The Master’s House Boy is required to serve naked at home, regardless of who may be present, and could observe the boy go about his duties and chores. He is the House Boy and has no right to privacy.

In public areas outside the home, the boy is issued sufficient clothing or covering to comply with the law and any dress codes, including those at malls and other semi-private spaces. The boy is never required to obey any command or rule that is illegal, unsafe, or violates dress codes (See ‘Paramount Rule’).

The responsibility for questioning the suitability of clothing rests with the House Boy since the boy has the right to question (or obey or disobey) any rule at any time, subject to punishment only if he disobeys a legitimate command or rule.

In the example shown, the House Boy has just been notified that he and the Master will be traveling by automobile to the other side of town. The boy has been issued only a pair of torn skivvies (tighty whitey briefs) to wear for the day. After complying with the order to put the underwear on, the boy is seen facing the Master with palms up as if to ask, “What the fuck?”, which is why this protocol is also known as the “What The Fuck Rule”.

Any time a House Boy reasonably believes that a rule or command may be unsafe, illegal, or against any dress code, the boy is permitted to question the Master or delay compliance until the Master can be consulted and render a decision. The boy is also permitted to ask relevant questions and make his case before enforcement will be compelled. Questioning of a rule or protocol may be indirect, as shown, or direct and specific (Example: “I believe it is illegal to be in public in only your underwear, Sir”).

The range of legal clothing includes things that the Master has no interest in forcing upon the House Boy, and ripped underwear like those shown are not something that the Master would normally require of the boy. But it is also true that California law does not make it illegal to be in public wearing only tighty-whiteys, and even the torn underwear in the photo do cover all of the required body parts, so the assigned outfit and the command to wear them is technically legal.

This Master probably wouldn’t assign torn skivvies in public – not because they are illegal – but because they would draw negative attention from people who are unaware that the torn tighty-whiteys are perfectly okay. The fact that the House Boy may be embarrassed wearing them – or any other clothing or covering – is not relevant whatsoever. The Naked House Boy has no right not to be embarrassed, and if he did then he couldn’t serve as a Naked House Boy in the first place.

In the pictured scenario, the House Boy would be required to proceed to the car and travel in the torn underwear to the Master’s friend’s house for the planned visit. Perhaps the friend was having an Underwear Party and the Master wanted the boy dressed appropriately. In an unusual circumstance like this, even this Master sees the value in requiring a boy to wear only torn underwear, and every House Boy, when collared, must accept that sometimes a ‘WTF?’ will be determined to be an enforceable command that he must obey, no matter how humiliating it may turn out to be.

When the Master can not determine beyond a reasonable doubt if a questioned rule or command is in violation of the Paramount Rule (illegal, unsafe, or against dress code), the decision will always be made in favor of the House Boy. Likewise, any command or rule actually obeyed by the boy is always considered legitimate regardless of what may be questioned after the fact, because the boy has the right to voluntarily obey as well as to question any rule or command that is given. House Boys will never be punished for voluntarily obeying or exercising their right to ask about any questionable rule or command, but they will be punished for failure to obey a legitimate command or rule whether questioned or not.