What’s in a Name: Master

All over the internet there are several common questions and topics that get exhausted to the point of being mute. Some of these I’ve even written about here. Topics that get batted around the blogosphere and kinkosphere often are submissive vs slave, SCC vs RACK, BDSM and abuse, True and Real to name a few.

Another common discussion is the idea of the name/title of Master. I’ve heard it all.

“You can’t be a Master without a slave.”

“You can’t call your Dominant, Master without defining yourself as a slave.”

“That title has to be earned.”

“You aren’t a true Master because…” (don’t get me started on ‘true-ness’ again)

“Master isn’t a title it’s a personality characteristic; you either are or you aren’t”

Blah. Blah. Blah.

All of these things really irk me to no end. First, there is no universal definition of a Master other than the dictionary definition which if taken from Merriam-Webster is (please note the definition in bold):

1 a (1): a male teacher (2): a person holding an academic degree higher than a bachelor’s but lower than a doctor’s boften capitalized : a revered religious leader c: a worker or artisan qualified to teach apprentices d (1): an artist, performer, or player of consummate skill

(2): a great figure of the past (as in science or art) whose work serves as a model or ideal2 a: one having authority over another : ruler , governor b: one that conquers or masters : victor , superior <in the new challenger the champion found his master> c: a person licensed to command a merchant ship d (1): one having control (2): an owner especially of a slave or animal e: the employer especially of a servant f (1)dialect : husband (2): the male head of a household

3 a (1)archaic : mr. (2): a youth or boy too young to be called mister —used as a title b: the eldest son of a Scottish viscount or baron

4 a: a presiding officer in an institution or society (as a college) b: any of several officers of court appointed to assist (as by hearing and reporting) a judge

5 a: a master mechanism or device b: an original from which copies can be made ; especially : a master recording (as a magnetic tape)

If we reserve ourselves to the only definition that I really care about, it appears that anyone that owns or has control over a person in any aspect can be a master. I don’t really agree with the Dominants that call themselves Master just because they like to hear it. However if someone is an owner and Dominant to someone, by all means you can have the title or name of Master. There is nothing keeping them from that.

Now can you be a Master if you can’t manage yourself? This question can also be directed to Dominants and I’ve actually talked about this before. A Dominant person in a relationship should have more control over themselves and be even quietly visible in public as someone in control. It’s just one of the qualities that should be more prominent in a Dominant, I think.

Master wouldn’t be a master without me. I don’t think you can be an unattached master, unless you a master at something (craft, art, etc). It just doesn’t fit. I don’t really feel you can be a slave without a Master either. You can have slave tendencies and want to be a slave, but until you can give yourself over to another, you aren’t a slave.

I know this is going to stir a lot of people to disagreement, and that’s fine, but be prepared to explain your side fully so that I can see your opinion completely. I’m just that way.

–luna

Possibly related posts:

1. Collared vs. Owned
2. Unbalanced Stability makes for a Balanced D/s Relationship
3. A Myth Newcomers Should Be Aware Off
4. Keeping It Real: Fakers and Wannabe Lifestylers
5. Types of BDSM Relationships