|
LadyHugs -> RE: Addresing Masters (11/30/2006 8:41:14 PM)
|
Dear atendersoul, Ladies and Gentlemen;
In my mind's eyes I see, that respect is earned but, it must also be given as freely. Deserved or not, those who set and or maintain a respectful exchange will show that respect is not something that is laughable or conditional, which in my opinion is a huge problem today. Disagreements still can be handled with respect and civil.
The problem is currently, it becomes an attack on persons--not focused on the issue which is being discussed.
In my mind's eyes I see; as I do identify as a Master as well as a Female Dominant and or Lady who is an dominatrix (not in the pro-dominant field but as a professional quality and seasoned dominant); as well as many arch-types that I can identify with and or others identify me by. That said, with the many screen names which limits choices, some do not live up to the standards which seasoned individuals have as 'expectations.' I will expect any slave of mine to 'title' me as they see as respectful and where I belong in our relationship.
Indeed, I see those who use the title of Master/Mistress and or slave; as well as other role defining titles; who do not deserve such a title and are more of a mockery of such--instead of an inspiration. But, I also see there is a proper exchange of title useage, much like we refer to Dr. A, Dr. B and so on. As applied to "Master" or "Mistress" it is indeed understood that Master A and Mistress B are NOT your owner but, may indeed be seen as a Master/Mistress in their own right.
I think it is folly, to assume that those who use the title of Master or Mistress, will force themselves upon others; if they are worth their salt and practice as much respect as they preach. Those who make such assumptions that Master/Mistress is an immediate entitlement to authority, respect and or stature--are indeed flawed in their thinking and are not to be considered 'serious' other than for some 'negative and or selfish motive.'
In the context of approaches, in my mind's eyes I see; that some 'styles' of D/s, M/s and or BDSM have different philosophies to which has effects on how protocols are matched up to that culture, style, philosophies and or group normal interactions. I also see time wise, there has been a big difference of what was normal protocols of the 1970s and today.
When seeking another, it is my thought that we're on equal footing until there is an consensual understanding upon which a foundation is poured and made, to which a relationship can be built upon. From there, it can be established where you fit into that relationship and in the capacity/role you assume and consent to that role/capacity.
That said, I would enjoy the dropping of the use of I/i in the text forms seen. It is something from the computer age it seems, where on line in order to 'show' what couldn't be done in person, submission or deferring to an authority figure. I rather everybody speak and use plain English--but, I am an old fuddy duddy, as I am from a time of writing 'snail mail' and typing was a form of masochism, when it was on a manual typewriter. If speaking in person to someone, orally--the little 'i' and big "I" still is an I. Third person, somebody will look at you odd if not from the same philosophy circles.
In addition, it is my understanding; that in the Gor books we have heard about; it is written that slaves greeted others with Tal. Third person speech wasn't always the case but, as it has been transposed into cyberland and such--the need to 'demonstrate' in text the submissive traits which normally, in physical and oral exchanges aren't necessary. In text, we miss the body language, tones of the voice; which alone can make anything deeply respectful to overtly sarcastic and or insulting.
As with anything--it is the 'spirit of intent' that is important.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
Lady Hugs
|
|
|
|
