Protocols in D/s dynamics or relationships

[ma****]

I few days ago, I made a post related to protocols on a different platform. Someone asked what protocols are and, after replying, I had thought of posting my reply about what protocols are in a D/s dynamic.
*
Now, I'd like to post it on here as well:
*
"Protocols are code of behaviours or activities that are to be performed in a particular way. Protocols are meant to rein*** the dynamic and make it flourish. There are three types of protocols: low, medium or high.

Low protocols means the Dom and the sub are in a more relaxed setting (they are usually used while surrounded by others, especially those who are not in the lifestyle) while the submissives (might) still have rules that must be followed, but they might be fewer and less restrictive. One example of such a protocol is that the submissive can call their Dom either on their first name (or a name, a name that doesn't attract the attention to their D/s dynamic, chosen by both of them) when surrounded by vanilla people or by children etc. Another one could be that the submissive could sit on the furniture.

Medium protocol has got stricter or more detailed rules than the low protocols. For example, the submissive is to address their Dominant Sir. Another one could be: the submissive must ask permission for using the furniture.

The high protocols are formal and etiquette based behaviours where the submissive's focus is their Dominant's needs, wants and desires. These protocols are generally used for formal dinners or other formal events. One protocol could be that the submissive is not to speak unless they are spoken to. Another protocol might be: the submissive must sit on the floor [in a certain position].

Each D/s dynamic/relationship has got different protocols. Someone's medium protocol might be other's low protocols or somebody else's high protocols."

[in****]

Hi, I came across this on the feed and thought I’d drop first comment.
I can’t help but think this is entirely subjective, and from your own personal stance. Indeed, in a D/S dynamic, there are no such hard and fast rules to protocol, how many levels of protocol there should be, and where they are to be applied. Unless this old Dom has missed some old sacred scroll laid out by the first ever Dom… 😊

[ge****]

1 hour ago, intellectualruffian said:

Hi, I came across this on the feed and thought I’d drop first comment.
I can’t help but think this is entirely subjective, and from your own personal stance. Indeed, in a D/S dynamic, there are no such hard and fast rules to protocol, how many levels of protocol there should be, and where they are to be applied. Unless this old Dom has missed some old sacred scroll laid out by the first ever Dom… 😊

Can I refer you to the very last paragraph of Maryioni's post which I think covers what you are saying?
.
Of course every dynamic is different and has different rules agreed between both sides of that individual slash but as a generic response to someone new asking what protocols are within a D/s context I think Maryioni has covered it pretty well.

[in****]

15 minutes ago, gemini_man said:

Can I refer you to the very last paragraph of Maryioni's post which I think covers what you are saying?
.
Of course every dynamic is different and has different rules agreed between both sides of that individual slash but as a generic response to someone new asking what protocols are within a D/s context I think Maryioni has covered it pretty well.

It is still subjective and specific to Maryioni though. The only hard and fast rules there are when establishing a dynamic is respect and trust. Without those two there is nothing, so in essence they must be everything - and the only hard and fast concrete rule there is, since they are interwoven together.
Absolutely anything else that follows in regards to structure of rules and protocols is uniquely set to each dynamic and their own unique circumstances. Including levels and where they are applied.
There simply is no set text on which to follow regarding protocols, and to hint at otherwise is likely misleading for those new to the community.
That’s not to bring shade to Maryioni’s viewpoint, but all the same, it is a personal viewpoint and not indicative of a set structure that should be adhered to regarding protocols, their levels and where to apply said protocols.

[ge****]

48 minutes ago, intellectualruffian said:

It is still subjective and specific to Maryioni though. The only hard and fast rules there are when establishing a dynamic is respect and trust. Without those two there is nothing, so in essence they must be everything - and the only hard and fast concrete rule there is, since they are interwoven together.
Absolutely anything else that follows in regards to structure of rules and protocols is uniquely set to each dynamic and their own unique circumstances. Including levels and where they are applied.
There simply is no set text on which to follow regarding protocols, and to hint at otherwise is likely misleading for those new to the community.
That’s not to bring shade to Maryioni’s viewpoint, but all the same, it is a personal viewpoint and not indicative of a set structure that should be adhered to regarding protocols, their levels and where to apply said protocols.

Not disagreeing with any of that - it is of course specific to the individuals concerned as to what the structure of a dynamic and it's protocols looks like as I made very clear in my post and I think Maryioni does in hers given the last paragraph.
.
My point was though, as a generic example to explain what protocols are to someone that doesn't know, it works.

[ey****]

we did have this issue recently when someone suggested doing a higher protocol event when it was apparent that what was deemed 'high' varied between a lot of people and that this was to be a mixed event and that what can be D/s in a M/f setting can be quite different in a F/m

This doesn't mean any of this is not valid - and it's always worth knowing what works for you and what other options exist.

I've been aware of some in their dynamic where it was to the point that the Dominant chooses what the sub wears (or doesn't) and also chooses which food they do and don't eat.  I think it's fascinating stuff and these are good examples 

[in****]

31 minutes ago, gemini_man said:

Not disagreeing with any of that - it is of course specific to the individuals concerned as to what the structure of a dynamic and it's protocols looks like as I made very clear in my post and I think Maryioni does in hers given the last paragraph.
.
My point was though, as a generic example to explain what protocols are to someone that doesn't know, it works.

The last paragraph you speak of highlights that someone’s mediums, might be someone’s lows, or somebody else’s highs etc. Which only rein***s that Maryioni mentions the protocols, their levels and where to apply them as quite matter-of-factly.
In the OP, the only time Maryioni actually deviates from the matter-of-factly speaking, is when she gives examples of details on how the protocols are implemented/en***d, such as how the submissive behaves. Again, this is completely subjective and only personal to Maryioni in any event.
In actual fact, none of this is matter-of-fact, because there are no set protocols, no set protocol levels (low, high, medium etc.), and no rules set on where to apply said protocols.
If we are talking about a generic way to explain to a newcomer how protocols work, wouldn’t it help the newcomer better to simply say that once you establish trust and respect, you set your own protocols and rules - together, as suits their own unique circumstances.

In Dom/Sub dynamics involving two human beings, there can’t really be a generic protocol procedure to follow, because every dynamic is unique. It actually seems to downgrade that uniqueness when we place something so boring as a “generic” statement around it, because these dynamics are so much more complex than anything a generic description can lend any credit to.
So all we are left with in the OP, is Maryioni’s vivid, sexy, imaginative and personal ideals on Dom/Sub dynamics and their possible protocols and rules.

There is, however, no matter-of-fact set of any standards to adhere to, aside for what works for each specific dynamic, when trust and respect have been established. And those are built by the two people involved only. 😊

[Co****]

7 hours ago, intellectualruffian said:

It is still subjective and specific to Maryioni though. The only hard and fast rules there are when establishing a dynamic is respect and trust. Without those two there is nothing, so in essence they must be everything - and the only hard and fast concrete rule there is, since they are interwoven together.
Absolutely anything else that follows in regards to structure of rules and protocols is uniquely set to each dynamic and their own unique circumstances. Including levels and where they are applied.
There simply is no set text on which to follow regarding protocols, and to hint at otherwise is likely misleading for those new to the community.
That’s not to bring shade to Maryioni’s viewpoint, but all the same, it is a personal viewpoint and not indicative of a set structure that should be adhered to regarding protocols, their levels and where to apply said protocols.

I was going to add my own opinion to the OP’s topic but…I really I cannot say anymore than the above which I completely agree with.

[Co****]

6 hours ago, intellectualruffian said:

The last paragraph you speak of highlights that someone’s mediums, might be someone’s lows, or somebody else’s highs etc. Which only rein***s that Maryioni mentions the protocols, their levels and where to apply them as quite matter-of-factly.
In the OP, the only time Maryioni actually deviates from the matter-of-factly speaking, is when she gives examples of details on how the protocols are implemented/en***d, such as how the submissive behaves. Again, this is completely subjective and only personal to Maryioni in any event.
In actual fact, none of this is matter-of-fact, because there are no set protocols, no set protocol levels (low, high, medium etc.), and no rules set on where to apply said protocols.
If we are talking about a generic way to explain to a newcomer how protocols work, wouldn’t it help the newcomer better to simply say that once you establish trust and respect, you set your own protocols and rules - together, as suits their own unique circumstances.

In Dom/Sub dynamics involving two human beings, there can’t really be a generic protocol procedure to follow, because every dynamic is unique. It actually seems to downgrade that uniqueness when we place something so boring as a “generic” statement around it, because these dynamics are so much more complex than anything a generic description can lend any credit to.
So all we are left with in the OP, is Maryioni’s vivid, sexy, imaginative and personal ideals on Dom/Sub dynamics and their possible protocols and rules.

There is, however, no matter-of-fact set of any standards to adhere to, aside for what works for each specific dynamic, when trust and respect have been established. And those are built by the two people involved only. 😊

Again not really adding to the discussion but I’ll highlight that I have to agree on the points made here.

[sardonicus87]

Intellectualruffian, I feel like you're being purposely obtuse and contrarian, like you feel like you need to be the smartest person in the room or something? Or are you trolling?
.
It's just an example of what "protocols" means, chill out. It was made abundantly clear that this was just an EXAMPLE and that they are subjective. Absolutely none of it was given as a set of standards to be followed. The last paragraph in fact does explicitly reiterate what was obvious and implied from the beginning and in no way "rein***s that they mean them matter-of-factly", it does the exact opposite.
.
Nobody is even remotely implying that they aren't subjective or that there's hard and fast rules to levels and what they are or anything else about it, and people are saying VERY EXPLICITLY that it's subjective.
.
This writing is perfect for this subject, and in my experience, it's clear people need this. I had previously listed in my profile that I don't do "protocols" and someone thought that meant no safewords or that I was inherently unsafe. They were using the vanilla, dictionary definition of what "protocols" means and not what D/s people mean. I wish this example existed then.

[sardonicus87]

I mean, in what world does someone EXPLICITLY stating that something is subjective implies that they mean it as a matter-of-fact? Opposite World?
.
And yes, it is a fact there are people that do have different levels of protocols (some none at all), otherwise people wouldn't go out of their way to say they like "high protocols", or throw "high protocol events".

[Fa****]

To be fair, perhaps there ought to be generic, umbrella terms for different styles/types of protocols because as @eyemblacksheeprightly pointed out, when it comes to an event if there is no generic understanding then each person has to use their own interpretation which may/may not be appropriate to the event organiser. (And yes, I get that they can make rules for each event etc, etc).

It’s the same in MANY facets of life a huge example being healthcare. There is (in the UK) the overarching NICE guidance and then most of the medical colleges have their own guidance as do the professional councils. However this guidance can be interpreted and nuanced in slightly different ways to suit the septic Trust or demographic to which it is being applied. This is because it is GUIDANCE. The same could work for D/s in a variety of instances and would also help educate persons new the lifestyle but also lead to less confusion between parties. Nobody is saying that that guidance needs to be implemented to the letter and also nobody has to take any heed of it - it’s similar to the premise of SSC, RACK, PRICK, FRIES etc etc. 

[ma****]

9 hours ago, intellectualruffian said:

Hi, I came across this on the feed and thought I’d drop first comment.
I can’t help but think this is entirely subjective, and from your own personal stance. Indeed, in a D/S dynamic, there are no such hard and fast rules to protocol, how many levels of protocol there should be, and where they are to be applied. Unless this old Dom has missed some old sacred scroll laid out by the first ever Dom… 😊

I have mentioned the fact that each dynamic has got its own protocols. Maybe I hadn't been explicit enough and hadn't mentioned that each dynamic has their protocols tailored to the individuals into that dynamic.

[Ar****]

10 hours ago, intellectualruffian said:

I can’t help but think this is entirely subjective, and from your own personal stance.

8 hours ago, intellectualruffian said:

It is still subjective and specific to Maryioni though.

No. The OP could not be clearer. Words used include "might", "example", "generally", "usually", and "could". To ignore the open-mindedness shared and infer that this post is a hard-and-fast ruleset based on personal experience or viewpoint does it a disservice.

8 hours ago, intellectualruffian said:

The only hard and fast rules there are when establishing a dynamic is respect and trust.

But if you really do want to nitpick, is this even true? It's certainly how things ought to be and what most of us would wish for, I don't think it's a given though. This world is full of all sorts of characters and some will seek out and even get off on dynamics which lack respect or trust. We can disapprove all we like but that doesn't invalidate those dynamics. 

[in****]

38 minutes ago, maryioni said:

I have mentioned the fact that each dynamic has got its own protocols. Maybe I hadn't been explicit enough and hadn't mentioned that each dynamic has their protocols tailored to the individuals into that dynamic.

Protocol as a term will always conjure up ideas of “official” ways and rules for anything. Like how children should behave in class or the playground, or how military personnel keep their boots polished, or how drinking or being on *** while at work will be a breach of protocol and get you sacked.
All my comments have hopefully been for the benefit of newcomers to the app having a look about the forums etc. And I’m just aiming to shed light that when it comes to building a dynamic with someone, there are in effect, no set “protocols” as such; there are only what behaviours, practices and rules we set out with our play partner when trust and respect is established.
There was certainly no offence intended, like some here seem to have thought. You, however, have taken no offence - and since it’s your OP - that’s all that matters. It’s all healthy, mature adult discussion: why we’re all here, right?😊

[ma****]

7 hours ago, intellectualruffian said:

The last paragraph you speak of highlights that someone’s mediums, might be someone’s lows, or somebody else’s highs etc. Which only rein***s that Maryioni mentions the protocols, their levels and where to apply them as quite matter-of-factly.
In the OP, the only time Maryioni actually deviates from the matter-of-factly speaking, is when she gives examples of details on how the protocols are implemented/en***d, such as how the submissive behaves. Again, this is completely subjective and only personal to Maryioni in any event.
In actual fact, none of this is matter-of-fact, because there are no set protocols, no set protocol levels (low, high, medium etc.), and no rules set on where to apply said protocols.
If we are talking about a generic way to explain to a newcomer how protocols work, wouldn’t it help the newcomer better to simply say that once you establish trust and respect, you set your own protocols and rules - together, as suits their own unique circumstances.

In Dom/Sub dynamics involving two human beings, there can’t really be a generic protocol procedure to follow, because every dynamic is unique. It actually seems to downgrade that uniqueness when we place something so boring as a “generic” statement around it, because these dynamics are so much more complex than anything a generic description can lend any credit to.
So all we are left with in the OP, is Maryioni’s vivid, sexy, imaginative and personal ideals on Dom/Sub dynamics and their possible protocols and rules.

There is, however, no matter-of-fact set of any standards to adhere to, aside for what works for each specific dynamic, when trust and respect have been established. And those are built by the two people involved only. 😊

That's exactly what I've said, each protocols will be tailored to the individuals involved in that dynamic. They (the protocols) are going to be created based on what works for all those involved in that dynamic. The examples I've given are just that: examples. They don't have to be into others dynamics if people do not want them.

[Co****]

I find all of the comments put together are very informative, and ' fill out' the picture. Thankyou ☺️

[ma****]

48 minutes ago, intellectualruffian said:

Protocol as a term will always conjure up ideas of “official” ways and rules for anything. Like how children should behave in class or the playground, or how military personnel keep their boots polished, or how drinking or being on *** while at work will be a breach of protocol and get you sacked.
All my comments have hopefully been for the benefit of newcomers to the app having a look about the forums etc. And I’m just aiming to shed light that when it comes to building a dynamic with someone, there are in effect, no set “protocols” as such; there are only what behaviours, practices and rules we set out with our play partner when trust and respect is established.
There was certainly no offence intended, like some here seem to have thought. You, however, have taken no offence - and since it’s your OP - that’s all that matters. It’s all healthy, mature adult discussion: why we’re all here, right?😊

No offence taken here. You talk about "behaviours, practices and rules" - all those together would be the protocols created by individuals for their dynamic to thrive. I have also mentioned the protocols for D/s dynamic not for play time. D/s dynamics are not just play... they are much more than that.

[ma****]

50 minutes ago, Aranhis said:

But if you really do want to nitpick, is this even true? It's certainly how things ought to be and what most of us would wish for, I don't think it's a given though. This world is full of all sorts of characters and some will seek out and even get off on dynamics which lack respect or trust. We can disapprove all we like but that doesn't invalidate those dynamics. 

Thank you. That was why I had chosen those words in particular.

[in****]

26 minutes ago, maryioni said:

That's exactly what I've said, each protocols will be tailored to the individuals involved in that dynamic. They (the protocols) are going to be created based on what works for all those involved in that dynamic. The examples I've given are just that: examples. They don't have to be into others dynamics if people do not want them.

I’m with you. There is no protocol relating to the D/S dynamic. Nothing set in stone at all relating to levels, settings or expected behaviours. It is non-existent. Two people simply come together and set their own rules. If them rules and practices become their specific “protocols” then that is their responsibility to adhere to. But for those still curious about dipping their toes into this lifestyle, and watching on the sidelines with the popcorn 😂. Heed this. There is absolutely no protocol level AT ALL you need to know or enquire about, that some secret hierarchy have written in a sub’s ***. Simply find a mate. Establish respect and trust. And build your own world you both escape to, and can return from safely. And have fun! ❤️🙏

[in****]

46 minutes ago, maryioni said:

That's exactly what I've said, each protocols will be tailored to the individuals involved in that dynamic. They (the protocols) are going to be created based on what works for all those involved in that dynamic. The examples I've given are just that: examples. They don't have to be into others dynamics if people do not want them.

And for the record and to be absolutely clear on this, you speak matter-of-factly on the OP up until you give your own specific examples on the actual behaviours. In actual fact, nothing is matter-of-fact on this topic, because there are no set protocol levels, nor set settings where these levels apply to in the D/S dynamic.
That’s the whole beauty of it. You’re talking as if when two people begin to make their own rules that become “protocols”, that even they have to follow some sort of protocol in regard to levels and settings they are applied. They don’t actually. Because, and here’s the main point here. When it comes to a D/S dynamic, there is no protocol in place. No template. Nothing.
We simply structure our own dynamic based on what we’re capable of achieving within our own circumstances. And that, is built on the foundations of trust and respect.
All you have given here in your OP is YOUR ideas and examples on how a D/S has maybe functioned for you in the past, currently functions now, or you would like to function in the future.

[CopperKnob]

21 minutes ago, intellectualruffian said:

And for the record and to be absolutely clear on this, you speak matter-of-factly on the OP up until you give your own specific examples on the actual behaviours. In actual fact, nothing is matter-of-fact on this topic, because there are no set protocol levels, nor set settings where these levels apply to in the D/S dynamic.
That’s the whole beauty of it. You’re talking as if when two people begin to make their own rules that become “protocols”, that even they have to follow some sort of protocol in regard to levels and settings they are applied. They don’t actually. Because, and here’s the main point here. When it comes to a D/S dynamic, there is no protocol in place. No template. Nothing.
We simply structure our own dynamic based on what we’re capable of achieving within our own circumstances. And that, is built on the foundations of trust and respect.
All you have given here in your OP is YOUR ideas and examples on how a D/S has maybe functioned for you in the past, currently functions now, or you would like to function in the future.

Even if the OP hadn't consistently used the word "example" and had said "this is how protocols work" or "its this way and no other way" matter of factly, the purpose of the forums is to share thoughts, views, and opinions.
.
We might not all share the same opinion. The forums allow us to share ours via the comments sections, and it's from the whole thread that people take away their own learning.
.
To consistently challenge one person's view when there is nothing inherently wrong with them and, when they are actually saying nothing different to your own, just using different wording, is rather rude and comes across as if you're trying to achieve some kind of one-up-man-ship. I'm not really understanding the point of your comments if I'm honest.

[ge****]

32 minutes ago, intellectualruffian said:

And for the record and to be absolutely clear on this, you speak matter-of-factly on the OP up until you give your own specific examples on the actual behaviours. In actual fact, nothing is matter-of-fact on this topic, because there are no set protocol levels, nor set settings where these levels apply to in the D/S dynamic.
That’s the whole beauty of it. You’re talking as if when two people begin to make their own rules that become “protocols”, that even they have to follow some sort of protocol in regard to levels and settings they are applied. They don’t actually. Because, and here’s the main point here. When it comes to a D/S dynamic, there is no protocol in place. No template. Nothing.
We simply structure our own dynamic based on what we’re capable of achieving within our own circumstances. And that, is built on the foundations of trust and respect.
All you have given here in your OP is YOUR ideas and examples on how a D/S has maybe functioned for you in the past, currently functions now, or you would like to function in the future.

Sorry, but you *are* completely twisting what has been said in the OP to fit your own agenda and try and score points for whatever reason - nowhere in the OP has it been said that these are hard and fast rules to be adhered to by all, in fact quite the opposite the use of words like "example" "might" "could" and others are all used in conjunction with each of the OPs points.
.
She's made it quite clear that different people may have different perspectives and ways of determining their own protocols within a dynamic.
.
Further posts by others, myself included, have also clearly stated that a protocol is a very individual thing determined by those individuals involved.
.
However people do work with protocols and there are many events that cater specifically to the use of protocols - so all the OP has done is try to explain what "protocols" mean on a generic level from a D/s perspective, using examples of what they may be for some as part of that explanation.
.
No-one is saying it's some sacred set of rules that apply to all and must not be broken, in fact many people have agreed with you that there is no such thing and it's a unique thing agreed by those involved and based on trust and respect etc - but it *is* undeniable that most D/s relationships have some level of protocol about them even if it is defined by those involved in the relationship - all the OP has done is explain that for anyone that may not know what protocols are and used *examples* to illustrate that - so not really sure why you're continuing to try and manipulate things here to be honest.

[ma****]

2 hours ago, CopperKnob said:

Even if the OP hadn't consistently used the word "example" and had said "this is how protocols work" or "its this way and no other way" matter of factly, the purpose of the forums is to share thoughts, views, and opinions.
.
We might not all share the same opinion. The forums allow us to share ours via the comments sections, and it's from the whole thread that people take away their own learning.
.
To consistently challenge one person's view when there is nothing inherently wrong with them and, when they are actually saying nothing different to your own, just using different wording, is rather rude and comes across as if you're trying to achieve some kind of one-up-man-ship. I'm not really understanding the point of your comments if I'm honest.

That's absolutely fine. Nothing from what he had said made me change how I (and many others who are either Dominants or submissives) view the protocols or changed my mood. For him to say "there's no protocol relating to the D/s dynamic" clearly shows me his lack of education on D/s topics, especially since he's called himself "old Dom" lol. So absolutely nothing from what he's said (or going to say) will change my views.

[in****]

22 minutes ago, maryioni said:

That's absolutely fine. Nothing from what he had said made me change how I (and many others who are either Dominants or submissives) view the protocols or changed my mood. For him to say "there's no protocol relating to the D/s dynamic" clearly shows me his lack of education on D/s topics, especially since he's called himself "old Dom" lol. So absolutely nothing from what he's said (or going to say) will change my views.

To say there’s no protocol on the D/S dynamic is to simply tell the truth. You can repeat tidbits of terminology you’ve found online all you like, and even begin forum threads using said terminology in a bid to come across authentic and authoritative on the matter. But in the end, there simply is no protocol to follow in these dynamics. We build our dynamics as per our circumstances and every single scenario is different. Not one dynamic in the history of kink has ever been bound by the protocols you speak of, nor its structure or terminology, when building their own rule structure. In all honesty, it sounds like you’ve read some stuff online and regurgitated it in your own way to begin a forum thread. At least I brought the thread to life by highlighting its flaws.