RE: Question about addressing. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Question about addressing. (6/18/2008 9:12:55 PM)

So how do you handle switches then?  Or people who are daddies or mommies but not dominants?



HeidiAnn -> RE: Question about addressing. (6/18/2008 9:31:57 PM)

That is a good question LA, but i feel it is not relevant to the original question. For me the answer would be that i handle those terms as my Owner(s) tell me to. The original question was about one particular phrase in addressing someone who expects to be addressed with capitalized letters.

i personally think that there are as many ways of forming a way to use language as there are dynamics. The addressing is for me more about respecting the dynamics i am approaching than about anything else. When i am approached in written form by someone who is in the lifestyle, i expect them to respect O/our dynamics and the way how my Owner(s) wish language to be used. Otherwise the approaching will be short lived. And the same goes other way aswell. 

heidi



CalifChick -> RE: Question about addressing. (6/18/2008 9:32:14 PM)

The word "your" means "belonging to you", or "has the indicated relationship with you."

The phrase "your Master" means "the Master of you".
The phrase "your parents" means "the mother and father of you".

If you are going to use slash typing, you wouldn't slash "our" or "we", in your case you would capitalize it, because it refers to you and your Master. So you wouldn't say "we were discussing" if you are referring to the two of you, you would say "We were discussing."

Cali



MaamJay -> RE: Question about addressing. (6/19/2008 7:06:28 AM)

OK. In context, if you OP, as a sub, are writing about "your Master/Mistress" then it would make no sense to capitalise the Y as they are yours and by netspeak, you as a sub get a small letter. Similarly, if someone was writing to you about "your Master/Mistress" then they wouldn't capitalise the Y either. However, if you were writing a letter directly to your Master/Mistress, and IF it is their will that you adopt this convention, you might capitalise the You as a mark of respect of their Dominance over you as in "Hoping You are a having a great time at the conference" and you may use small "i" for you as a textual representation of your submission to them as in "i am really missing You Master". As you've already seen, not everyone likes that convention!

As to the slash speak, I agree it can get irritating when people use it wholesale. Even in My complex world of being both Domme and sub, I try to avoid it where possible! On a forum such as this, I would tend to use We when referring to Master and My Domme side doing something ... or W/we when referring to EITHER Master and my sub side OR My Domme side and My sub! Yep, tricky, you have to work out which from context LOL! Or I try to rewrite the whole thing to make it clear whom I am referring to without using the slash.

The key is in finding out what your Owners like ... and then being obedient! And be ready to ask others what they would like if that's relevant. When i started out as a sub i found it a very useful mind reprogrammer to consciously have to think of using i instead of I and You when referring to Him ... a way of continually reminding myself of the nature of the relationship. These days I use I when referring to My Domme side (Jay) and i to refer to my sub side (violet) ... and I do that in my journal for Master as well as in posts here. It helps keep M/my 2 selves straight! (And yes, the slash there was tongue-in-cheek!)

I don't envy those battling with English ... and then other conventions ... as not their primary language!
Maam Jay aka violet[A]

Edited to fix a typo!



IronBear -> RE: Question about addressing. (6/19/2008 9:10:17 AM)

Just revert to Shakespearian Times as Grammar and spelling had not been invented and you wrope phoetetiaclly. hell on whells if the writer can't pronounce words but that was the joys of county literature in England of the time. I prefer to read Chauser's "Cantebry Tayles" in the originag version. An interesting and not overly arduous task.. [8|][:-][:D]

Iron Bear
(Incorrigible, irrepressible and irreverent)
Master of Bruin Cottage
(A Victorian Lifestyle poly home)

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.

Omar Khayyam 1048 CE to 1123 CE (Persian Mathematician, Scientist, Astronomer, Philosopher & Poet).



DesFIP -> RE: Question about addressing. (6/19/2008 9:13:39 AM)

I don't capitalize master or mistress unless they're mine. I don't feel that I should be playing lowly worm to every top out there. I'm submissive to one and one only. Everyone else, top or bottom or neither gets treated equally.



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Question about addressing. (6/19/2008 9:53:53 AM)

quote:

When i am approached in written form by someone who is in the lifestyle, i expect them to respect O/our dynamics and the way how my Owner(s) wish language to be used. Otherwise the approaching will be short lived. And the same goes other way aswell. 

heidi

Define respect? 



CalifChick -> RE: Question about addressing. (6/19/2008 10:39:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeidiAnn

When i am approached in written form by someone who is in the lifestyle, i expect them to respect O/our dynamics and the way how my Owner(s) wish language to be used.


Just to clarify, are you saying that you expect the person approaching you to use your Owner's protocols, or are you saying that you expect the person to accept that you will be using your Owner's protocols when you reply?

Cali



LadyHibiscus -> RE: Question about addressing. (6/19/2008 10:57:12 AM)

Okay.  [sm=anger.gif]

I think I would just stop writing if I had to go this far past Strunk & White. 



HeidiAnn -> RE: Question about addressing. (6/19/2008 11:21:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CalifChick

Just to clarify, are you saying that you expect the person approaching you to use your Owner's protocols, or are you saying that you expect the person to accept that you will be using your Owner's protocols when you reply?

Cali



i did mean a little bit of both, but might have worded the answer a bit poorly. For instance if someone would be referring to my Master with His first name or with a low capitalization, it would be insulting towards both me and my Master. i do not expect anyone to emulate O/our way of speech exactly, but to respect the way my Owners wish language to be used when addressing me or Them.

And the other way around i do my best to respect the dynamics and language use of O/others. My Master wishes me to address Dominant persons in a certain way, but some Dominants do not wish to be addressed as a Sir or Madam, for instance. In cases like that i try to sort out a way to be respectful to the wishes of the person i am addressing. It is not always possible if there is too much conflict between my Masters or Mistresses way of using language, but mutual respect goes a long way.

As for defining respect: for me respect is listening to others and trying to really hear what they are speaking of. Part of it for me is to let people define themselves and to try to respect their right to do so. For instance, in work i do home visits to  homes of our clients and especially for elderly people home is often a very sacred place. i try not to assume anything when i step in from the front door and ask even silly questions to make sure that i do not disrespect the home of another, i.e. where it is proper for me to sit.

heidi



RCdc -> RE: Question about addressing. (6/19/2008 11:25:47 AM)

If this is the case, then a question? How do you like to be addressed?  As Heidi or heidi?
 
the.dark.



MusicalBoredom -> RE: Question about addressing. (6/19/2008 11:33:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

So how do you handle switches then?  Or people who are daddies or mommies but not dominants?


I cut them off of a willow tree and trim the thick and thin ends.  Oh not those kind of switches.



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Question about addressing. (6/19/2008 11:44:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeidiAnn
i did mean a little bit of both, but might have worded the answer a bit poorly. For instance if someone would be referring to my Master with His first name or with a low capitalization, it would be insulting towards both me and my Master. i do not expect anyone to emulate O/our way of speech exactly, but to respect the way my Owners wish language to be used when addressing me or Them.

You can't control what other people do, and it would be rude of you to expect anyone else to abide by the specific rules you choose for yourselves within your relationship.

Just because it's not "exactly" doesn't mean it's any less rude.

quote:

 My Master wishes me to address Dominant persons in a certain way, but some Dominants do not wish to be addressed as a Sir or Madam, for instance. In cases like that i try to sort out a way to be respectful to the wishes of the person i am addressing. It is not always possible if there is too much conflict between my Masters or Mistresses way of using language, but mutual respect goes a long way.

So again, what do you do when it's a switch?  Or a daddy or mommy but not a dom?  Or a slave in charge of a meeting?

Again you're saying it's ok to be disrespectful if it conflicts with what your doms say they want.

quote:

 i try not to assume anything when i step in from the front door and ask even silly questions to make sure that i do not disrespect the home of another, i.e. where it is proper for me to sit.

heidi

It's amusing that you care enough to listen to what a host says about where to sit, but you would still get pissed if they chose not to use YOUR rules of reference.

Now, another point of respect is that we should respect the persons chosen name for themselves.  So it is rude to call someone sir when they have said "No, Jane please."  But to be offended because "I decide to follow a cap rule and they don't follow it" is just silly and quite presumptuous of you.

Take note that MANY slaves follow codes of reference for their owners...and have no problems socializing and continuously being offended.  I'd say take your lead from them.



IronBear -> RE: Question about addressing. (6/19/2008 1:05:44 PM)

Y'know, whet it's all said and done and the dust has settled, surfely the most important aspect in addressing anyone is good manners and politeness? Most people both on line and face to face address me as IB or just Bear. If they use an honorific it is either because they either believed it was propper to do so or had been told to do so and then it couls be Mr IB, Mr Bear, IB Sir or even Master IB (You get the drift). Slaves in BC Collars will address Dominants as Sir or Maam unless the person being addressed prefers Sir/Master/Mistress. I have alkways instructed them to ask how someone wants to be addressed and to use that with the exception of given or nick names at which time they should explain that i woill not allow our slaves to uyse such intimate forms of address. BC Slaves will automatically address Gorean Free Persons as either Master or Mistress (Unless I have gives specific orders not to do so on the very rare poccasion I know the person is a "Great Pretender" and is not worthy of such honourifics).

Iron Bear
(Incorrigible, irrepressible and irreverent)
Master of Bruin Cottage
(A Victorian Lifestyle poly home)

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.

Omar Khayyam 1048 CE to 1123 CE (Persian Mathematician, Scientist, Astronomer, Philosopher & Poet).



ZooKeeper2 -> RE: Question about addressing. (6/19/2008 1:32:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross
It's amusing that you care enough to listen to what a host says about where to sit, but you would still get pissed if they chose not to use YOUR rules of reference.

Now, another point of respect is that we should respect the persons chosen name for themselves.  So it is rude to call someone sir when they have said "No, Jane please."  But to be offended because "I decide to follow a cap rule and they don't follow it" is just silly and quite presumptuous of you.

Take note that MANY slaves follow codes of reference for their owners...and have no problems socializing and continuously being offended.  I'd say take your lead from them.


I think W/we have far and exceeded the question at hand.

The question pertains to the use of the word Your versus your and really I don't see the need for the above.

To bring this back to the original topic:
quote:

ORIGINAL: HeidiAnn

Hi A/all,

W/we have been discussing about proper grammar spelling when referring to someones Owner in written form. Should it be Your Master/Mistress or your Master/Mistress? And, if it is both, then from whose point of view is either used?



If I address a part of My slave I may say "your ass is on fire."
If I address another Dom in the formal, I may say "So Jane, how is Your switch today, I hear her mouth is flapping in the wind again."
If I address a little girl in the formal, I might say "Where is your Daddy or Mommy, because you may need some corrective action."
If I address a switch in the formal, I would probably get confused, because I don't know if she is either on or off at that moment and I would not want to insult her, for if she is She, is she On or is She off? Is ShE oN aNd OfF aT tHe SaMe TiMe? Perhaps that is a question for another topic as this one doesn't pertain to switches, or daddies or mommies, it pertains to the use of Your versus your with regard to Master and Mistress and more specifically when is Your used versus when is your used. And, if W/we could keep the personal attacks down to a light flame, of course if you prefer, I am certain I can walk away leaving a smoldering heap at the end of the day.

ZK



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Question about addressing. (6/19/2008 1:37:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZooKeeper2
I think W/we have far and exceeded the question at hand.

The question pertains to the use of the word Your versus your and really I don't see the need for the above.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the trend of threads to spark off related questions once the initial question has been discussed and further delving is done?



ZooKeeper2 -> RE: Question about addressing. (6/19/2008 1:57:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZooKeeper2
I think W/we have far and exceeded the question at hand.

The question pertains to the use of the word Your versus your and really I don't see the need for the above.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the trend of threads to spark off related questions once the initial question has been discussed and further delving is done?


Perhaps. Or perhaps not. Perhaps I have seen one too many topics get out of hand, or perhaps, there are some problems that are unrelated to this topic all together that some how get mixed into the topic that have no bearing on the subject matter to begin with.
There are a lot of possibilities. But in the delving, might I ask, as to whose insistance this occured, was it the original poster looking to expand it to other related situations or maybe was it a respondent that might have some axe to grind that felt the need to divert?

ZK



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Question about addressing. (6/19/2008 2:01:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZooKeeper2
Perhaps. Or perhaps not. Perhaps I have seen one too many topics get out of hand, or perhaps, there are some problems that are unrelated to this topic all together that some how get mixed into the topic that have no bearing on the subject matter to begin with.

This is true.  However, you bringing up the "meta topic" of how things have gotten off topic are really just as off topic as anything else- including you responding to my response to your meta topic post.  So you are now contributing to the whole cycle yourself.

As well, I've never once seen a case where a thread was put back into specific focus solely by someone publicly noting it had gone off topic.

So, feel free to go off topic by letting everyone know how off topic we've gone, but perhaps think of the redundancy of that as well as the inefficacy.
quote:


There are a lot of possibilities. But in the delving, might I ask, as to whose insistance this occured, was it the original poster looking to expand it to other related situations or maybe was it a respondent that might have some axe to grind that felt the need to divert?

ZK

Considering the OP is the one who responded to the questions expanding the focus of her post with a fairly thorough explanation into other areas and perspectives, it seems a natural and group minded progression on the whole in this instance.



RCdc -> RE: Question about addressing. (6/19/2008 2:05:39 PM)

If we (generic) want to keep on topic, then what exactly is the topic?
The OP asked about correct grammar.  This was explained.
The OP then mentioned she may have not been clear, due to english not being her first language.  So it comes across as correct protocols.  It has been explained there is no set one way protocol.
The OP has now mentioned it's about respect - and has been questioned on how they would address a switch or person who does not identify as a dominant or submissive - and in the BDSM world there are MANY of those.
 
So really - what is it all about?
 
the.dark.



ZooKeeper2 -> RE: Question about addressing. (6/19/2008 2:34:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZooKeeper2
Perhaps. Or perhaps not. Perhaps I have seen one too many topics get out of hand, or perhaps, there are some problems that are unrelated to this topic all together that some how get mixed into the topic that have no bearing on the subject matter to begin with.

This is true.  However, you bringing up the "meta topic" of how things have gotten off topic are really just as off topic as anything else- including you responding to my response to your meta topic post.  So you are now contributing to the whole cycle yourself.

As well, I've never once seen a case where a thread was put back into specific focus solely by someone publicly noting it had gone off topic.

So, feel free to go off topic by letting everyone know how off topic we've gone, but perhaps think of the redundancy of that as well as the inefficacy.
quote:


There are a lot of possibilities. But in the delving, might I ask, as to whose insistance this occured, was it the original poster looking to expand it to other related situations or maybe was it a respondent that might have some axe to grind that felt the need to divert?

ZK

Considering the OP is the one who responded to the questions expanding the focus of her post with a fairly thorough explanation into other areas and perspectives, it seems a natural and group minded progression on the whole in this instance.


Then I guess if W/we are both off topic it may be best in the interest of everyone concerned that neither of U/us reply further to this matter and let the original poster guide the direction of the post, otherwise it's not the original poster's decision to delve into other areas but one of the respondents that wants to delve into other areas that were beyond the area of focus of the original post and getting the original poster to respond to it, does not validate it beyond her responding to it. Did she delve with you or did she try to bring it back on topic?

ZK



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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875