quote:
ORIGINAL: ELUSIVE1
A person is not a Dominant/Domme unless he has a submissive to complete him/her in the same way A woman is not a Mother until she has a child...she may have motherly feelings, but she is not called "mother' until she has a child.....
Being an Owner is contingent on having someone to own, but being Dominant is a personality trait as wel as a distinction. By the above logic, a submissive isnt really a submisive unless they have a Dominant to complete them.
So, if there are no single Dominants and no single Submissives... ther arent going to be any getting together since they cant tell who one another are.
And where would this lead all the Doms who play at parties and such but do not choose to own a sub themselves? Are they situationally Dom?
The quote makes the point the original person wanted it to, however its the opening to a fight about naming that is about as unarguable as the Submissive/Slave one. Its all a matter of personal choice for nameing and titles.
Hope that made sense, its early in the AM
DV
_____________________________
I will be your Dominate if you will be my submit - Fox
Snarko Ergo Sum
If you cannot change your mind, how are you so sure you still have one? -proverb
*Owner of Fox - collared 10/13/07*
VampiresLair