Fetish.com
Login FREE SIGN-UP
Jump to content

Use of Titles

By Deleted Member
in BDSM Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

Deleted Member

Posted
I regularly read in profiles that the searcher (female members) wishes to be addressed by her title, varying from mommy Dom, Mistress, Owner, Goddess, or any combination imaginable. The latter is remarkable in itself. As long as there is no relationship, or agreement of any kind, there is no obligation whatsoever for the aspiring sub/slave/pet to address his opposite by any title whatsoever. Where did this exaggerated urge come from, and to en*** all the appeal with titles in advance during the introduction phase? That everything in life is subject to change is not in dispute, this community has also "modernized" itself in recent decades with the arrival of the internet. It may of course be that I can't keep up with the changes, but is it now customary to address each other with titles during the vetting, or is there an exaggerated attitude on the part of a few ?

Deleted Member

Posted
  • Author
Personally and I may be wrong as I’m not a seasoned kinkster, but I find it extremely off putting when someone immediately requires use of a title that (from what I thought) is used once a dynamic is formed. If we haven’t even spoken normally and casually I will absolutely not use your title in initial interactions of those that follow until a level of comfort and trust is established. Many may disagree with this opinion… but it is my own and I think it’s quite a wise one.

I think online there’s an exaggerated attitude among people with/without experience in kink.. I liken my mannerism to meeting a person the first time.. I’m not going to call you sir or miss or whatever title you decide to go by without knowing a single thing about you and in the initial stages of the vetting process.. at this point I’m feeling you out to see whether or not I like you in any respect… whether we are compatible.. whether there are mutual interests etc..
meretrixV2

meretrixV2

Posted
Honorifics are earned, it's that simple, anyone in the lobby with an honorific in their screen name will addressed as the first part of that name that is not an honorific. It's about consent, they may be a D-type they are not my D-type
ey****

ey****

Posted

I had this conversation the other day with someone (a Mistress who insists on capital protocol) and I've got assorted mixed views.

My first view is 

if you go onto someone's profile and it reads "you will call me Mistress" (or whatever) and you think "No I fucking won't" that's valid - you simply do not have to message them. 

Some do it as a litmus "have you read my profile?" test.  If you therefore omit this you either haven't read their profile, or have and chosen to ignore a fairly basic instruction which is not really a good grounds for a relationship

Equally - you know - there's stuff we do in vanilla life which is the same - starting a letter with "Dear Sir/Madam" when we don't know who we're addressing.  

But, I also think there is often context and to a degree yep, honorifics aren't default - when I was in a relationship with someone who insisted on capital protocol I never missed a single 'You' but now I won't engage it outside of a relationship. If you go round a club (or the chat lobby) unless it's a protocol* event then someone swanning around going "you will call Me Sir/Mistress/Lord/Goddess/High Councillor/whatever" you're probably just gonna eyeroll and go 'prick' 

(*at a protocol event it may be expected that everyone of a certain persuasion is addressed a certain way, but you would have known this before attending)

Personally, I would probably - use formalities when trying to make an initial impression, drop them when the ice is broken, but pick them back up as and when appropriate.  When appropriate may vary on the other persons expectancy and whether I want to be around them. 

ge****

ge****

Posted
Something I've never understood either - as has been said titles are something to be grown into over time not an automatic thing to be applied in my opinion. As a submissive who won't give himself to just anyone and who has to "feel" submissive to someone to do so, I consider myself no more obliged to use a title to someone I am not submissive to than they should feel entitled to that title.
qu****

qu****

Posted
I've mentioned this before , personally I find the whole title thing pointless, and should only be used between consenting people who have communicated on a more vanilla level beforehand, it shouldn't be an immediate demand on first contact which seems to be happening on an increasing level, just because someones submissive it shouldnt be automatically assumed they're beneath a dom, manners, trust and respect must come first, if early on in communication it just happens these terms are used is one thing, to me it shows a basic trust is developing, but an insistence on using terms immediately is another thing, by far the worst of these culprits are those who immediately want to go to hangout
ge****

ge****

Posted
Personally I struggle with any notion of being "beneath" a Dom/me in any respect (other than perhaps a physical one 😉) - as far as I am concerned just because I am submissive in nature doesn't make me any less equal to a dominant - yes we may come from different sides of the same coin but it doesn't make one "lesser" than the other, and that applies whether talking about honorifics or any other aspect of the relationship.

Appreciate that for some their dynamic may work that way, and totally respect that if that is what they have agreed to, but even then the notion of being "beneath" doesn't quite sit right.
ey****

ey****

Posted

Mind - I have a profile on another site from my clip store, my profile does mention it is male-run, it does make me smile when I get "Dear Mistress" DMs or emails - as they've already failed the first step the other way ;) 

meretrixV2

meretrixV2

Posted
I love the use of honorifics and identifiers, but they are a symbol of what with me is usually a hard fought battle to win my submission and the things that come with that.

Anyone that enters a conversation with a sub identifier or demanding the use of an honorific usually soon discovers the true power of a sub
qu****

qu****

Posted
Some like the titles and names, some don't, I see it as two people who enjoy opposite ends of the same thing, be that a spanker or spanked, tyer or tyre, hope you get the drift, plus "knowing" the actual person is the important thing
Mz****

Mz****

Posted

This is a subject I find myself in hot water over frequently, especially in chatrooms here. I identify as Domme, my preferred honorific is Mistress, but, I don't expect, require, need, or want it unless I'm sharing a dynamic with someone..however, at the same time, that doesn't mean I want to talk to A/anyone who feels I don't deserve the most basic respect of using my screenname correctly, either MzJax or Jax..I find male D types rarely if ever afford this courtesy yet happily address other males, regardless of their role with a capital..for example Lowlymanworm (I just made that up, apologies if there's a lowlymanworm reading this) would get a capital L I get a lower case j for Jax..when I correct that I'm lambasted, told I'm petty or childish, up myself, pompous and so on..yet believe me, they jump fast enough if they're not given the respect they seem to demand themselves. 

I've also found that many s types "need" the honorifics and that denying them that can be seen as kink shaming, personally I don't agree with that, to me it's just them placing an unwelcome honorific without my consent I'm not shaming them for their need, just correcting how I like to be addressed..in fact if its obvious someone does "need" an honorific to feel comfortable talking with me I'll compromise and am happy to be called Miss.

ey****

ey****

Posted

*walks into a restaurant*

"May I take your coat, Sir"
"Don't push your dynamic on me!"

qu****

qu****

Posted

But yet it's Madame to a female in a restaurant, usually not miss or mistress🤷

ey****

ey****

Posted
Just now, quietlysure said:

But yet it's Madame to a female in a restaurant, usually not miss or mistress🤷

Still a title. Still a honorific. 

qu****

qu****

Posted

Yes, but let's face it a lot of BDSM speak/terminology is taken from the vanilla life, schools haven't yet been banned from using Sir and Miss to teachers, or headmaster/mistress come to that, though if "woke" it's just head 🤷

meretrixV2

meretrixV2

Posted
20 minutes ago, MzJax said:

This is a subject I find myself in hot water over frequently, especially in chatrooms here. I identify as Domme, my preferred honorific is Mistress, but, I don't expect, require, need, or want it unless I'm sharing a dynamic with someone..however, at the same time, that doesn't mean I want to talk to A/anyone who feels I don't deserve the most basic respect of using my screenname correctly, either MzJax or Jax..I find male D types rarely if ever afford this courtesy yet happily address other males, regardless of their role with a capital..for example Lowlymanworm (I just made that up, apologies if there's a lowlymanworm reading this) would get a capital L I get a lower case j for Jax..when I correct that I'm lambasted, told I'm petty or childish, up myself, pompous and so on..yet believe me, they jump fast enough if they're not given the respect they seem to demand themselves. 

I've also found that many s types "need" the honorifics and that denying them that can be seen as kink shaming, personally I don't agree with that, to me it's just them placing an unwelcome honorific without my consent I'm not shaming them for their need, just correcting how I like to be addressed..in fact if its obvious someone does "need" an honorific to feel comfortable talking with me I'll compromise and am happy to be called Miss.

I will usually Cap a D-type unless they *** me off then they need to earn that respect back, which as a sub I feel is reasonable, I have as a feminest academic noticed the male Dom attitude towards capping Dommes in conversation though

qu****

qu****

Posted

Thing is the term Domme is relatively recent, from looking through the history of BDSM originally Dom was used by both male and female

ey****

ey****

Posted

My general thoughts are a bit

If someone is "You will call me..." and your response is "No I won't" then that is a fair response. But it is then clear this person cannot offer what you want so there is no need to message them - just as if they had any other characteristic that didn't work for you.

If you are unsure how to address someone, read their profile and see if there's any other tell tale signs.

Also consider the context of your message.  But you can put together a polite/good message without using address.  ("Dear Username" is always a safe bet ;) )

I find anything that is like "Hi slut/slave/sub" etc to always be unacceptable unless it is on your profile that is what you want.  Usually any DM from a stranger which starts "Hey slave" you know isn't someone interested in being your Dominant, it's a scammer.   I think in my memory I have had just one message ever that started "Hey slave" which wasn't a scam and that was from someone I already knew who I was meeting that day for play who was building up anticipation 

Even when in a relationship, like, my name is good to use ;) or pet names.  

I think when I get anything that is "Hello Sir" then a lot depends on the context of the message - I still might not be interested, if they were overly formal but I was otherwise interested I might tell them it's not necessary.  However some people might insist on formal protocol and that is fine.  I don't think there's harm in telling people to relax if they're being more formal than necessary but are otherwise interesting.

I do also notice a lot of passive in capitalisation and roles.  People who write Dom/domme are often extremely blatant even if subtle. But then the whole word 'Domme' is often slightly passive anyway.  I don't blame women who prefer to be called Dom or Dominant. (This is partially why on my store I collectively refer to everyone as Dominants, as some do not like Domme, and many do not use Miss or Mistress.)   

 

Mz****

Mz****

Posted
2 minutes ago, meretrixV2 said:

I will usually Cap a D-type unless they *** me off then they need to earn that respect back, which as a sub I feel is reasonable, I have as a feminest academic noticed the male Dom attitude towards capping Dommes in conversation though

It's entirely reasonable..to me anyway.

I tend to just use screennames here, unless advised of a preferred alternative..and the same in person usually, by how they introduce themselves..unless that name makes me uncomfortable. 

Mz****

Mz****

Posted
6 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

also notice a lot of passive in capitalisation and roles.  People who write Dom/domme are often extremely blatant even if subtle. But then the whole word 'Domme' is often slightly passive anyway.

I'd like a little more clarity about what you mean here? What is passive capitalisation, and why do you think Domme is passive as a word..? I'm Trying very hard not to feel insulted.

ey****

ey****

Posted
1 minute ago, MzJax said:

I'd like a little more clarity about what you mean here? What is passive capitalisation

So like you said about guys who will address you as Jax or jax - while uppercasing other guys regardless of their dynamic.

2 minutes ago, MzJax said:

why do you think Domme is passive as a word..?

So. I feel. I think most Female Dominants are happy with Domme - and that is fair

But it often feels like it's a deliberate separation - men are Dom and women are Domme for no seemingly logical reason 

Mz****

Mz****

Posted
2 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

So like you said about guys who will address you as Jax or jax - while uppercasing other guys regardless of their dynamic.

So. I feel. I think most Female Dominants are happy with Domme - and that is fair

But it often feels like it's a deliberate separation - men are Dom and women are Domme for no seemingly logical reason 

Okay..thank you for explaining..that really does irritate me, I know some do it deliberately, in the same way they reply to male commentary on threads but not the female contribution..or they will only respond to s identifying.

Not sure I'd agree on the idea that Domme as a word is anymore passive than Dom though. To me it's just feminising of the word, but different strokes, different folks..I know plenty of female Ds who like to be addressed as Sir, or even Daddy, no male ones who crave Mistress or Ma'am though, so perhaps your right.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...