 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
I was asked to comment on the general use of honorifics within the real world and online D/s community. This of course is one of the more popular 'arm chair' debates. So, rather then repeating very well worn arguments, I thought it would be more interesting to touch on why protocols exist in the first place. And just so I don't appear to be ducking the debate completely, I will even risk touching off the power keg by bringing up the discussion of Capitalized and lowercase nicknames in the online community. Before I start this rant, I should put forth a few disclaimers. The first is, I am a 24/7 Lifestyle kind of guy. So, if I seem a bit extreme in my views, please try to keep that context in mind. This is aimed at D/s Lifestylers, not bedroom BDSM folks. The comments here are really only aimed at those who live, day in and day, out in D/s Lifestyle relationships. Also, although this is written generally referring to the Dominant as male, it is done simply because I am male. No sexism should be inferred. With the caveats out of the way, I think it is important to start by differentiating between the concepts of 'politeness' and 'respect'. Definitively defining 'politeness' has proven to be a bit of a challenge for linguists, but we all understand the basic idea of 'politeness'. However, for the sake of consideration, I would like to bring up two common theories of politeness. One classic theory suggests that 'politeness' is a way of interacting with others that shows an acceptance or acknowledgment of differences. These differences might be in social standing or even differences of opinion. Whatever the differences, the theory offers that politeness is a way of showing a low degree of commonality between a speaker and addressee. This can often be seen in discussions about religion or politics among strangers. The parties involved may use phrases such as, 'but that is just my opinion' or 'you may think differently'. A second theory, 'Face Theory', needs to be brought up simply because to have brought up 'politeness theory' and to have not mentioned it would be negligent. The simplified version of 'Face theory' is that politeness is an effort to save face for another person. (i.e. to avoid making them look bad) A detailed discussion of 'politeness theory' is a bit beyond the scope of this article. The general point to be made is that politeness is the use of specific protocols that are intended to avoid insult (loss of face) or to acknowledge differences. Respect, however, is an entirely different animal. At some level respect is admiration or at least an appreciation of some quality or characteristic. Respect is our own value judgement. Essentially, 'respect' is esteem for someone or something. Respect also has other meanings such 'to abide by'' as in 'respecting the rules', but those aren't the meanings relevant to this discussion. The issue of semantics isn't brought up for it's own sake. It doesn't really matter which word is used to represent which concept, but is does matter that there is differentiation between the concepts. It is helpful to separate the meanings of 'politeness' and 'respect' so we are all 'talking the same language'. Capitals and honorifics are not specifically a show of personal respect. They are largely a matter of courtesy or politeness. One can think of these simple protocols much like saying 'please' or 'thank you'. They are something said to be polite, not to show admiration. Honorifics are used commonly in day to day discussions, for example, when as clerk at a store says, "Can I help you, Sir?" It is a pretty safe bet he doesn't actually think you are English nobility, rather he is just being polite. There are countless examples but we don't generally give them a second thought. Very often being polite has little or nothing to do with 'respect' for a person; it is simply a matter of protocol. Culture generally dictates what phrasing is considered most polite. Things like "may I", "excuse me", etc. have been a part of our culture for ages. Likewise, the BDSM and D/s communities have for a rather long time used various forms of speech to differentiate between roles. Certainly, what terms were considered correct have varied by time and place. But it is pretty easy to document over the last couple hundred years that a variety of honorifics have been used in the culture of D/s and BDSM. It is also fairly safe to say that using some form of honorific is considered more polite than not. I am not about to make any argument for the use of Sir instead of Master or what have you. I am saying that some form of distinction has been a standard of politeness for a rather long time. (For those who doubt this I would refer them to a variety of historical literatures - however a literature discussion is also a bit beyond this discussion.) When someone refuses to use a formal style of distinction they are presenting themselves as either being above the distinction, or they appear to be discounting the distinction. Politeness is generally considered to have the quality that it must be explicit rather than implicit. This means, when polite distinctions are omitted they are not added by assumption. This goes back to the theory that politeness is used to represent the speaker and addressee as having a low degree of commonality or solidarity. Omitting honorifics fails to recognize that in a Lifestyle D/s relationship, there are significant and critical differences between Doms and subs. It is 'polite' to recognize those differences. Another issue is that online D/s and BDSM have brought about a change on how seriously the roles of the Dominant and submissive are viewed. The online community is mix of real-life and role-play folks. While this is good in that it broadens the exposure of the D/s community, it is negative in the sense that D/s is sometimes seen only as a game. I have talked to folks who are involved with 'D/s' as bedroom role-play, who did not know people actually live in Lifestyle D/s relationships. When you start to explain to them how all encompassing the lifestyle is for those who live it, the role players are often 'shocked' or 'offended'. These folks are comfortable using honorifics within the confines of a scene, but can't imagine that folks would use them as a matter of course. This view bleeds over to real-life D/s to some degree as more and more 'D/s Light' folks (for want of a better term) come onto the scene. This brings us to the idea of using such terms a matter of respect and not just courtesy. In a Lifestyle D/s relationship, where the Dominant makes most or all of the significant life decisions and is fully responsible for the submissive's or slave's welfare, I dare say that the weight of the burden entitles one to at least a minimum level of respect. For those that think being a Dom in a Lifestyle relationship is an easy job, all I can say is: try it. I can certainly see how that minimum level of respect might seem as unwarranted when you consider that most of the capitalized nicks online are role-play or weekend Dominants. Now, don't take that to infer I am suggesting anyone is lesser for not being in a Lifestyle relationship, I am simply pointing out that burden borne by 24/7 Dominants is a bit different than those carried by folks who are involved in role-play. I am recognizing that it would be incorrect to consider them in the same category. I think the simplest way to look at this is, one is better off starting out overly polite. You always have the ability to stop being polite or respectful at a future date. It is better to have been to overly polite to someone who didn't deserve it, than to have failed to show politeness or respect to someone who was worthy of it. This is especially true in the lifestyle, where first impressions can mean a great deal. Accountability and identity are also considerations for protocols. The shift to online only or weekend D/s has moved us farther away from the concept of a Dominant being responsible for a submissive's behavior. With IRC and like mediums, the collar (if there is one) is a way to communicate who is ultimately responsible for a person's behavior. It has been pointed out to me that the concept of a Dominant being responsible for a submissive's behavior might be a bit surprising to those not as involved with the 'offline' D/s community. However, let me assure you I have been called to task by other Dominants when a submissive of mine was less than strictly polite. The case (capitalization) of an online nickname is obviously just a simple way to show if the person using the name is Dominant or submissive. Self-distinguishing which category you fall into is mostly a matter of convenience. Using a upper or lower case name prevents folks from repeatedly having to ask or infer what would be fairly obvious in face to face interaction. I suppose it is time to bring the politically sensitive issue of equality to the table. Equality is a very loaded word these days. To suggest that someone might be 'unequal' to someone else is seen as a significant social misstep. However, I must for the sake of reality state (I will regret this I am sure) that no two humans are in any way exactly equal. Each person has different skills and abilities and unfortunately, not every person is 'equally but differently' blessed. Without going too deeply into this sticky debate, let me simply say that it is my sincere and honest hope that any slave or submissive who has chosen to turn their life over to another, has chosen to rest this burden on someone who is not simply their equal. Which brings us back to politeness as recognizing differences. As we are involved in a lifestyle that has strong distinctions between roles, it is useful to have things that keep those roles in the fore of our minds. Most of us live immersed in vanilla culture; protocols help us keep our own culture from being absorbed and watered down. Not only do they provide identity, but also provides us a constant reminder of both our responsibilities and obligations. Sure, protocols remind the submissive of their place, but they also reminds the Dominant that they are in a position of responsibility. Protocols become an ever-present reminder that the weight of responsibility rests squarely on the Dominant's shoulders. I understand there are those who will claim protocols are only an ego stroke. I can assure them, for the Dominants who live the D/s Lifestyle, hearing an honorific is more likely to make them review their own behavior than to be seen as an ego stroke. There are many arguments against the use of honorifics, some of which I touched on briefly and many others not mentioned. To those who would be quick to point out those that were missed, I can only offer one last point. Over the years I have heard many arguments, but when the arguments were pressed, they most always are found to be thin veils for pride. Following certain D/s conventions requires an amount of swallowing ones pride, especially if those conventions could in some way be thought of as indicating oneself as 'unequal' to another. But as I said in the beginning, this writing was aimed at the Lifestyle community and certainly may not be applicable to all others.
|
|
|
All images and materials on this site protected by copyright. More: credits © domsub.info - site info |
|
