Assuming that, like the public clubs/dungeons I’m familiar with, the designated smoking area would be restricted from playing/sceneing and the dominant was wrong to instruct his submissive to enter it in-scene regardless of whether she intruded on anyone at all. In addition, the dominant was wrong for compounding the intrusion by involving you in their scene without your invitation or consent.
Where I part ways with you is your attempt to equate being spoken to by someone using third person to be the same as being involuntarily included in a scene. To accomplish this you present flawed characterizations limited to a rigid either/or premise of being a “witness�?or a “participant�?in a public dungeon. Trying to make this distinction seems a bit like attempting to split a hair with an axe. In doing so I think you create a slippery slope for the dilution and pollution of the principals and values you site in your original and follow up posts.
In your response to josh you emphasize the literal interpretations of the terms participate and consent yet you do not apply the same rigor of interpretation when drawing your distinction between being a “witness�?or “participant.�?nbsp; By definition, a participant is someone who “shares, takes part, or becomes involved in�?a particular experience or activity. In this literal translation, josh’s perspective very accurately defines a person who “just by walking in the door�?of a public dungeon becomes a participant because they do share, take part, and “become involved in the experiences of others.�?nbsp; At best, the only literal distinction is the degree of involvement rather than the distinct separation you attempt to portray.
The person you characterize as a “witness�?may choose to limit his/her participation to being a passive observer but is still, nonetheless, a participant simply by being present and “sharing or taking part in�?the activities and interaction of the environment. Even though a person might sit in a chair all night doing nothing more than observing what goes on, their presence in the dungeon does not occur in a hermetically sealed vacuum. By definition, the mere presence of the “witness�?constitutes interaction simply because she or he influences and will be influenced by the other participants who are present. To claim that they did not “share, take part, or become involved in�?and, therefore, had not been a “participant�?in a BDSM dungeon event would be a severe case of denial on their part.
musie raises a salient point by asking if the dungeon had written protocol regarding a submissive speaking in third person to someone other than her or his dominant. As you point out, the host had rules limited to defining what can or cannot be done “play wise.�?nbsp; This is a fairly basic standard although specific rules may vary from one site to another and some may include other rules such the use and care of the facility and equipment. It is highly unlikely, however, that a public dungeon would have rules as specific as who can speak to whom or that a person must speak proper English. Whether the dungeon is operated on the basis of a club or a stand-alone business, those who operate public dungeons must be concerned with the bottom line. Unless the host/owner(s) are wealthy enough to absorb the costs, they must at least operate on a break-even basis if not making a profit on the services they are selling. For this reason they are not likely to establish stringent rules (let alone protocol) that would limit the attractiveness to their customer base, thus reducing their income. So long as it does not jeopardize the host or owner’s legal liability and supports the financial realities of providing such a service, they will tend to have the least restrictive environment with regard to their customer’s behavior, aside from expectations of civility and the limitations for playing/sceneing.
Whatever term the proprietor chooses to use, once you pay your admission or make a donation (and sign the waiver agreements some provide) you have consented to participate within the limits of whatever rules govern the dungeon. Although it is not impossible, it is likely you won’t know or be known by everyone that is present. In the case of someone speaking to other participants in third person, no rules have been violated if no rule exists that specifically forbids someone who does so. In lieu of this fact, you once again raise the issue of “generally accepted decorum�?as the barometer for the correctness of a person speaking in third person to someone other than his or her dominant.
This is a rather specious argument for the very reasons you pointed out in another post where you purported that members of private groups only reflect what they do at home with significant others and friends rather than reflecting “common�?or “basic public scene decorum.�?nbsp; The same limitation is just as true for the decorum you and your friends are familiar with and prefer; it only reflects the decorum you prefer and are familiar with and nothing more.
There are other folks who lay claim to the same extent of experience, involvement, and knowledge as you have about yourself and your friends. They would vehemently disagree with your position on speaking in third person, seeking permission to speak at all, or seeking permission to enter or exit different areas of the dungeon from someone other than their dominant. These forms of deportment are part of the “generally accepted decorum�?that they are familiar with and prefer. This would be their truth and reality because they are part of the “generally accepted decorum�?they and their friends prefer and are accustomed to in the venues they are familiar with. Generalizing this perspective beyond the limits of their awareness, preference, and experience would be no more accurate or authoritative than you doing so.
Where the slope gets slippery is that your perspective can be generalized and distorted to include almost anything as “training techniques, play, beliefs or relationship dynamics.�?This assortment of categorizations can be conveniently applied, either stringently or vaguely, to include almost any behavior in a way that buttresses your perspective that someone has committed a breach of etiquette or protocol because they do something you personally don’t care for. Perhaps Z and katy attend the same dungeon event as me and he has required her to use his favorite shampoo, bath wash, or perhaps perfume that has a fragrance I find repulsive. Take your pick as this certainly could qualify as either play or a relationship dynamic. It certainly fits well with the skewed guise of being just a “witness�?to this scenario and makes the case that, as my stomach churns from the odor, I have been forced to inhale her scent without consent.
I have a friend who easily slips into your proposition of “witnessing language�?versus having it “directed towards�?at you. She does not always speak proper English and can be hard to understand at times. I wonder if the people at the club she attends with her Master consider her to be an imposition, inappropriate, rude, thoughtless, or inconsiderate when she speaks to someone other than her Master. If they don’t, should they be educated that they have “lost the essence�?of “Leather/BDSM/Ms/Ds�?because they do not see her as you would? And what about her Master or Z? Would it seem appropriate to hand down an indictment on both for disregarding “the very heart and soul of Leather/BDSM, M/s and D/s�?because they have “forced�?what you say are their “training techniques, play, beliefs, or relationship dynamics�?on me or others?
I find little substance to support your claim that being spoken to by someone not using proper English constitutes an act of imposing his or her beliefs “on to the masses�?or “forcing�?their thoughts on others, carrying an ultimatum of “get on board or ship out.�?nbsp; Moreover, You state that consent is the “essence of Leather/BDSM/Ms/Ds.�?nbsp; I’m sure anyone who disagrees with this would be at a loss trying support their disagreement and soundly rebuked. The concept of mutual consent is the foundation from which individuals find acceptance to seek pleasure and personal fulfillment by engaging in activities that can be harmful, illegal, considered socially unacceptable, politically incorrect, as well as judged immoral and sinful by others.
In your response to Z, however, you equate the act of being spoken to in third person to be the same as a physical assault. Elevating something as benign as being spoken to in third person to equal the experiences of those who have suffered the viciousness of non-consensual, physical assaults seriously dilutes the importance of consent while diminishing the wounds and scars of those who have been victimized by a far greater degree of force and disregard for mutual consent than being assaulted by someone asking politely; “may this girl speak.�?
Questions on the table now
You already have your mind made up that it is inappropriate for a dominant to require his submissive/slave to speak to others in third person, request permission to enter or leave a room, or simply to speak. It is quite simple to explain why it IS appropriate for a dominant to require his or her submissive/slave to:
A. Speak to everyone in using their version of third person speech.
B. Request permission from anyone that might hear the request for permission to speak.
C. Request permission from anyone that might hear the request for permission to enter/leave.
It is a protocol between the two of them that is no less appropriate than the protocol you have with your submissive/slave regarding someone who would like to see the equipment in your gun case. No one has a right to negate your protocol anymore than you have to negate theirs.
It is this particular dominant’s right to require the submissive/slave who has willingly chosen to submit to the will of this dominant to do so, plain and simple.
The dominant is merely exercising her or his control and preference over the deportment of the submissive/slave, not anyone else and nothing more than that. Not everyone will find it to be a preference or pleasing, but the submissive/slave has not agreed to serve, please, or submit to them. She or he has consented to serve this particular dominant only.
These are tenets of D/s or BDSM that are just as sacrosanct as mutual consent and far more so than other concepts you have posited.
For the very same reason, it would be inappropriate for this particular dominant to require that the submissive/slave:
D. During a humiliation scene walking up to strangers and use verbal humiliation language instructed by the dominant to say to strangers.
I will assume here that the “strangers�?are people who have not agreed to play/scene with this particular dominant. Clearly the dominant has no right to include them without first informing and inviting them as well as receiving their consent. In as much as it is inappropriate to insert yourself into someone else’s scene/play without invitation or permission, it is just as inappropriate to include someone in play/scene who has not agreed to be.
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
