RE: "No Tie = No Service" (Full Version)

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



Message

warlock4821 -> RE: "No Tie = No Service" (12/18/2004 6:15:52 PM)

Thank you for your input. Actually the place agreed upon was recommended by Mistress. I did not realize that I had been there before. However, even though I did not suggest the location, I probably should have verified it being open. Had I initially suggested it, I would have.



warlock4821 -> RE: "No Tie = No Service" (12/18/2004 6:20:51 PM)

Thank you for your response and insight. I must admit I did not think of anything selling bad. I still believe in the Mistress having been caught off guard as I was.



BeachMystress -> RE: "No Tie = No Service" (12/18/2004 6:47:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: warlock4821

Mistress:

Thank you for reading my message and in responding to my questios. I have one other I am rather curious about;

-Does a Mistress prefer a submissive that follows the directions and rules of his Mistress with merely the threat of punishment or falling into disfavor with his Mistress, or does the Mistress hope that her submissive mis-steps thereby provoking the punishment from the Mistress? In other words, does a Mistress derive pleasure from adherence to the rules or by the infliction of punishment? Perhaps the answer is that it varies from Mistress to Mistress.



Yes, it varies from Domme to Domme

I think I may be unusual for a Domme. Having to punish my sub really pisses me off. I have few rules. My sub should wish to please me and easily remain within my set of wishes. While corrections are necessary, for me to need to resort to actual punishment means something has gone very wrong. (No sub of mine ever needs to act up to get more in the way of intensity from me. While I enjoy being the gentle nurturer, I at times enjoy being the bitch from hell who will cut them to watch them bleed.)

No one is perfect. Subs need training and guidance. I provide my subs with a stable structure in which they can feel safe. Just as a child needs to know limits and boundaries, so does a sub. It is a learning process for them and takes a while. While some of the lessons are not so pleasant, they are not meant to punish but are to reinforce proper behaviour. I want my sub to succeed and will help him in that effort. I do not deal well with the subs who feel the need to be constantly punished. (Please do not misunderstand me. My subs do deal with what some might consider "punishment" such as spankings, CBT and the like. They do so because it is fun for me, not because they've been bad.)



Solaise -> RE: "No Tie = No Service" (12/18/2004 7:26:45 PM)



quote:

-Does a Mistress prefer a submissive that follows the directions and rules of his Mistress with merely the threat of punishment or falling into disfavor with his Mistress, or does the Mistress hope that her submissive mis-steps thereby provoking the punishment from the Mistress?


I'll make life demanding enough without placing deliberate road-blocks in the way for a sub to unwittingly fall over. I'm not perfect - no one is - but setting a sub up deliberately to fail so I have a ready made excuse to punish just doesn't sit right with me.

I'm glad you posted. Given that the venue that had originally been selected was casual - you dressed appropriately. Your attire sounds well selected and quite nice. Since there was no dress-code to begin with, and a venue change that happened by chance - her questioning of your 'lapse' doesn't make much sense to me. You sound genuinely surprised by the level of her displeasure. So, I am left to assume that she never really brought it up - past that one comment - not during dinner, and not after.

My answer to this is how are you ever going to know how to please her, if she never tells you when she is pleased or displeased?

If a sub breaks a rule that I forgot to mention it isn't an "offense" yet. It BECOMES an offense when the sub is alerted to the fact that there IS a rule and commits the infraction a second time. Obviously if a sub did something really out of line this doesn't apply. But for general things (no hats in the house) how is he going to know unless I tell him?

You can't 'break' a non-existent rule. You can't 'breech' dress-code when there was no dress-code given.






Whipenrod -> RE: "No Tie = No Service" (12/18/2004 8:29:52 PM)

Oh my! I go away for a day or two, and look at the fire over here.

I wish I could have kept up with this post (and responded to each individually). At this point, people are developing their own 'spin'. And some felt it important to snipe at me for expressing my standards (Molecular in particular seems to have a nerve exposed.)
And some supported me for holding to mine.
Rotten turnips to the former--and orchids to the latter.

Dark Angel asked permission from me to post here in this "Mistress' forum. (I said it wasn't necessary--perhaps only a polite 'excuse me?" would have worked, as this is an open discussion, but her concise analysis is worth reading).
Warlock: you did not have to unmask your identity--and I would never have revealed it on this board. If your purpose was to defend yourself to my face in a public forum and encourage an opposing army it is misguided. I do not need any help here to arrive at my own conclusions--I thought this would encourage discussion (as I see it did).

A lot of BDSM is about presentation. I never go to an interview without dressing with care--even if the interview is in a diner. I honor the person I am interviewing, and I expect the same from them.

Yes--the subject is a missing tie. I thought it presented some interesting questions about how to dress for a BDSM interview.
The restaurant that we originally met at was similar in tone--I would have expected a tie there, as well --not a rumpled dress shirt with a missing tie.

I will state this again: the submissive's job was to impress me. Isn't that usually the case? BUT he relied on dazzling me with a restaurant, and 'forgot' about his personal appearence.

No, I didn't order him to put on a tie--I mentioned it, and saw how he reacted. Not satisfactory, as he brushed off the mention. So I took a note. Like the 'final save' in a sports game, he would have had to overcome the deficiency so I waited to see. Perhaps there was still a spark of 'compatability' that would help me overlook the problem.
I usually analyze my impressions after the interview. But the spark never came.

Bottom line: I was still not impressed.
I am finished with this discussion. And until Warlock made his name known, I was not intending to make it so personal.
Warlock: Thank you for a pleasant evening otherwise, and I hope you find a Domme.

--Lady Whipenrod



yobai007 -> RE: "No Tie = No Service" (12/18/2004 9:03:17 PM)




yobai007 -> RE: "No Tie = No Service" (12/18/2004 9:10:03 PM)

Your decision was the correct one My Lady Whipenrod. You were interveiwing a potential submissive and he failed the tests. You have no obligation to make exceptions for any inability to meet your standards. If a submissive desires to serve, it is his or her obligation to please and to impress the dominant thoroughly enough to gain the recognition needed fo that position.

I am pleased to see that you have standards and from what I can see of your communications on here you are totaly entitled to expect those standards to met. Your ultimate decision was correct. The man should look elsewhere since he obviously is not able to rise to a level to satisfy you. My congradulations for maintaining requirements that often exceed what people decide should be minimum standards.



GoddessJules -> RE: "No Tie = No Service" (12/18/2004 9:10:26 PM)

Whipenrod,

I think that most people are thinking: "It's the tie that is the issue." And if I'm reading you correctly, it is a compatibility issue.
1) You sound like me when you expected that he dress to the nines when he was making his first presentation to you. In cases like this, it is better to over dress to be on the safe side than to underdress for whatever reason. It isn't about "how casual the dining facility is" or "she didn't lay out my clothes in the morning." It is about being able to guage how far a person will go to please you. First impressions are lasting. .and there are guys tearing down our doors wanting an opportunity to make their first impression with us. Bottom line: I wouldn't be compatible with someone that doesn't give me 100+% EVERY time. You can get these cues from where they suggest we dine, how they dress, their hygene, their mannerism etc. Not everyone views it like this. . .and as a sub/slave, if you cant handle it. . .well, it is a compatibility issue. Move on.
2)The reaction she got when she metioned the tie wasn't to her standards. Nothing "wrong" or "evil" about that. She has different expectations than some. She has a right to be like that. You can gleen a lot from someone's reaction to a situation. It shed light on how they are. I personally don't talk to hear my own voice - so if I make a mention about how a boy is dressed, how he speaks, or anything else. . .it is because I noticed something about it. Then they have the choice to see what is wrong with it. . or ignore it. . .or cuss me out. I'll say this again. . .this is how *I* see things. . .not everyone sees it like I do. For a boy to *ignore* something I bring up is a no-no. That is a red flag in my book.

So I see nothing wrong with having expectations. For me, it cuts down on wasted time finding out that someone finds my standards too hard to reach. Whether it is a tie, or if I expect the boy to break out in a rendition of "It's the good ship lollipop," it is right for *ME* (and apparently Whipenrod has her own expectations.)

What I tell my boys - act like dog food, get treated like dog food.

This boy was trying to secure a place in *HER* world and impress *HER*. . .not the BDSM community in general. Only she can say if he passed or not. He wasn't interviewing with all these other people who say that "he done good."


Jules



EStrict -> RE: "No Tie = No Service" (12/19/2004 12:28:37 AM)

quote:

I think that most people are thinking: "It's the tie that is the issue."


Hi Jules,

I never thought of it as a tie issue, but a communication issue. A dominant that has explicit expectations and doesn't communicate them deserves to be disappointed IMO. Now the shirt was *wrinkled*, though that wasn't her problem with his attire.

I agree fully that if she wasn't impressed, and he isn't what she was looking for, then the rest is moot. Hopefully he learned a lesson here too.. and in the future will ask specifically what she (whoever the she is) expects in dress. But then, as is said in every section of this board, communication is needed in all relationships for long term survival. And if the communication is that poor before the first meeting, odds of lasting were slim anyway.



BeachMystress -> RE: "No Tie = No Service" (12/19/2004 1:08:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Whipenrod
Dark Angel asked permission from me to post here in this "Mistress' forum.

While Angel did you the courtesy of asking, she in no way needed your permission. She is a valued member of the message boards and often has thought provoking things to say. She is welcome in any forum she visits.

quote:


I wish I could have kept up with this post (and responded to each individually). At this point, people are developing their own 'spin'. And some felt it important to snipe at me for expressing my standards (Molecular in particular seems to have a nerve exposed.)
And some supported me for holding to mine.
Rotten turnips to the former--and orchids to the latter.

Strangely enough, this is a forum. We are not here to second your opinion. You posted. Some people found what you did to be fine, others found it to be excessive. If you take these as a personal attack, as you seem to be doing from the language in the above quote, you may want to consider if posting to the board is for you. Most people here accept the fact that others have varying opinions. There are a few hot heads, but the majority of people are people who actually consider what they have to say.

quote:


Warlock: you did not have to unmask your identity--and I would never have revealed it on this board. If your purpose was to defend yourself to my face in a public forum and encourage an opposing army it is misguided. I do not need any help here to arrive at my own conclusions--I thought this would encourage discussion (as I see it did).

I think warlock handled himself admirably. He did not in any way defame you or try to inflame the situation. He stated facts. That those facts put an entirely different spin on things was not his fault. He didn't need to raise an "opposing army." Most views had been stated before he posted.

quote:


not a rumpled dress shirt with a missing tie.

Why does his dress keep going down hill? Inquiring minds.

quote:


I will state this again: the submissive's job was to impress me. Isn't that usually the case? BUT he relied on dazzling me with a restaurant, and 'forgot' about his personal appearence.

And I will state again, that while you have every right to dismiss him for any reason at all, I find it to be odd that a dominant would not bother to state her requirements up front and allow a sub to shoot himself in the foot. He didn't have a tie with him. You'd not bothered to tell him to bring one. You decide that is enough of a reason to not accept him. Fine. But you are the one who brought it to the forum and asked for opinions. You got them.



wyngedbyste -> RE: "No Tie = No Service" (12/22/2004 1:13:14 PM)

Thanks for contributing, Warlock. Nice job.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warlock4821


<snip>

1- Is it common place for a Mistress to find fault with a submissive, even if it is pardon me for saying, possibly "trumped up" to reinforce her superiority?


Yes. Unfortunately it appears so. Fortunately, there are dominants out there who don't need anyone to reinforce their superiority.

quote:

2- Or was this merely an act to establish a tone for future meetings?


I'm thinking it was an act designed to test you. Unfortunately for you, you weren't given the test questions and were expected to know the answers to questions that hadn't been asked. Basically, you had no hope of passing the test. If it hadn't been this test, there would have been another one.

quote:

3- Or are rules made up as relationships develope, and punishment administered whether the potental infraction was discussed previously?


Yes, in real life D/s relationships, rules are made up as relationships develop. No one set of rules fits everyone.

No, punishments should never be administered for infractions of rules of which the submissive partner was unaware. This is a bad way build trust, i.e., it doesn't.

quote:

-Does a Mistress prefer a submissive that follows the directions and rules of his Mistress with merely the threat of punishment or falling into disfavor with his Mistress, or does the Mistress hope that her submissive mis-steps thereby provoking the punishment from the Mistress? In other words, does a Mistress derive pleasure from adherence to the rules or by the infliction of punishment? Perhaps the answer is that it varies from Mistress to Mistress.


Depends on the maturity level of the dominant. Some need to make up reasons to punish to reinforce their authority. Some don't. You just need to figure out which type suits you and make sure during your interview that your expectations match.

Byste



GoddessDustyGold -> RE: "No Tie = No Service" (12/22/2004 10:57:18 PM)

I'm with Jules, et al, on this issue. I read this as quite simple. The submissive wanted to impress Whipenrod, and wished to take her to a "very upscale" restaurant that She was familiar with. She dressed appropriately. The sub may have been within the boundaries of the restaurant's dress code, but he did not think that a tie was necessary, and then, as I read it, tossed it off as unimportant with an explanation of having been in business meetings all day. I might have (aloud, of course) wondered if I was less important than the business meetings. If he has such a desire to serve, he should have picked up on Whipenrod's disappointment. This is not to say that this should continue to bother Her. She said what she needed to say, and then let it go. Look at it as a possible future problem, and follow up and see how obedient and willing to serve he really is. It is a small thing, but often, small things tell us a lot, or at least lead us in a direction of exploration.
Whipenrod, if most other aspects of your evening boded well, I would give him another chance, but lay down some strict rules for dress and behavior.
As to micro-managing, I don't find it any trouble at all, and I always let an applicant know what I expect, up front, at meeting. If it is too much trouble for them, then it it is very probable it will be too much trouble to serve Me.



topcat -> RE: "No Tie = No Service" (12/23/2004 5:46:02 AM)

quote:

I did not wear a suit. I wore navy blue wool and cashmere slacks, a professionally laundered white cotton button down collared shirt, silk underwear, and a silk and wool cream, blue and gold glenn plaid sports jacket.


Midear Warlock-

I am certianly not one to judge what is proper dress, but that seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable outfit. A suit would have been a different matter, but I think that with a sports coat, a tie is optional, as you you have explained the circumstance, I think you were well within bounds. And, again givien the circumstance, not having a tie in the car is understandable.

I do think that you are mistaken in percieveing M.Whipenrod's original post as being an attack on you- Her question was wether she was being too picky in feeling that a tie would have been more appropriate and, I would say, as M.Jules seems to, that if it's what she wanted, it is what she wanted- end of story.

I worked with a subjsct recently who showed up for our first session wearing a white bra and black panties. We worked together well, and I told her that expected to see more thought as to her undergarments, she asked if it had to be an exact match, and I said that close would do, and that I had a penchant for black and lacy, and she hasn't missed since. A different approch to a analogous issue.

Stay Warm,
Lawrence



MaitresseEden -> RE: "No Tie = No Service" (12/23/2004 6:46:52 AM)

It is so refreshing to see a submissive who is willing and graceful in posting his side of the story. I for one find it to be a testament to his character, and class. Having heard both sides of the story, I feel Warlock went above and beyond in efforts to impress and feel that Estrict hits the nail on the head about the importance of communication. The bottom line however is that is was learning experience for both, and you both com away from it with a better idea about what you want and don't want in a partner. Embrace that knowledge and be thankfull for the opportunity to learn new things about yourself and your wants, needs and desire.

Ms. Eden



MistressJadeMTL -> RE: "No Tie = No Service" (12/23/2004 8:05:09 AM)

Well said Ms. Eden!

I find all interactions between Mistress and sub/slave to be a learning experience to some degree - especially first meetings. If you do not feel comfortable with that sub, or they have not lived up to your expectations; then it is within your right to end the interaction then and there.

I, however, and this is only My style of doing things; is to have expressed my level of standards of behavior and expectations beforehand, as much as possible. It generally saves me time and frustration, and I am sure it proves helpful to the sub as well. Most are genuinely interested in meeting my standards, once I have made them clear. I do however, reserve the right to be realistic in my interactions with potential "players" in the vanilla world, as that one is not so easily controlled as it is within My Realm.

Above all, clear communication is key to a good relationship...


Mistress Jade



warlock4821 -> RE: "No Tie = No Service" (12/23/2004 7:28:36 PM)

I have for the last few days elected to refrain from responding to any of the statements made by all contributing members in regards to this topic with the hope of gleaning some valuable information as to how people view this topic and how they make judgements based on the perspective of each respondant. I think each participant's comments were well stated and very enlightening. I want to thank all of you for your input and insight, whether you agreed with my position or not, which I view as irrelevant to the conversation.

I initially chose to respond to this discussion not to clear myself of any mis-step on my part, but to state my perspective of the aspects of the situation and given the circumstances, get a better understanding of the evaluation process, or lack thereof, and the acceptable interaction between the domme and the submissive. There was a noticeable gap in the responses due to the problems encountered on this site and I especially want to thank Topcat, MaitresseEden, and MistressJadeMTL for the comprehensive responses and in keeping the topic current considering the down time.

To add to my comments regarding the meeting in question, I personally hold no malice to any ones comments on either side of the issue nor the actions of the Mistress in question. I regard all the actions and responses as a having a very positive impact on my understanding of the dominate influence and hope others gain insight in reading the interaction of those envolved in the discussion.

The facts of the issue remain as I see them as follows:

1- During the first meeting or interview of a sub with a Mistress, when no codes or standards have been outlined or discussed, is it wrong for a sub to conduct himself within the parameters of acceptable social venues or standards, or is the sub evaluated based on not meeting standards in the mind of the domme only?

2- Can a sub fail an interview for only following the normal standards of acceptable social conduct and interaction before getting to know a domme and her pre-requisites?

3- Is a sub always wrong no matter what in the eyes of his domme and all other dommes because a domme says so?

I would appreciate further insights.

Thank you,

Warlock



ShadeDiva -> RE: "No Tie = No Service" (12/23/2004 9:48:06 PM)

Um.

Wow.

That was an interesting read, thanks all.

lol

~ShadeDiva



Solaise -> RE: "No Tie = No Service" (12/24/2004 12:07:52 AM)



quote:

1- During the first meeting or interview of a sub with a Mistress, when no codes or standards have been outlined or discussed, is it wrong for a sub to conduct himself within the parameters of acceptable social venues or standards, or is the sub evaluated based on not meeting standards in the mind of the domme only?


I think it's a mistake to make assumptions because dress code did not happen to come up in the conversation when the meeting was being planned. Communication works BOTH ways. If you are not sure - ask. Maybe you didn't think about it at the time, but because of this incident, you have two questions to ask the next Domme you plan on meeting 1) What protocols (if any) will there be for me? and 2) Is there a dress code I need to adhere to?

quote:

2- Can a sub fail an interview for only following the normal standards of acceptable social conduct and interaction before getting to know a domme and her pre-requisites?


It's up to you how you choose to look at it. You are not with her, so did you fail? If so - where did the 'failure' happen? Did it happen when you showed up at this restaurant tieless. Or did it happen when arrangements were being made, and the subject never came up?

quote:

3- Is a sub always wrong no matter what in the eyes of his domme and all other dommes because a domme says so?


You need to rephrase this question. Who is the domme that says the sub is wrong - thereby casting a shadow over him in the eyes of 'his' domme - while the remainder of us stand together in stalwart dissaproval? I did not understand what you are asking.



MaitresseEden -> RE: "No Tie = No Service" (12/24/2004 8:42:15 AM)

quote:

The facts of the issue remain as I see them as follows:

1- During the first meeting or interview of a sub with a Mistress, when no codes or standards have been outlined or discussed, is it wrong for a sub to conduct himself within the parameters of acceptable social venues or standards, or is the sub evaluated based on not meeting standards in the mind of the domme only?


For me it is a combination of both. I expect him to demonstrate appropriate social graces, and I look to see if his interpretaions are equal to mine. For example: If his idea of an expensive entree is $10 and mine is $25 then I may deem that we don't share compatibility in terms of food value, this works both ways, For example. I once met a sub for a interview and during the negotiation after settling upon a specific one I mentioned to my mother that was were I would be dining tonight, ( she was babysitting) and she said to me.. Oh wait.. I have a great coupon for that place on the back of my theater ticket. And promptly produced it. During the dinner I mentioned to the sub, that I had been given the coupon Approx $20 saving, and he would never be caught dead useing a coupon. Well.. I will admit to judgeing him based on that response. I did so for several reasons. #1 A fool and his money is soon parted. It is stupid in my opinion to turn down saving on the basis of pride. #2 The coupon came with the purchase of a $200 + Orchestra seating ticket, so if anything it was a status symbol. And Lastly, it wasn't as if I suggested dining solely on the basis of where I had a coupon.

quote:

2- Can a sub fail an interview for only following the normal standards of acceptable social conduct and interaction before getting to know a domme and her pre-requisites?


Yes.. Based solely upon compatibility issues. it is like a blind date, Chemistry is either there or it is not. It through normal conversation it is determined that we don't share the same philosophies or he impresses upon me that he has a trait that is within my hard limits, then yes. For example. If in the course of normal conversation we are discussing child rearing and children and he impresses me as being someone who shuns his parental responsbility, or is rather distant and cold to his children or to children in general. If he demonstrates to me the inability to form close attachments with his family, then yes he isn't someone suitable for me as I seek someone who can be integrated into my life completely, and those are traits I value immensely. The same goes for religious beliefs and political beliefs, While I am tolerant of those not shared with me, if he conveys intolerance or disrespect for my beliefs then it isn't worth persuing.



quote:

3- Is a sub always wrong no matter what in the eyes of his domme and all other dommes because a domme says so?


No.. dommes are often wrong too, the key is what is right for you and what is right for them. You may be wrong for them, and they may be wrong for you. In my honest opinion ANY relationship and coming together of two people requires a large degree of self awareness, and most people tend to be lacking in that degree of enlightenment. In order for any coupling to be sucessfull both must have at least the same level of self awarness and understanding of the world as they fit in it. Often times one person will be more aware than the other, and sometime one party will refuse to accept the truth about themselves, it is in cases like these when they make the other party the one in the "Wrong" in order to deny the truth about themselves, or to justify their behavior. Or, simply because they are correct and the same lack of awareness applies to the other.


Ms. Eden



GoddessJules -> RE: "No Tie = No Service" (12/24/2004 8:49:06 AM)

quote:

1- During the first meeting or interview of a sub with a Mistress, when no codes or standards have been outlined or discussed, is it wrong for a sub to conduct himself within the parameters of acceptable social venues or standards, or is the sub evaluated based on not meeting standards in the mind of the domme only?

2- Can a sub fail an interview for only following the normal standards of acceptable social conduct and interaction before getting to know a domme and her pre-requisites?

3- Is a sub always wrong no matter what in the eyes of his domme and all other dommes because a domme says so?


I don't know if anyone else sees it this way. . .but common sense would tell you that for each of these questions. . .you will get eleventy gazillion answers. The long and short of it is: It depends on the person in question. If you have any doubts or uncertainties. . .ASK before you actually meet. Wasn't that simple?

Jules



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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.785156E-02