K.

K,

The advice you received is about 10 years out of date. It used to be that way when the D/s lifestyle was much smaller than today because of the net allowing folks to be something they are not. Mostly in the "D" side of the slash. In that past it was assumed that a "D" was an experienced person with understanding of what their role was not just to a submissive but also to the lifestyle as a whole.

Alas that has gone the way of the gold standard and any alpha can get away with calling themselves a "D".......in the end you make the determination if your relating to a actual "D" or just a pretender, and thus reserve the Sir or Ma'am for those that you judge to be valid.

CP

(in reply to subtlyAlpha)

Post #: 60

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

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Early Use of Honorifics..

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

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.094