Old School what is it to you?

[J-Go]

I like to consider myself an “Old School Dom”. The irony of this self proclaimed title is I’m very new to being a Dom period much less defining myself as “Old School”. I had some time other day while in the mountains to think about this position of mine. What is “Old School” and what does that mean to me…hmmmm.

One of the aspects of the lifestyle that I personally find attractive is the “traditional” aspect as far as male – female D/s relationships go. Men are men and women are women, nice simple and natural.

* Disclaimer * I am hetero-sexual and Dominant, and am speaking solely from that perspective as it’s the only one I know. It’s not my intent to exclude any other choice I’m simply speaking from mine.

With that said, the term “Old School” to me simply means traditional which correlates (again to me) as respect. I personally like to treat women as …well women in the manner I was taught by my father and grandfather. Women are to be cherished, respected and are to be shown that respect. Simple things like opening a door, telling them they are beautiful, walking on the street side of the side walk allowing them the building side, putting yourself between them and a passing stranger, walking them to their car at night, holding them while they cry and are vulnerable to name only a few things. Conversely I am attracted to a woman who will not only let me be a man, but will reinforce that ideal. Now I’m from the Western United States and may have more of an “outdoor” ideal of what that is but I think most men regardless of location like to explore the wild side of the persona. I like the outdoors and sport and conflict and dirt and tough stuff. I have little tolerance for sitting quietly obedient. I like the contest of business, and (gasp!) I like being the winner! I like knowing the landscape around me and I like being in control of that landscape. So that’s me…that’s J world. But does it define “Old School” from a BDSM stand point? There is where the discussion starts.

I consider the aspect of respect and safety to be the core of “Old School” in this lifestyle.
This is my short list of “Old School” (in addition to above)

• Just because a woman is a proclaimed sub or slave does not mean she has given up the right to respect (see respect of women in above paragraph)

• Protection. It is the responsibility of the Dom to protect his sub at all times. Don’t be putting your partner in a compromising situation simply because it get’s your rocks off.

• Use of “sir” when addressing a Dom…I don’t care if you are a Dom yourself. Sir is a sign of respect not submission, when you get to know the Dom well enough to address him by mane the two of you will work that out.

• Keeping a sub’s Dom “in the loop”. There seems to be a great deal of discussion on this site about what is or is not appropriate in that vein. To me if I’m going to build a friendship with an owned or committed sub, I want their Dom to know. He deserves the respect to know who I am, how to get in contact with me and ask any questions or express any concerns he may have. It’s the responsibility IMO of the Dom to ask “do you have a Dom…who is he?” (This does not relieve the sub of disclosure of this info.) And then NOT troll in those waters for play without the Dom knowing.

• Always…every time whether on-line or in real life before you play you ask permission. If a sub in a D/s relationship shows interest in play you must get permission from their Dom…again a respect issue. The same rules apply Dom to sub…as a Dom if I’m interested in a friendship with another sub I need to let my partner know. Same rules apply to play, I will respect her enough to get permission and set ground rules.

Ok enough of my pontificating…what are your thoughts and definitions of “Old School”

[suchaminx]

Great post J-Go - thank you

*nothing else to say* whispers not often I am lost for words

minxy x

[violett]

I like your style and totally agree with minxy

[bip0lar]

yeh, i think i'll agree with vi who agreed with minxy. thanks for sharing :>

[hopperboo]

One of the aspects of the lifestyle that I personally find attractive is the “traditional” aspect as far as male – female D/s relationships go. Men are men and women are women, nice simple and natural.

+1!!!

I'm waiting to kidnap ( ) one of those "man's man" types. I haven't come across many.

[J-Go]

+1!!!

I'm waiting to kidnap ( ) one of those "man's man" types. I haven't come across many.

Keep looking, we're out here ...

[icey]

ok as always im going to open my big mouth lol
firstly i think this is a good thread J-Go
but i have to disagree with you, to me what you are saying is you are a gentleman regardless whether you are a Dom or not and yep *gasps* folks Doms are gentlemen too!

but ''old school'' if it really exists is generally considered as the good old ''olden days'' of bdsm before, ssc and rack was invented when certain etiquette was expected, in fact insisted upon.. all the boys wore leather, handkerchiefs in the correct pockets, etc, whistles in clubs,walking canes etc i believe if we were to call in a few of the old ''school guards'' they would very loudly dispute your version of it.to the people whom we now call old school the majority of us here (if you wish to take it seriously) would be considered a disgrace to put it bluntly lol

[J-Go]

Icey how dare you dissagree with me!

Seriously, from a pure BDSM stand point you are correct what you describe is "old guard". But I do wonder how much "old school" as I described it was in that lifestyle?

[guest122308]

I completely agree.. well said bro

While you consider these things to be your "old school" way of executing in the BDSM world. I think I would consider it the foundation. I very much revert to these ideals in most any situation, but am open to and practice a lot of the other aspsect, but I find that the further from the foundation ideals of respect (her's mostly) the lest I am inclined to them. Still open to them, just less inclined..

[Ozme52]

One wiki-perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Guard_leather

[icey]

i think in ''bdsm terms'' what we call the ''old guard'' type thing is whats also considered old school ..ermm i think im kind of losing myself here somewhere along the way lol
to me personally what you described has nothing to do with any particular form of ''lifestyle'' simply good old fashioned gentlemanly manners and values.
btw thats not meant to be offensive in the slightest!

[PropertyOfMasterJoey]

Master and i are alot like that. i'm the type of girl that wants to stay home, cook, clean, and hopefully one day take care of the kids, and other things that stereotypical women do but freakin femminist made it to where i can't live the lifestyle i prefer because it goes agaisnt the idea of free women or some bs like that. Master loves that i'm like that cuz He's the type that wants to go to work, come home to his hot meal waiting on the table. That's the W/way both of U/us were raised and that's how W/we like it.

[hopperboo]

Master and i are alot like that. i'm the type of girl that wants to stay home, cook, clean, and hopefully one day take care of the kids, and other things that stereotypical women do but freakin femminist made it to where i can't live the lifestyle i prefer because it goes agaisnt the idea of free women or some bs like that. Master loves that i'm like that cuz He's the type that wants to go to work, come home to his hot meal waiting on the table. That's the W/way both of U/us were raised and that's how W/we like it.

+1 (I'm going off on a little tangent for a moment)...

I think many so-called feminist have dishonored the stay-at-home wife and stay-at-home mother. For some reason it is believed to be a lazy woman's job, wait - no, not a job at all.

Personally I believe there is no higher calling, no higher priority and no higher HONOR than to stay home and raise your own children instead of having children and then sending them to a day care to be raised.

I have some experience with this, and let me tell you...no matter how much a child loves a babysitter, a grandmother, or any caregiver nothing can replace a mother.

Again...wonderful post. It's nice to see some women that feel like I do too.



Edited to add: I don't think being sexist is that big of deal...honestly. I wish there were more sexist men and women. I'd rather scream out the door to my husband, "You're sexist for not letting me cut down that tree!" than actually go and cut down that tree by myself.

Cutting down trees is for boys.

[claire]

Master and i are alot like that. i'm the type of girl that wants to stay home, cook, clean, and hopefully one day take care of the kids, and other things that stereotypical women do but freakin femminist made it to where i can't live the lifestyle i prefer because it goes agaisnt the idea of free women or some bs like that. Master loves that i'm like that cuz He's the type that wants to go to work, come home to his hot meal waiting on the table. That's the W/way both of U/us were raised and that's how W/we like it.

RANT

This is a bit off topic, but as a feminist, I can't seem to let it slide. Feminism is about having choices. In the good 'ol 50's all women were expected to fulfill this role regardless of temperament. It was so much so, that if a man and a woman held the same job the man was paid more. because he had a family to support. Of course that ignores the fact that some women were single, divorced or widowed and were supporting a family. Women were also often denied jobs because they would just get married and quit soon or get pregnant and quit. If a husband had a credit card it was only in his name. If he and his wife got divorced, all of the credit history for mortgages etc. were in his name only. It was and still is society that denigrates stay at home moms, depicting them as wearing fuzzy slippers with their feet up, eating bon-bons and watching soap operas. How much value does our society place on homemakers? What kind of programs are in place to make it easier for women to stay at home? What kind of retirement is place for these women or/men. The economy is now structured so that it takes two incomes to come any where near the basic lifestyle my parents had and for some of you, your grandparents. We blame all of the problems we have today with violence and health of our children on everything except the fact that they have no home. Teachers are at fault for poor achievement, not the fact that with two working parents there is no time for parents to supervise homework etc. Our children and ourselves are getting fatter because no one has time to buy and cook from scratch, so we depend on fatty, salty, packaged food and take-out. We can't stay home when sick, so kids pass germs to other kids and we pass germs to our coworkers - because we don't have enough sick days to cover both our children's illnesses and our own. What about maternity leave - 6 weeks is not enough to bond with a new baby and give it the start it needs. The European Union is looking at expanding maternity leave because the minimum of 14 weeks that women get in some countries, is not enough. So don't blame feminists - blame the priorities of the society in which you live and the legislators for making those laws.

As a feminist I am about choice. If you choose to be a stay at home mom, then you should be able to raise your family on what your husband makes and have some assurance of retirement should he die or divorce you. If you are not content staying home then you should have the same job opportunities as men have. If there were more stay at home moms, then it wouldn't be so hard on the single parents who have to work, because they would have more support and resources right in their own neighborhood.If you are a man and domestically inclined and your wife likes to work, you should not be ridiculed for being Mr. Mom.

I don't know when feminists got such a bad name, but it is about equal opportunity, about valuing women in all of their roles and seeing them as contributing members of society what ever they decide to do.

Rant over.

*I know that there are many single parents and families with two working parents who do an excellent job of caring for and raising their children. My point is that it is much harder to do this than it should be.

[icey]

i dont want to detract from the thread and especially afer ambers great post but i cant help responding to this bit

How much value does our society place on homemakers? .

tbh im amazed these days that anyone can ask this question i really really am..so much positive fuss is made about mothers staying at home to raise their kids being the homemakers etc how strong they are how amazing how much hard work it is how valuable they are etc, and although working mums get credit too they still sometims get a little criticism for choosing to work, if anything the tide seems to have changed a bit again.
and in case anyones not sure, im a stay at home mum i always have been other than for a brief period, i was a single parent for many years and i have never ever had anyone treat me any differently in any of those ''roles''.

[PropertyOfMasterJoey]

RANT

This is a bit off topic, but as a feminist, I can't seem to let it slide. Feminism is about having choices. In the good 'ol 50's all women were expected to fulfill this role regardless of temperament. It was so much so, that if a man and a woman held the same job the man was paid more. because he had a family to support. Of course that ignores the fact that some women were single, divorced or widowed and were supporting a family. Women were also often denied jobs because they would just get married and quit soon or get pregnant and quit. If a husband had a credit card it was only in his name. If he and his wife got divorced, all of the credit history for mortgages etc. were in his name only. It was and still is society that denigrates stay at home moms, depicting them as wearing fuzzy slippers with their feet up, eating bon-bons and watching soap operas. How much value does our society place on homemakers? What kind of programs are in place to make it easier for women to stay at home? What kind of retirement is place for these women or/men. The economy is now structured so that it takes two incomes to come any where near the basic lifestyle my parents had and for some of you, your grandparents. We blame all of the problems we have today with violence and health of our children on everything except the fact that they have no home. Teachers are at fault for poor achievement, not the fact that with two working parents there is no time for parents to supervise homework etc. Our children and ourselves are getting fatter because no one has time to buy and cook from scratch, so we depend on fatty, salty, packaged food and take-out. We can't stay home when sick, so kids pass germs to other kids and we pass germs to our coworkers - because we don't have enough sick days to cover both our children's illnesses and our own. What about maternity leave - 6 weeks is not enough to bond with a new baby and give it the start it needs. The European Union is looking at expanding maternity leave because the minimum of 14 weeks that women get in some countries, is not enough. So don't blame feminists - blame the priorities of the society in which you live and the legislators for making those laws.

As a feminist I am about choice. If you choose to be a stay at home mom, then you should be able to raise your family on what your husband makes and have some assurance of retirement should he die or divorce you. If you are not content staying home then you should have the same job opportunities as men have. If there were more stay at home moms, then it wouldn't be so hard on the single parents who have to work, because they would have more support and resources right in their own neighborhood.If you are a man and domestically inclined and your wife likes to work, you should not be ridiculed for being Mr. Mom.

I don't know when feminists got such a bad name, but it is about equal opportunity, about valuing women in all of their roles and seeing them as contributing members of society what ever they decide to do.

Rant over.

*I know that there are many single parents and families with two working parents who do an excellent job of caring for and raising their children. My point is that it is much harder to do this than it should be.

i don't mean femminists in general because i totally agree with the idea behind it but around here there's a particular group of them tat are constantly putting me down for my decision to move in with Master straight out of highschool and immediatly mold to the "house-wife" lifestyle (though W/we're not married yet W/we plan to one day) They say terrible things about me and some even to my face about how i'm enabling men to walk all over women (lol if they only knew He was my Master they'd burn me at the stake) or how i sould have gone to college and made something of myself, as if i'm nothing without that degree. i had the grades to go to any college i wanted to but my family just couldn't afford it. i got lucky cuz Master's family owns this big company so at least as of now W/we're able to keep up the lifestyle W/we prefer. If one day i had to take up a job i would but i want it to be my choice not because a group of women dictated my decision.

[blythe spirit]

I don't know when feminists got such a bad name, but it is about equal opportunity, about valuing women in all of their roles and seeing them as contributing members of society what ever they decide to do.

Please forgive me for interrupting this thread to answer claire's question.

Whilst I believe like all causes, feminism had it's place and brought about some needed changes meant to benefit women; in the beginning too many of the feminists were "in-your-face" radicals, who were misandrists and spoke openly of their hatred for the patriarchy. And any woman who would do a man's bidding, (i.e. 1950s household) was spoken of derogatorially and looked down upon. It was to the point, that a woman was ashamed to say she was "only" a homemaker.

And in the end, what did women really gain? They now have the right to work 8 and 12 hour days and then come home and cook, clean, do the laundry, get the kids ready for bed, etc., etc., etc. and still have the energy to feel sexy for her man. lol

I now return you to the original thread currently in progress.

[tired.of.vanilla{DJ}]

so my "Master" is a Mistress....but She is like You J-Go. i feel like a treasure.

[Master Rabbit]

old school means , you can take care of yourself,plus accept the responsibilty for your slave, and know her needs,as well as yours

[~faerie~]

old school means , you can take care of yourself,plus accept the responsibilty for your slave, and know her needs,as well as yours

Master i agree with you completely. Hugs!!!! you are the best!!

[~faerie~]

J-Go, i like your idea of old school. it seems to fit
and icey i see your point as well. it;ll be interesting in what direction that this goes.

[damyanti]

With that said, the term “Old School” to me simply means traditional which correlates (again to me) as respect. I personally like to treat women as …well women in the manner I was taught by my father and grandfather. Women are to be cherished, respected and are to be shown that respect. Simple things like opening a door, telling them they are beautiful, walking on the street side of the side walk allowing them the building side, putting yourself between them and a passing stranger, walking them to their car at night, holding them while they cry and are vulnerable to name only a few things.

I have to say this part really impressed me, because even among those who are generally polite,...its not often these days one meets someone who knows proper rules of etiquette.

And now that I have you nice and mellow, let me piss you off...

Am I the only who has an issue with this part? (not that that ever stopped me before, lol.)

• Keeping a sub’s Dom “in the loop”. There seems to be a great deal of discussion on this site about what is or is not appropriate in that vein. To me if I’m going to build a friendship with an owned or committed sub, I want their Dom to know. He deserves the respect to know who I am, how to get in contact with me and ask any questions or express any concerns he may have. It’s the responsibility IMO of the Dom to ask “do you have a Dom…who is he?” (This does not relieve the sub of disclosure of this info.) And then NOT troll in those waters for play without the Dom knowing.

It makes sense if what you are talking about involves cyber sex or meeting for the first time in r/l and thats worthy of respect. But if you mean just befriending a woman who happens to be a sub, that sounds sexist and chuvinistic. What if that sub is male? Or switch? Do you inform a sub when you befriend her dom?

Being a sub doesnt mean I am irresposible, immature, weak and or incapable of looking after myself. Or dishonest. Or that dom gets to pick my friends.

[J-Go]

And now that I have you nice and mellow, let me piss you off...

Damyanti, thanks for the reply.
I can’t really submit a post asking for peoples opinions and then be pissed when they give them now can I? Particularly from such an attractive intelligent source!

Am I the only who has an issue with this part? (not that that ever stopped me before, lol.)

Till now, you seem to be..*looks around*


It makes sense if what you are talking about involves cyber sex or meeting for the first time in r/l and thats worthy of respect. But if you mean just befriending a woman who happens to be a sub, that sounds sexist and chuvinistic. What if that sub is male? Or switch? Do you inform a sub when you befriend her dom?

Being a sub doesnt mean I am irresposible, immature, weak and or incapable of looking after myself. Or dishonest. Or that dom gets to pick my friends. [/QUOTE]

Let me start by restating that personally I don’t care what flavor the relationship is D/s s/D gay straight, as I posted I’m speaking from my perspective as a hetero Dom as that is the only one I can speak to with any real knowledge.

I guess I’m lost here. First off I’m not exactly sure what defines a sexist or chauvinist? Then again I live in the part of the world that coined the expression “The sun don’t shine on the same dogs ass every day” I still don’t know what the hell that means! I guess being a country boy I’m unclear as to what is sexist or chauvinistic about a simple show of respect. Now I possess testicles and admittedly need things spelled out clearly for me, but I don’t see how you can respect a woman on one hand and be sexist or chauvinistic on the other. Since when did an extra effort to respect a relationship that is in place become sexist? How does sending a message to a partner saying “Hey I met your (insert title here) the other day, delightful person! She had many great things to say about you and I just wanted to introduce myself…” become belittling to a sub or anyone for that matter?

Allow me be clear as you do bring up a very good point of casual meetings. If I meet, let’s say a “person” for the sake of being inclusive in this discussion, in the chat room and introduce myself and even engage in some private chat, I’m probably not going to run to the “partner” and say “hey I talked to your partner is that OK”? What the content of the discussion is will direct that. If the conversation is benign in nature, simply getting to know someone, location family, interests that sort of stuff, I will treat that as a “meet and greet”. If I get to know them better, chat with them more I will introduce myself to their partner, one because I feel it a show of respect for the RELATIONSHIP, and two because I’d simply like to get to know them as well.

Now there is a “whole other side to that dogs ass” as this has been my experience on this and other forums. As soon as anything sexual or play in nature is sent to me privately (suggestive notes, pictures, invites to play etc.) I’m contacting the partner and introducing myself as well as full disclosure to my partner. Now before we get all up in arms on a privacy issue, I’ve got no moral or evangelical need to “tell on” anyone, I simply believe the honorable thing to do is introducing myself. If someone wants to play, great! Let’s get all parties involved and show them the respect they deserve as our partners…there’s a concept!

Old School? Yes…Sexist? Please.

[damyanti]

[B]Since when did an extra effort to respect a relationship that is in place become sexist? How does sending a message to a partner saying “Hey I met your (insert title here) the other day, delightful person! She had many great things to say about you and I just wanted to introduce myself…” become belittling to a sub or anyone for that matter?

Allow me be clear as you do bring up a very good point of casual meetings. If I meet, let’s say a “person” for the sake of being inclusive in this discussion, in the chat room and introduce myself and even engage in some private chat, I’m probably not going to run to the “partner” and say “hey I talked to your partner is that OK”? What the content of the discussion is will direct that. If the conversation is benign in nature, simply getting to know someone, location family, interests that sort of stuff, I will treat that as a “meet and greet”. If I get to know them better, chat with them more I will introduce myself to their partner, one because I feel it a show of respect for the RELATIONSHIP, and two because I’d simply like to get to know them as well.
[/COLOR]

Because before she is a (insert title here) she is a (insert name here). Its a power exchange she shares with her partner, not anyone else, so in that regard you being a Dom to me makes no more importance than saying you are straight. I guess the reason I couldn't take your statement at face value is because I value friendship and bond of trust very highly...and it did sound as if you were going behind subs back (because you didn't trust her to mention it on her own) to inform or ask permission from her Dom if you can be friends with his sub.

Personally, I don't think that a couple has to share all of their friends, I don't think its possible or healthy. And I draw the line where he gets to pick or screen or veto my friends.

If you want to meet your friends partner, then you ask her to introduce you. Going off behind her back and you two sorting it out on the level of higher authority, it changes your dynamic with her. To me your duty of friendship goes to the person you are friends with first, and their partner second. I notice, you didn't say nothing about your sub getting a phone call from the other dom in which he informs her of your friendship with his sub?
And what if your friend doesn't want you to be friends with her partner, because she thought she could confide in you without fear of things going back to him?

(of course when I say friendship, thats all I mean "vanilla" friendship)

[DowntownAmber]

I'll admit I initially read this with a chuckle and a good shake of my head. However, you've neither met J and me in "real life," nor does it seem you're familiar with our personalities through posts here at the Library; so I withdrew the chuckle, shook my head much less ardently and will respond to your concerns. (If J feels like there's anything he wants to add, I'm sure he'll chime in over my shoulder.)

[B][COLOR="Magenta"]I guess the reason I couldn't take your statement at face value is because I value friendship and bond of trust very highly...and it did sound as if you were going behind subs back (because you didn't trust her to mention it on her own) to inform or ask permission from her Dom if you can be friends with his sub.

If I speak with a Dom or a sub in chat and they send a note to J saying they met me and we had a great conversation, I would be flattered. Who doesn't like to be acknowledged?

Introductions to me aren't sinister or underhanded, so I have a really hard time looking at them as "going behind your friend's back." How does saying "hello" translate into tattling on someone?

An intro doesn't mean that my new friend and my Dom have to be best of buddies or even continue a correspondence either, it's simply nice that the person I met has recognized and acknowledged that I have a significant other that I care about and is an important part of my life. Frankly, I consider it respectful to me as well when someone I meet greets J of their own accord - that single action immediately shows they have no shady intentions or ulterior motives that they feel the need to cover up with me. It's as much about respect to me as it has anything to do with respect to my Dom.

[B][COLOR="Magenta"]Personally, I don't think that a couple has to share all of their friends, I don't think its possible or healthy. And I draw the line where he gets to pick or screen or veto my friends.

I'm again not sure how greeting a new friend's significant other translates into any of this. I don't consider it appropriate that friends are selected for me either, but I'm missing where someone popping off a note to J means he is suddenly sharing them or screening them? He simply has met them.

[B][COLOR="Magenta"]If you want to meet your friends partner, then you ask her to introduce you. Going off behind her back and you two sorting it out on the level of higher authority, it changes your dynamic with her. To me your duty of friendship goes to the person you are friends with first, and their partner second.

I think you may be warping common courtesy here because the folks involved are of a D/s persuasion, and applying some additional and unnecessary undertones to this as a result.

Let me break it down in vanilla speak:

Say you were to meet a new neighbor, and hit it off with them. You talk a few times over the fence, as you both seem to spend time in the backyard. You become friends, but have never seen their spouse as s/he tends to be at work and rarely in the yard. You know where the spouse works, however, so one day you drop in and say, "hi, I'm Amber. I've chatted a few times with your hubby over the fence and wanted to introduce myself. He's a really swell guy."

I'm missing how this is so shady?

[B][COLOR="Magenta"]I notice, you didn't say nothing about your sub getting a phone call from the other Dom in which he informs her of your friendship with his sub?

Two points to make here... First, J considers it polite to introduce himself. If the other Dom in question feels the same way and wants to contact me, they're certainly more than welcome but it's clearly not J's responsibility or business to ask him to approach me. Second, J tells me about women he meets and is friends with all on his own. (Men too, for that matter.) He has several close female friends that he talks to - some of them I am close with, some of them not so much, but I know when he sees and talks to them.

[B][COLOR="Magenta"]And what if your friend doesn't want you to be friends with her partner, because she thought she could confide in you without fear of things going back to him?

I thought partners didn't get to dictate who their significant other's friends were? If a couple of Doms become friends through one or the other's sub, then they become friends. *shrugs* Bigger tragedies have certainly occurred in the world...lol I don't mean to sound callous here, but if the sub then has to worry about sharing secrets with one over the other, well, that's up to the sub to deal with.

[B][COLOR="Magenta"]Because before she is a (insert title here) she is a (insert name here). Its a power exchange she shares with her partner, not anyone else...

People in a couple are individuals, yes. I'm nearly as Objectivist as they come so this is a concept not lost on me in the least. But none of that changes that they are also part of an entity, a relationship that they willingly choose to be a part of and identify themselves with, so why should they be insulted when other people also see them not only as an individual but as "so and so's partner?" That being the case, it is respectful to acknowledge them as themselves and also as a part of the entity they represent.

Yes, I am an individual. I identify myself on my own terms, as does my partner. However, I am also, by my own proclamation "my Dom's sub" and "my boyfriend's" partner. I chose this, I am proud of it, and if I get offended that someone recognizes me as that which I have chosen to be, I think I may need to re-evaluate what I genuinely feel about the relationship. There is a "me," there is a "him," but there is also an "us." I am very pleased when others see and respect the "us," and reach out to my partner.

Not to do that is also to disrespect me, because it shows a lack of respect for that which I as an individual have chosen.

[damyanti]

Let me break it down in vanilla speak:

Say you were to meet a new neighbor, and hit it off with them. You talk a few times over the fence, as you both seem to spend time in the backyard. You become friends, but have never seen their spouse as s/he tends to be at work and rarely in the yard. You know where the spouse works, however, so one day you drop in and say, "hi, I'm Amber. I've chatted a few times with your hubby over the fence and wanted to introduce myself. He's a really swell guy."

I'm missing how this is so shady?

/B][/SIZE]

I still think that if you befriend someone and you progress to the point where its natural to meet their significant other, it would be more normal to organize introduction by inviting or meeting them (as a couple) for coffee, dinner...

No, it would not be shady and I am sure you are a very nice person...but if a person I have never met before, showed up at my place of work to tell me that they enjoyed chatting with my boyfriend, I would find it weird and a bit frightening.

[SubmissiveDoll]

I have to say this part really impressed me, because even among those who are generally polite,...its not often these days one meets someone who knows proper rules of etiquette.

And now that I have you nice and mellow, let me piss you off...

Am I the only who has an issue with this part? (not that that ever stopped me before, lol.)



It makes sense if what you are talking about involves cyber sex or meeting for the first time in r/l and thats worthy of respect. But if you mean just befriending a woman who happens to be a sub, that sounds sexist and chuvinistic. What if that sub is male? Or switch? Do you inform a sub when you befriend her dom?

Being a sub doesnt mean I am irresposible, immature, weak and or incapable of looking after myself. Or dishonest. Or that dom gets to pick my friends.

Actually I didn't have a problem with that part. I actually think it's polite. We're not dealing with sexism or anything here. It's just a nice thing to do, and I do the same when dealing with a Dom. If I befriend him/her I talk to their sub. If all works out, I'll have two friends instead of just one. However, I simply think it's polite, and saves potential trouble for all parties concerned in the future.

[GearJammer]

Whether it's called old school or any other name, what you describe in post 1 is pretty much how I believe.

Someone observed that what you said merely defines a gentleman. Perhaps so, but then, again, that's about right. Both gentlemen and non-gentlemen can go about being Doms. Only gentlemen will carry the concepts you described into the Dom/sub situation. In the end, then, it's the same thing.

[icey]

i cant see what is sexist in introducing yourself to a subs Dom/me at all, i think it's politeful and respectful of both the Dom/me sub yourself and your partner...think about it, if for eg you're in a pub and a conversation comes about would you say btw its been nice talking with you but i shant bother introducing you to my wife/husband stood here by my side.

i disagree with the whole a subs not allowed to talk to a Dom/me without express permission beforehand thing though! unless it's an online sexual play type thing which imo is a totally different thing again.

[violett]

I am enjoying following this thread - and if my master wasn't as described in the first post I doubt I'd be with him