TSR Store
- Logos, ownership icons

The Ownership Flag and Icons    [other banners]

	TSR : Web boards : O&P : "Respect in O&P" Respect in O&P (8) Thu 22 Oct 09, 11:56 PM Tanos UK, 12 yrs Y! One of questions that comes up repeatedly in D/s and M/s forums is what protocols and etiquette are appropriate amongst groups of D/s or M/s people. For instance, should submissives defer to other dominants? Should owners speak to others' slaves directly? In O&P, the concept of respect for property rights informs these relations between people outside of their relationships. For example, protocols and etiquette should treat unattached submissives as independent, self-owning people, governing their own lives, and not subject to other dominants. This means dominants aren't in a position to order other submissives around, and shouldn't presume any right to deference. Equally, protocols and etiquette should acknowledge the status of submissives in other dominants' possession, and do not presume, for instance, that submissives can still make decisions which are now in the hands of their dominant. So instead of saying to another submissive "Tell me if you decide to go to the party next week", good etiquette would be to say "Let me know if you are going to the party next week" and implicitly acknowledge that the decision is not entirely theirs. These ideas reflect the aim of etiquette in minimising the potential for unintended offense or embarrassment. I believe good protocols - ie rules for behaviour in different environments - include the same aim, along with removing ambiguity and uncertainty about what is expected of a submissive or slave. Furthermore, I believe this basic idea of respect for property rights is a good foundation for individuals or groups to build their own protocols, with some chance that differing protocols won't clash. Do you? Regards, Tanos www.tanos.org.uk O&P: Possession. Ownership. Consent. Responsibility. Respect. House. Dignity. Authenticity. Structure. Rituals. 23 Oct 09, 8:50 PM AnathemaMaster US(IL), 2 yrs Y! Years ago, the American Old Guard Masters/Dominants had protocols of address which were nearly rituals. Intended initially to avoid conflicts among dominants, the forms extended to include owned submissives. The logic was predicated on property rights. Logically, the basis of moral behavior is the premise of self responsibility. Property, in law and custom, is the extension of self. An unowned submissive is his/her own property and is due the courtesy of being addressed as such. An owned submissive is the property of his/her Master/Mistress who is implicitly due direct/indirect respect. (The alternative is what John Kennedy said of Kruschev: He believes what's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable.) Your example, Tanos, is both subtle and apt. Good manners all around, civility, depend upon the recognition of property, however that is displayed. Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant. Tacitus Edited 23 Oct 09, 8:54 PM by AnathemaMaster 24 Oct 09, 4:00 AM Malkinius US(IL), 4 yrs Greetings..... AnathemaMaster wrote: Years ago, the American Old Guard Masters/Dominants had protocols of address which were nearly rituals. Intended initially to avoid conflicts among dominants, the forms extended to include owned submissives. The logic was predicated on property rights. Logically, the basis of moral behavior is the premise of self responsibility. Property, in law and custom, is the extension of self. An unowned submissive is his/her own property and is due the courtesy of being addressed as such. An owned submissive is the property of his/her Master/Mistress who is implicitly due direct/indirect respect. (The alternative is what John Kennedy said of Kruschev: He believes what's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable.) Your example, Tanos, is both subtle and apt. Good manners all around, civility, depend upon the recognition of property, however that is displayed. I am going to disagree with you on one important point. No one deserves respect because they have a sub or a slave. No one deserves respect without earning it. However, that does not mean that you should not treat them respectfully. A good example is the presidents of the United States (or the leaders of any country). I may or may not like any one or group of them but if I were to meet one I would act and speak respectfully to them due to their office and the respect I have for it. My personal feelings towards the person does not (usually) require rudeness or improper behavior from me. As for the artificial rules in BDSM about who can and can not talk to whom or when or why I feel that they are made up by people who are insecure and lacking in their own relationships and fear anyone having even a chance encounter with their "property" because they will lose them to some one better....because everyone is. <grins> Be well.... Malkinius 24 Oct 09, 2:31 PM AnathemaMaster US(IL), 2 yrs Y! Malkinius wrote: Greetings..... AnathemaMaster wrote: Logically, the basis of moral behavior is the premise of self responsibility. Property, in law and custom, is the extension of self. An unowned submissive is his/her own property and is due the courtesy of being addressed as such. An owned submissive is the property of his/her Master/Mistress who is implicitly due direct/indirect respect. I am going to disagree with you on one important point. No one deserves respect because they have a sub or a slave. No one deserves respect without earning it. However, that does not mean that you should not treat them respectfully. Isn't this a difference without a distinction? "Due respect" is courtesy, not groveling. As for the artificial rules in BDSM about who can and can not talk to whom or when or why I feel that they are made up by people who are insecure and lacking in their own relationships and fear anyone having even a chance encounter with their "property" because they will lose them to some one better....because everyone is. <grins> All codes of behavior are constructs, artifices. (The forms of conduct you or I impose on a slave are reflections, thoughtful and effective at best.) All artifice is subject to flaw. Either we conduct ourselves as civil men and women, and property, minus quotation marks, as an extension of self, is a sound basis for conduct, or we descend into chaos. If you or I do not bother to be civil to one another or others, what logic compels a slave/submissive to obey? And whom should she/he obey? Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant. Tacitus 24 Oct 09, 5:11 PM EvaMaria US(CA), 2 yrs The group that I'm personally familiar with practices this type of etiquette with the exception that submissive partners are considered the inferiors of dominant partners and are treated and respond accordingly. It's not sexual or excessive - more in the way a guest would relate to his/her host's domestic staff. It does have the limitation of being applicable only among those who are part of (or at least familiar) with the group and it is limiting re: personal interaction but overall I think it works well enough. Personally speaking, I defer to adult males I've been introduced to in a similar way although it's out of C's idea of women as a group rather than anything O/P related. But it's done in a passive sort of way - I will be helpful and friendly and avoid contention, but not to where it forces attention to the fact that C owns me, or even that I am in fact being deferential. If it came to that point it would be a self-serving device rather than etiquette. We do have a difference of opinion re: women in general but taking his perception as fact, the method makes sense to me and I feel comfortable with it. Malkinius wrote: I am going to disagree with you on one important point. No one deserves respect because they have a sub or a slave. No one deserves respect without earning it. However, that does not mean that you should not treat them respectfully. A good example is the presidents of the United States (or the leaders of any country). I may or may not like any one or group of them but if I were to meet one I would act and speak respectfully to them due to their office and the respect I have for it. My personal feelings towards the person does not (usually) require rudeness or improper behavior from me. I think it's the same business in either case. Like you, regardless of what I think of his politics the President has to have achieved to a certain level in order to be president, so he gets my respect - as President. A dominant partner gets my respect as a dominant partner for that same reason, as does his/her submissive. And maybe even more so, because those particular "offices" are very significant in my own life. Malkinius wrote: As for the artificial rules in BDSM about who can and can not talk to whom or when or why I feel that they are made up by people who are insecure and lacking in their own relationships and fear anyone having even a chance encounter with their "property" because they will lose them to some one better....because everyone is. I don't see the value in those types of rules either, but the idea that others do what they do as a form of compensation can be (and often is) applied in a larger way to male dominant personalities, too. The belief that they need a subservient partner due to their own feelings of inadequacy or a fear/hatred of women, or the companion idea that submissive women are simply self-absorbed and/or looking to avoid life's responsibilities come to mind. I think there are "worst case" types in every group, but applying that logic wholesale denies individual intelligence and doesn't make sense to me. What is your criteria for artificial vs natural BDSM rules? Do you feel one is preferable to the other? Eva (The property formerly known as Camille ) Edited 24 Oct 09, 5:17 PM by EvaMaria 25 Oct 09, 1:01 AM Malkinius US(IL), 4 yrs Greetings..... The difference is what you feel and believe. You can respect someone and not like them. You can like someone and not respect them. How you act towards any individual may have nothing to do with how you feel about them. This is why we keep telling slaves they must ACT respectfully towards any free person no matter how they actually feel about them. Be well.... Malkinius 25 Oct 09, 1:07 AM Malkinius US(IL), 4 yrs Greetings EvaMaria..... EvaMaria wrote: <snip> I don't see the value in those types of rules either, but the idea that others do what they do as a form of compensation can be (and often is) applied in a larger way to male dominant personalities, too. The belief that they need a subservient partner due to their own feelings of inadequacy or a fear/hatred of women, or the companion idea that submissive women are simply self-absorbed and/or looking to avoid life's responsibilities come to mind. I think there are "worst case" types in every group, but applying that logic wholesale denies individual intelligence and doesn't make sense to me. What is your criteria for artificial vs natural BDSM rules? Do you feel one is preferable to the other? Eva Those are the can't talk to/touch/ask directions to the bathroom/look at or do anything to their darling princess who can do and say anything she wants because she is only submissive to her "ONE" types of rules. I think you know the type. As I said, they usually come down to fear someone else will poach their precious because everyone else is so much more Domly than they are when all you really want is directions. Be well.... Malkinius 25 Oct 09, 8:10 PM De_Luxe UK, 2 yrs AnathemaMaster wrote: Either we conduct ourselves as civil men and women, and property, minus quotation marks, as an extension of self, is a sound basis for conduct, or we descend into chaos. If you or I do not bother to be civil to one another or others, what logic compels a slave/submissive to obey? And whom should she/he obey? Sorry to snip your post but I feel this is very relevant and relates to what Tanos has said. Chaos it sometimes is too. I have seen people asking on a website before going to various types of social gatherings if there are 'unwritten rules' or any guidelines somewhere. They ask, should they treat everyone as equals, do submissives or slaves want to be treated as equals, if going to x place will it be high protocol, what is high protocol, should I use caps? It speaks of having consideration for others feelings and respect for others circumstances and situations and perhaps fear of looking foolish. For those who are unattached or just setting out on a dominants path a simple concept to cover most situations for those who are looking for such information would, I think, be very useful. Regards, Deluxe 26 Oct 09, 11:44 PM Tanos UK, 12 yrs Y! High protocol reminds me of the Protocol schemas article in the Wiki, and the links from it. That was an attempt to start the ball rolling about describing protocols that go beyond the basic civility that's now in the O&P Manifesto. Regards, Tanos www.tanos.org.uk Personal ad: "D/s relationship, perhaps 24/7" O&P: Possession. Ownership. Consent. Responsibility. Respect. House. Dignity. Authenticity. Structure. Rituals.