Respect

[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 ).

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

[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.