|
seababy -> RE: Sir or Master (1/22/2012 5:12:22 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist
Perhaps my age is showing. It always rubs me the wrong way when I see the roots of BDSM fall into disuse. Protocols respecting rank were at the heart of BDSM in its birth. I'm sure you all know the old leathermen story about the military being the first homosexual experiences for many men and they took that military discipline (as in the D in BDSM) to heart when they took up leather upon their return home.
So to me and many others familiar with the origins of BDSM, a large part of the D in BDSM stands for the discipline of rank and order which is displayed through protocols. Those protocols involve addressing people of rank and station with respect and by their titles. If you can't do that, you aren't into BDSM where I come from. To me, seeing those protocols fall into disuse seems to fly in the face of what BDSM is. It's like rewriting the constitution, many will be resistant to it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Epytropos
Honorifics are complex. They mean something different to everyone, and while there are "correct" definitions of each as RS touches on, they are in such disuse that attempting to use them properly will often lead to confusion in many circles. I used to be in the habit of using "sir" in conversation with my equals (such as they are) but it became tiresome to explain it so I've refrained.
For my bit, I let subs in the general population refer to me however they like (within reason, of course - I'll likely not respond to "cockmuffin" more than once or twice lol) with the exception that no one calls me Master without permission. All things being equal, I respond well to subs who use Sir on first contact, but I by no means demand it. It strikes me as a sign of natural submission and/or decent breeding, both of which I hold in high regard. So long as people show basic respect and comport themselves with dignity I'm quite flexible.
[edit: type-o]
But RS, people have been involved in powerexchange relationships, tying up, spanking and sadism way before the underground leather scene emerged.
I am sure you could think of a few well known historic examples yourself. BDSM was not created by the the leather scene. The leather scene is a specific cultural construct that emerged in the what? 1950"s? (is that right?). Its highly relevant to you as (I am assuming) its formed a great part of your experiences and you obviously have many friends and accaintences from the leather scene. That has to create a great deal of nostalgia.
I believe these protocols are really only relevant within the leather culture. If I found myself at a leather protocol event than I would be choosing to participate and I would then think it would be rude to not follow the cultural protocols of this group.
For myself if in any other circumstance if someone expected me to call them Sir then my expectation would be that they would be addressing me with the same formalities. I do strive to treat everyone with respect and courtesy however I don't call anyone Master unless I am in a relationship with them. In social situations how I speak to someone who orientates themself as dominant would be the same as how I would speak to a submissive person. (unless they are really hot then I get all wide eyes and tongue tied.)
If what I do doesn't come under your idea BDSM thats ok. :) I just like power exhange, being spanked, tied up and other various "stuff". I'll just call what I do...stuff that I do.
Oh I'll just add about titles, it may be an Aussie cultural thing here, but I don't believe that an accident at birth entitles someone to more respect than the next man on the street.
I would tend to have more respect for a title earned such as in the leather scene with someone who mentors and does community and charity work or Sir David Attenborough (my hero).
I think I've just done a too long/didnt read, sorry about that. I'm deleriously tired. Time for bed.
Cheers
Sea
|
|
|
|
