inyouagain
Posts: 418
Joined: 1/6/2004 Status: offline
|
Perhaps it would help to clearly define the original question. I have an old dictionary, so does that make it good one? Speaking of dictionary, mine defines a Dom, but Domme is not to be found in my good/bad old dictionary. Does this mean Domme is a derivative of Dom, or is Domme a different kind of Dom, but still Dom? I've heard it takes a while for slang to appear... in fact have some in my good/bad old dictionary. Any comment I make could send this thread off on another tangent, where many ideas and opinions make for entertaining and interesting reading... but let's get back to the basic question and clearly define 'Dom' and for the sake of argument consider it inclusive of Domme for now. [nothing sexist, so no flames plz] Dom [L dominus Master] 1- used as a title for some monks and canons regular 2 - used as a title prefixed to the Christain name of a Portugese or Brazilian man of rank Struck out there, but since we're out of scene, let's look up 'dom' dom - abbr 1 - domestic 2 - dominant 3 - dominion Hmm... #1's out... #3's iffy... that leaves #2 dominant - very long definition... I think this is what we're looking for. My good/bad old dictionary defines 'dominant' in both noun and adjective form. Dominant defined as a noun don't seem to fit here... due to the aspect of influence over ALL others. Us individual Dom units don't ALL report to, or operate for one single Dom Biggest Boss unit, right? Dominant defined as an adjective looks like we're there perhaps? It's just disturbing to see the references to genetics there. Does this infer that being dominant is genetic... or that it could be? It would appear that dom, or dominant may be the intent of the original question. Personally, despite pneumonics I believe it's a 33/33/33 proposition as opposed to a 50/50 proposition. This neatly accommodates the classifications of Dom/switch/sub. I admit I do believe in the genetic connection: - True Dom's are born Dom. - Dom/sub switches are not Dom's, but switches. (*let's don't coin bi-Dom here ok?) - submissives are not Dom, period. * - much room here for debate folks, but essentially I feel a switch is a switch hitter, inclusive of both sides, but not predominately one or the other... ie. dominant) The inclusion of switch precludes defining Dom/sub as 50/50, or simply either the state of black or white... one or the other. There is the grey area of the switch. In summation, when boiled down to basics, there are no new Dom's other than newborn babies. Do we hold them accountable? Following that logic, why do we hold a 19 yr old Domme accountable? ... to what/who's standard(s)? She was made/born Dom, she isn't a switch, or a submissive. Your opinion nor mine will not change her acknowledged state, regardless of her age. We can only refer to her as experienced/inexperienced, good/bad, young/old?... how about black/grey/white, nope... she's already done that herself. Regardless of any label you or I place on her, she is Dom, Domme, dom or dominant. This whole thread was interesting and entertaining reading, but somewhat opinionated. Now my opinion, which also stinks, is herby deposited for your inspection. It's back on the dusty shelf for my good/bad old dictionary... and back to Master's search for a 19 yr old 'sub'! Have fun... don't get carried away... you can't fly, never could! No animals or trees were injured during the writing of this dribble. If offended, my apology in advance [5 apologies, take one: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5]
|