Respect

[Dslave]

I have a question. Do you believe that respect is owed to all Dominants or is it something that is earned?

[sweetplymate]

my belief is that respect is earned at a human level before anything else...if i do not respect you as a human being i sure am not going to respect you in any other capacity of life...however if you have gained enough trust for my Master (with my consent) to allow you to Dom (or top) me then yes, i do think that some level of respect should be recognized...

i mean, no stranger would just walk up to you on the street and say "i have the utmost respect for you" without some reason to...so yeah....i think it is most definitley earned...and not very easily won back if that respect is ever lost or destroyed...

[Pandora's Box]

Earned. Most definitely. No one just automatically commands my respect. Anyone that gives their respect away is either very naive or very foolish, if not both. (This is not to say that everyone doesn't deserve common courtesy until they have proven otherwise.)

I don't care if you're the queen of England, the president of the US, or King Shit on Turd Mountain - if you want my respect then you have to earn it.

A dominant deserves only the respect s/he earns. All too often I've seen new dominants stick a "lord", "sir", "master/mistress", "lady" in their name and expect submissives to bow down in front of their overblown egos.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say that someone that tries to demand my respect without first being willing to earn it is not going to get it.

[Dslave]

Pandora's Box, I couldn't agree with your points more! Courtesy and respect are two very different things. I believe courtesy is a given (not earned) and respect IS something you earn. But, I also wanted to know what everyone else felt and why.

[Pandora's Box]

Thanks! :)

Yes I do believe that courtesy and respect are two different things. Granted, someone that is discourteous is not likely to get my respect either. LOL

[MrJerseyGuy]

I love some of the spirited debates that we get into on this site but that going to be hard to do here because, so far, we are all in agreement. Respect is something you earn on many levels. You can look at many couples and get an idea of the quality of the relationship by the level of respect they have for each other...and I think that applies to both the Dom/sub Master/slave, not to mention life in general.

[Garmonbozia]

I hate to plod the discussion down a bit but I hadn't thought too much of courtesy and respect being separate things. I had felt that everyone deserved respect until they had shown they were not worthy of it, kind of like the innocent until proven guilty premise. Of course maybe what I would term respect many others would say was common courtesy and respect was something much deeper and more intimate.

Of course I don't agree with the automatic idea that all subs must respect all Doms, we don't live on Gor after all :) And I have known quite a few Doms who were simply not worthy of anyone's respect as they were simply vile people. When I meet a prospective sub I actually find it offputting if they attempt to call me Sir. Until I have decided that she is to be my sub and she has decided I am to be her Master then we are simply two people who are getting to know each other. I think that is really what Dslave was getting at.

I have seen a lot of disrespectful behaviour from both Doms and subs on the internet and I am relatively new to the online scene. I have seen Doms who rail at people when they aren't called Sir (and promptly shouted down fortunately) but I have also seen subs run around calling everyone Master and Mistress which I find equally disrespectful. I met a sub recently who said she was once admonished upon entering a chatroom because she simply said hello and didn't perform some kind of foolish obeisances to all and sundry. I guess that's why I love these forums so much. Everyone here seems to be so wonderful and sensible. Can you feel the love :)

Jason

[BDSM_Tourguide]

No question about it. Respect is like trust. People shouldn't just give it away because of who someone claims to be.

[albear]

sugeng, I had an incident in the chat room recently where someone demanded the use of capital letters in their name. I'm generally not a fan of capital letters, so I don't usually use them in chat or text messaging or any quick exchange (I use them here for ease of reading) and I'd also received some very upsetting news just prior. I'm afraid I responded with no courtesy at all, never mind respect! (In fact, I think I told him to stick 'em up his clacker, but I did apologise and redeem myself a little)

Respect is definitely earned, but everyone deserves to be treated with courtesy (unless they've proved themselves to be an arse, and even then I'd probably be polite). I cringe a little whenever anyone assumes because they put a title in front of their name they are to be obeyed, or whenever anyone spells their name without a capital letter they assume they are, or want, to be ordered around.

Not everyone will agree on what is right or proper, and there are going to be varying answers depending on how you view the lifestyle, and how strictly you view protocol.

[Garmonbozia]

Well I am nothing if not unconventional and I have never worried about protocol or tradition too much (most of which I find downright silly). I sometimes can't be arsed capitalising things, I am not a lover of the shift key, and have often been told I should capitalise my name. I'm sorry (I'm not but it's a euphemism so...) but if all you can see is that my name is not capitalised and not what I am actually writing then your opinion is not of any interest to me in the first place. I personally find the 'H/hello E/everyone' kind of shit very annoying. I can't imagine how time consuming it is for the people to do it and feel it is unnecessary drivel that simply bogs down a conversation. I'm a bit of a harsh bastard aren't I but I wear my heart on my sleeve and damn the consequences.

Jason

[Dslave]

Respect is definitely earned, but everyone deserves to be treated with courtesy (unless they've proved themselves to be an arse, and even then I'd probably be polite). I cringe a little whenever anyone assumes because they put a title in front of their name they are to be obeyed, or whenever anyone spells their name without a capital letter they assume they are, or want, to be ordered around.

Not everyone will agree on what is right or proper, and there are going to be varying answers depending on how you view the lifestyle, and how strictly you view protocol.

That is actually one of the reasons I posted this. There IS a particular protocol that seems to be expected over the net that doesn't seem to really be in place in the real world and I wondered what people thought about Doms and Masters "demanding" respect from the moment they meet you when in real life it seems (though, I could be wrong because my dealings with other Doms/Masters other than my own are limited as I am not very active in the "community" any further than going to PE clubs once in awhile) that Doms and other people's Masters prefer to earn your respect rather than have it given to them.

[redEva]

I know I’m asking for trouble posting this, but…

The capitalization in the chat … A/all etc – takes to much time and is annoying to me – I will not practise it, yet at the same time if someone is inclined to do so – their choice.

Capitalizing or not of your name – it is unwritten rule and I don’t see anything wrong with it. If you go to a fetish party and you consider your self Dominant – you will not wear dog collar! The online community is like any other public place, and similarly you set your own image from the moment you enter the room. Not much to see of you – but your nick and your interaction. I agree that capital letter in your name does not buy you respect nor does it mean that you truly are Dominant (Goddess knows there was way to many Masters that kneeled in front of me way to fast!), but at least gives others the idea of how you see yourself.

Addressing: that depends on the person and I don’t think we can really reach any agreement here. Addressing person with Sir or Madam – that is just courtesy and I see nothing wrong with it (my own opinion again). Master/Mistress, Lord/Lady etc.. titles that need to be agreed on. If you log in as MasterMark – I will address you as such. Same with LadyCassandra, LordX or MistressY. I do not see why would that be an issue or problem. I am bothered more by “Doms” entering rooms and ordering around anybody with lowercase nick. That is where I draw the line and that is where the respect is earned.

Gor is different world – and so are their chatrooms. You will not enter gay bar and be offended if same sex person approaches you. One will learn hard way but very quickly that Gor chatroom is as strict and unfriendly as Gor reality would be.

Respect is earned. Respect yourself and respect others – hopefully you will be respected in return. Be courteous to all – if you are not – that only reflect badly on you.

[JakBird]

My own take on the capitalization rules tends toward the live and let live. In chat rooms where the only means to communicate is text, then sure, it's a way to convey the equivalent of voice tone or body language. In a story, no, except in unusual circumstances (dialog, quotes from online typing, etc.).

Over the years I've come to appreciate the importance of structure to a submissive personality, even though I must confess I do not entirely understand it on a visceral level. I never criticize anyone for using the convention online, for just that reason. If it is The Way It Must Be Done, then so be it.

I never have seen the reason behind using medieval titles for nicknames. LordSlackjaw and SirStumblebum don't have positive connotations for me, since hereditary titles usually carry the baggage of genetic defects from far too much inbreeding. But to each their own. I settle for being called anything printable and repeatable.

Respect garnered by demand has a very short lifetime. I've found willing obedience to be far more valuable than the forced variety. Taking shortcuts may be tempting for the lazy, but in my experience making the investment in time with a low profile, non-threatening approach will draw out natural submissive traits that I can ruthlessly exploit (okay, I'm dreaming here, but hope springs eternal).

[Pandora's Box]

That is actually one of the reasons I posted this. There IS a particular protocol that seems to be expected over the net that doesn't seem to really be in place in the real world and I wondered what people thought about Doms and Masters "demanding" respect from the moment they meet you when in real life it seems (though, I could be wrong because my dealings with other Doms/Masters other than my own are limited as I am not very active in the "community" any further than going to PE clubs once in awhile) that Doms and other people's Masters prefer to earn your respect rather than have it given to them.

D, I'd venture to say that any dominant that demands respect from the get go is indeed not respecting others, nor methods of human social interaction. Basically, I have yet to meet one of these dominants that wasn't selfish, unstable or socially inept.

When I first came into the world of bdsm I ran into a lot of these so called dominants. It took me a bit to realize that while they may title themselves a dominant, they lack understanding of some of the basics tenets of domination. Most of them want all the rights with none of the responsibilities. But there are a lot of people like that.

[Dslave]

ReDeva, you make a very good point about BDSM net protocol. It DOES make it easier to visualize who is on the other end by some of it. Especially the Caps and the lower case. I hadn't thought of that. For instance, my nick is Dslave and so some may find that confusing because it has a cap but it stands for Dakkar's (my Master) slave. The "D" is for Dakkar. I guess {D}slave might be more appropriate. I guess, I learned something. LOL Thanks.


When I first came into the world of bdsm I ran into a lot of these so called dominants. It took me a bit to realize that while they may title themselves a dominant, they lack understanding of some of the basics tenets of domination. Most of them want all the rights with none of the responsibilities. But there are a lot of people like that.

I have to say, I met with a similiar experience online (though, again, not in real life) and I just sort of sat back and smiled (politely). I realized, these are the same people that in everyday life need a toot their own horn to make them feel important rather than being important on their own merits (title or not).


Respect garnered by demand has a very short lifetime. I've found willing obedience to be far more valuable than the forced variety. Taking shortcuts may be tempting for the lazy, but in my experience making the investment in time with a low profile, non-threatening approach will draw out natural submissive traits that I can ruthlessly exploit (okay, I'm dreaming here, but hope springs eternal).

And, with that statement, I have to say, you have earned a bit of respect from me. At the very least, I find that you are wiser than some... maybe even most.

[Barton]

Respect must be earned. It should never be given as a matter of course.

Barton

[LostOne]

Ultimately, respect is earned, but is it wrong to show a simple level of respect for the supposed "rank"?

In the military, respect is shown for rank even if there is no respect for the person behind it. There are some officers out there I would tie up and gag if at war with them to keep them from giving orders that will get me and the troops killed (but I would do while showing respect :D ).

As a single submissive at BDSM socials I show respect in simple ways to all that claim to be dominant. Such as not speaking till spoken to, my tone of voice, humble look, walking a step behind, opening the door, ect. I do not however drop to my knees to kiss the feet of or follow any orders shouted by someone who has not taken the time to earn my respect. I respect their claim to dominance but I do not put myself at their service because of their claim. Similar to my saluting an officer's rank but not respecting him enough to get myself killed. I will show respect for someone's "rank" but not give up my self-respect by putting myself in front of their whip before they have earned my full respect.

Does that make me naive? Does it cheapen it and make it something I give away too easily? I hope not.

I've never really analyzed why I do it till now. Maybe I do it to act out my submissiveness in some small way. Maybe I hope someone worthy will take notice of it and step up to earn my heartfelt respect.

Food for thought, thank you Dslave :)

[albear]

LostOne, I think it shows that you're very sensible. The fact that you show respect for the 'rank', but don't throw yourself at the persons feet means that you're courteous, and you are respectful, but you reserve respect for the person until you know them better.

I don't know if that made any sense! *shakes head* I think I need caffeine :p

[Dslave]

LostOne, I think it shows that you're very sensible. The fact that you show respect for the 'rank', but don't throw yourself at the persons feet means that you're courteous, and you are respectful, but you reserve respect for the person until you know them better.

Lostone, you bring up a good point. Is there a difference between being respectful towards a person and respect for a person? There very well might be. You spoke of the military. I don't like that example (and I will tell you why, in a moment). But, let's take, for instance, when you are entering someone's home that you don't know. You are courteous and yes I do suppose you ARE respectful (or should be). However, does this mean you respect them? I am not so sure, as I believe respect is something earned and if you don't know the person how could you respect them? And, in fact, even entering a person's home that you don't neccessarily even like (say, you go over to their house because a friend took you) you would STILL probably be courteous and respectful (at least, I would hope). But, it would be outrageous to say that you respect this person that you don't even like. So, I think, you have a VERY good point, there.

The reason I don't like the military example is that it is not neccessarily "respect" or even being "respectful" when you address a higher ranking officer in a respectful way but simply following protocal. It's like the chat room thing. It's sort of like Jakbird was speaking of, there is a difference between being forced to do something (out of pressure... usually over the threat of losing something ... like a job... or someone... like a buddy) and doing something willingly (from the heart because you truly believe the person deserves your honor and respect). That is why I don't like the military example. But, it did help me to see what you were saying.

[JakBird]

The reason I don't like the military example is that it is not neccessarily "respect" or even being "respectful" when you address a higher ranking officer in a respectful way but simply following protocal.
I'd agree with the quote above but I would not agree that it is forced on anyone. The military is entirely voluntary (excluding countries that still have a draft) and those who choose to join do so knowing what will be expected, including a tolerance for less than ideal leadership at times.

Modern military organizations have evolved over a period of several thousand years. The protocols that have developed over the centuries do have a solid foundation in hard-earned experience, even when they don't seem to make sense. An inherent respect shown for rank comes from the need for a clear chain of command when seconds count, when the enemy is charging there isn't time to debate who should be issuing orders. Even bad orders are better than uncoordinated confusion.

There is also a built-in recognition that incompetency can come with rank too. US officers are taught about illegal orders and when not to obey a superior (and the consequences if that officer was right after all). A good officer still has to demonstrate some skill in order for his men to trust him in a combat situation (Viet Nam being a good example of what happens when large numbers of poorly trained junior officers were put in charge of experienced units, dumb orders were simply ignored).

There was a recent incident in the Iraq war where a US officer clearly broke the rules by threatening to kill a prisoner in order to extract information about an imminent ambush targeting his unit. His action saved the lives of his men, but he was still brought up on charges. Rather than argue the point he admitted what he did, that it was wrong, and he'd do the same thing again. If I remember right he was given administrative punishment and allowed to retire.

In my opinion that's the quality of character that marks a master or anyone in a leadership position, the quality that earns real respect. Make the hard choice and live with the consequences, with no regrets afterward.

[MrJerseyGuy]

I don't know that the military comparison is a particularly good one. Although it has certainly sparked discussion...which is always good! I'm a former Marine and familiar with the protocol. During that time I met many superiors in rank that I had no respect for personally. But you do need to have respect for the rank. I just don't think it's analogous to the Dom/sub scenario.

LOL...I guess unless you're a sub in the military where the Dom has more rank!

[Curtis]

Okay, this is an interesting thread!

First, on the off-topic of the military analogy: The reason why I think this analogy doesn't apply to the BDSM (or cyber) scene is that in the military rank derives from a long-established chain of command/chain of heirarchy. The Commander In Chief is (theoretically) elected by the people of this nation. The authority of the generals derives from that delegated by the C-in-C, or legislated by Congress. Below Generals,ranks are determined by promotion boards and (supposedly) relative merit. You respect the rank because an authorized and qualified group of people have made an evaluation that the person holding it is also qualified. In the BDSM community there is no authorized and qualified group to hand out the titles. Anyone can claim to be a Dom/me, sub or switch with absolutely no qualifications required.

Next (still off-topic), to differ with Dslave, there are people (not many, but some right on this Forum) who I do not like one little bit, but I still have respect for them. Meaning, really, respect for some aspect of them -- their knowledge, their ability to control a situation, their ability to evaluate and work out advantagous trades for ballplayers, their skill at expressing themselves, their ability to make a fortune in a 'down' economy, etc.

Finally, to get back to the original topic, I'm going to quote myself: "Anyone can claim to be a Dom/me...with absolutely no qualifications required." This, of course, puts me solidly in the 'respect must be earned' camp. I think that, by dictionary definition, sugeneg is correct that courtesy and respect are merely different levels of the same thing. In generally accepted usage, though, they are thought of differently. I am respectful to people whom I both respect and either like or don't feel strongly about. I'm courteous to people whom I dislike but still respect. I'm discourteous to people whom I neither like nor respect (actually, I try ignoring the latter, but patience isn't my strong suit, so...). Of course, your mileage may vary.

[GaryWilcox]

You respect the rank because an authorized and qualified group of people have made an evaluation that the person holding it is also qualified. In the BDSM community there is no authorized and qualified group to hand out the titles. Anyone can claim to be a Dom/me, sub or switch with absolutely no qualifications required. Excellent point. Also, in the military, the future General begins as a Private, subordinate to the entire structure, unless he/she skips this point with an education at West Point or somesuch, in which case he has an agency that has already defined him/her as capable of leadership and capable of self-control and discipline without supervision.

[Curtis]

Oooh! Missed that point. Good one, Gary.