RE: How many Doms were subs first?

RE: How many Doms were subs first? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master

Message

SimplyMichael -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/16/2007 1:03:08 PM)
I have a question for those who see doing some bottoming, apprenticing, or anything short of springing out fully formed ( I love that!) is bad/weak/wrong/whatever. What is it you feel you would lose if you did?

Wildfleurs -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/16/2007 1:29:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael I have a question for those who see doing some bottoming, apprenticing, or anything short of springing out fully formed ( I love that!) is bad/weak/wrong/whatever. What is it you feel you would lose if you did? I said I wasn't going to get involved in this thread, but apparently I just can't resist a car wreck. I think that dominance is not something that can be taught, so I don't think apprenticing is about learning how to be a dominant, and I apologize if I gave that impression. What I do think apprenticing helps is to learn specific SM-related skills that can certainly bleed into areas of dominance and submission, but aren't inherently related to dominance and submission. I think most basely dominance is learned by doing, learning, communicating, growing, and being in touch with who you are and what you want. I'm not a proponent of switching to learn SM skills, but there's certainly plenty of people who do it and it works for them, so its all good. But I do think that apprenticing and switching are two separate concepts/paths towards learning, while you (Michael) seem to be lumping them together. C~

MadRabbit -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/16/2007 3:45:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit .... a 53 year old man who views submission in terms of weakness and humilitation. Since this is absolutely not my belief at all, and you won't find it posted anywhere under my name, I hafta conclude that once more you're projecting your own confused thought processes onto me. G'won, tell me how you weren't referring to me; it's just a remorseless barrage of blanks from you, ay? lol Focus. Well...since you have spent the last few pages taking a shit on my...hmmm...lifestyle orientation, sexual orientation, sexual choices, lifestyle choices, age, dominance and viewpoints, allow me to point out how you have in fact stated this is your view. Lets take a few examples... Lets begin with your Dominant hard wiring that you pontificate about... quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 Much mighty DOMINANT that I obviously am, I don't own the company where I work nor am I even the manager! <gasp> But my Dom hard-wiring still plays a role because it IS who I am. The boss man tells me what order he wants particular jobs done but he does not presume to tell me how to do them. And when we do have a difference of opinion, rest assured I'm not one to just stand there all head-bowed and dumb-struck "taking my medicine" just because he's tha boss. In the outside world, being a Dom tends to manifest itself slightly differently to my relationships in that I will NOT be dominated, disrespected or talked down to in general. If that means "creating a scene", even one that may cause embarrassment or violence, so be it.... The problem with having a black and white, up is down, left is right rationale to people is the fact that the opposite of black HAS to be white, the opposite of up HAS to be down, and the opposite of left HAS to be right. By attributing a strong will and a desire to fight back when disrespected to your "Dominant hard wiring" and not your individual personality, then you are, in fact, auatomatically attributing the opposite of that to the "Submissive hard wiring". Hence, logically, you are saying that submissives are weak willed, "stand there dumbstruck and take their medicine", and allow people to walk all over them, because these are the opposites of what define your "Dominant hard wiring". So you are, in fact, saying submissives are weak willed and doormats, because to have the opposite of your "Dominant hard wiring" and therefore be a submissive, they will have do the exact opposite of the things you have attributed to that "Dominant hard wiring". I guess people with "switch hard wiring" only fight back some of the time. quote: Archer, what you're not entirely grasping is that for many of us, "swallowing pride" or "trade(ing) service for information" is just too high a price for ANY information. Your saying that by submitting or being in service, it would, in fact, come at a cost of your pride and therefore is humilating. By saying you have to "swallow your pride", you are saying that it is beneath you and lower than you. Perhaps you will attribute this to your "Dominant hardwiring". How does that work exactly when helping to deal with the insecurities of a submissive regarding their submission? "Well, babe, its only an insult to pride and humilating when I do it, not when you do it." Or perhaps... "Look, I was born with my uber strong willed dominant hard wiring and you were born with your weak willed submissive hard wiring. We all cant be winners so you gotta just deal with it." This is the "getting past" I was "preaching" about and the lesson that is inherent in the experience of being of service to a dominant. Godforbid, dominants try and view submission as something virtous and respecting and not as the derogatory "pride swallowing siege" you keep depicting it as when it comes to you doing it. Your fond of "homosexual and heterosexual" analogies in reference to this. Perhaps you will argue that you view being submissive as low and humilating because of your dominant orientation just like you view sucking cock as disgusting because of your heterosexual hardwiring. However, the flaw in this is that being a heterosexual excludes you from a relationship with a homosexual and being dominant includes you in a relationship with a submissive. So eseentially equating submitting with pride swallowing is the same as saying "God, I hate taking it in the ass! I wont swallow my pride to do it and be the little bitch in the relationship! Thank God, I got my faggot lover who likes to do it for me. If thats his preference, whatever. At least I dont have to play the catcher and I certainly dont envy him for doing it" Such derogatory views on what your intimate partner does for you in the relationship...

SimplyMichael -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/16/2007 3:57:58 PM)
Wildfleurs, quote: But I do think that apprenticing and switching are two separate concepts/paths towards learning, while you (Michael) seem to be lumping them together. I agree they are different but they all have one thing in common, there are people here who believe one or more of them less than the best way to become a better/real/whatever dominant and I was hoping for responses from any of those people.

MadRabbit -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/16/2007 4:33:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Wildfleurs, quote: But I do think that apprenticing and switching are two separate concepts/paths towards learning, while you (Michael) seem to be lumping them together. I agree they are different but they all have one thing in common, there are people here who believe one or more of them less than the best way to become a better/real/whatever dominant and I was hoping for responses from any of those people. I dont feal I would lose anything at all by being an apprentice and a servant to another Dominant, but rather gaining something. The right to say "Look...I've been there in your shoes and I know what its like. There is nothing humilating or pride damaging about it" The philosophy of why people value this system comes down to a quote from Pat Califia I read once. "If you find being a servant to be too humilating, then your not strong enough to wield power." Equating a time in service to "confusion about yourself" or being "less than domly" is horribly false. How people really feal about certain things comes out when it comes time for them to do them. People can go on and on about how much respect and admiration they have for servants and people who obey, but when it comes to them actually being one, then the real truth comes out. Its too humilating. Too damaging of one's pride. They are "too good" to be one. There is a big difference between not pursueing a path because its simply not for you and not pursueing a path because its too insulting, too lowering, and too beneath you. I do not understand how you can have genuine respect for something that view as something that is beneath you.

BossyShoeBitch -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/16/2007 5:18:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 quote: ORIGINAL: BossyShoeBitch quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Damn. A knock out drag out fight and I wasn't in the middle of it. Must have been that scene I did last night as a bottom where I learned a lot about myself as well as some good stuff for mindfucks. Damn. I still can't believe I missed last night Michael! Poor Focus. How very sad for narrowminded (or is it closed minded? I never can get those terms straight) old folks like him. They never can see the forest for the trees can they? Last and least - the fight groupie..... yawn I can't be bothered looking but you've already responded to the topic, right? I mean this isn't just some lame-duck drive-by post where you barrack from the bleachers like some vaccuous loudmouth at a sporting event? Go you! Focus. Well, since you did quote my post: quote: Damn, I still can't believe I missed last night Michael! and incorrectly assumed I was referring to your rant with MadRabbit, I'd like to clear up any misunderstanding. I was referring to being upset I missed seeing Michael the night before. Surely narcissism hasn't become part of the psyche of the "*Much mighty DOMINANT that (you) obviously* a(re)," And as far as being a "vaccuous loudmouth" as you so eloquently put it, if that is your perception of me, then you are by all means entitled to your opinion. Interestingly enough, I too am entitled to state my opinion. You stated time and time in this thread that you are hardwired as a Dominant and have no need to submit, bottom or serve. You have no need to walk a mile in your submissive's shoes because you don't care to learn what the view is from their perspective. You run the show period. That's great. That is your choice and it is a valid choice. However, it is when you hear of another Dom's equally valid choice** to experience things from a submissive's perspective and you belittle that choice because you don't understand it ... quote: C'mon - exactly what is it you think you're gonna learn or experience through submitting to someone - to be a better Dom? pfft Is it possible I could be a "better" hetero if I'd sought out a gay experience, for eg? Cross-dressing would make me more appreciative of being a man? Certainly a few days in Iraq or Somalia would make me appreciate life in Oz - granted. But it just ain't a need, either. lol ..this is what makes you an intolerant ass. Mad Rabbit never stated it was a NEED. It seems to me that his desire is to learn as much as he can about "the other side of the kneel" so he can in fact become a better Dom is extremely honorable and honestly, just a cool thing for him to want to do. He never stated he wanted to submit sexually. It seems to me you are against the idea of an individual wanting to become as educated on the subject as he can. And for the record, your statement: quote: Is it possible I could be a "better" hetero if I'd sought out a gay experience, for eg? is completely non sensical. By your own definition, wouldn't this just make you bi-sexual? Now if you were to put yourself in your FEMALE partner's place for a bit, wouldn't help your heterosexual relationships a bit more? How sad, intolerant, closed minded and just plain ignorant of you to mock another's choices and dare to attempt to label them according to your own, shortsided views. People like you deserve the darkness of your existence by spending your entire, unhappy lives in the same dark, inflexible, square box of your own construction. G'day.

SimplyMichael -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/16/2007 10:42:37 PM)
You are so fucking glorious when you get bitchy! No wonder I love you!

ShyMistress -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/16/2007 10:49:19 PM)
In direct answer to your question...I would not be sure if many Dom/Dommes would be a sub first... For Myself it was quite the other way around [:D] First a Domme...then Master caught Me and found a small streak of submissiveness that He exploited rather nicely [:)]

EmpressMe -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/16/2007 11:04:09 PM)
I started out as a sub, but soon discovered I really sucked at it. Also Doms were constantly coming to Me in private and asking Me to Dom Them!!Back then the only females I knew that were Domme were Pro's,so I errornously thought My only choice was sub or Pro. I'm glad I had the chance to be on the other side of the fence because I feel it has made Me a better and more empathtic Domme. Lady Morgan

Masque66 -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/16/2007 11:10:15 PM)
I've only tried subbing once and it was a horrible experience. Something about it just clashes with me internally. Maybe I simply can't stand being out of control like that.

BitaTruble -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/16/2007 11:14:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael I have a question for those who see doing some bottoming, apprenticing, or anything short of springing out fully formed ( I love that!) is bad/weak/wrong/whatever. What is it you feel you would lose if you did? Credibility. There are any number of submissives who will look down on a dominant who has bottomed. Any crack in that dominant veneer and you're finished as a dominant in their eyes. Celeste

SimplyMichael -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/16/2007 11:33:46 PM)
Celeste, who is more free, the one who stays in the boxes created by others, or the one who does as he pleases, when he pleases? If someone saw me as "less" because I bottomed at a charity event to raise money for dear friends who are working toward a goal I support then I would certainly be unlikely to think much of them in return. I recieved the highest bid as a top but I went for twice as much as a bottom. In fact, I went for more than the hot female's who put themselves up for bid. It was for fun and a charity, I pitty someone so rigid that they can't see past that but I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep if they thought less of me. In fact, the women who I do respect and who's opinion matters respect me more for being ballsy enough to do that.

BitaTruble -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/17/2007 12:00:22 AM)
Michael, I hope you don't have blinders on and think that it doesn't happen because it absolutely does and it happens from both sides of the flogger to boot. I'm not a submissive because I top. I'm not a top because I'm a submissive. I'm not a slave because I'm a sadist, I'm not a sadist because I serve. There are no such things as switches. I've heard them all and then some but the facts are, there 'are' going to be people who won't consider anyone who ever bottoms for any reason as a dominant.. Mr. Focus up there is a fine example of exactly what I'm talking about and I don't believe he'd apologize for it nor ever change his mind about it. To each their own and squirrels collect nuts for the winter. Know what I mean? Now, you've said that doesn't bother you so you can pretty much say fuck off to those sorts.. but you can't deny their existance. Oh and I just 'got' what your email meant. I don't think I need to answer it though. If you don't know by now, anything I say isn't going to make a damn bit of difference. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Celeste

Focus50 -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/17/2007 1:19:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grlwithboy Leatherfolk, Alyson Publications. While you may be content to D/s however you like as an island, some people don't. There's a whole bunch of us folks out there whose D/s does not revolve around community, public play, sharing slaves and the notion of "learning" to be dominant through submission. We call them relationships - personal and private; just like any vanilla relationship but with a formalised control dynamic. What I find curious is that I freely acknowledge BDSM does mean community and "rising through the ranks etc for many or even most but the conundrum is that A), it's not for me yet B), I'm frequently the one accused of being the "one true wayist" here. Even your own tone in this post suggests I don't belong because I don't conform.... <shrugs> But at least you're civil about it. quote: One doesn't HAVE to participate in the public scene, but consistently calling some of its well-established protocols "moronic" isn't going to go over smoothly with people who do hold that subculture dear. *Now this is just plain wrong! My one* and only use of "moronic" was to a statement made by AdventurousLife, below: "But I would advise any submissive who is seeking a method to find trustworthy doms to consider asking them if they ever have or would submit-- if they say no, move along. Not because they don't have that training- but because they don't have the right attitude." Again, I'm purportedly the "one true wayist"?** quote: It may not be your cup of beverage, but whether it is or not you may find it an interesting piece of history dating back to mid-century and prior, and you might want to consider that a lot of people consider themselves heir to this kind of dynamic who post here. You're correct; not my cup of beverage. And neither is "turning the other cheek" when attacked, esp when it gets personal (not aimed at you). But surely it's a two way street, no? I choose not to be part of "community" and public functions etc - and am frequently ostracised for it on these same boards. Apparently it's cool to be non-conformist as long as you conform by belonging to community. Aside from that, "outsiders" such as myself are to be treated with suspicion and even contempt, apparently. So be it, "water off a duck's back" to me.... But still I'd rather post to the topic in hand and you've been refreshigly unemotional in presenting your views, however contrary to my own - something I respect. Focus.

Focus50 -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/17/2007 1:46:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 Much mighty DOMINANT that I obviously am, I don't own the company where I work nor am I even the manager! <gasp> But my Dom hard-wiring still plays a role because it IS who I am. The boss man tells me what order he wants particular jobs done but he does not presume to tell me how to do them. And when we do have a difference of opinion, rest assured I'm not one to just stand there all head-bowed and dumb-struck "taking my medicine" just because he's tha boss. In the outside world, being a Dom tends to manifest itself slightly differently to my relationships in that I will NOT be dominated, disrespected or talked down to in general. If that means "creating a scene", even one that may cause embarrassment or violence, so be it.... The problem with having a black and white, up is down, left is right rationale to people is the fact that the opposite of black HAS to be white, the opposite of up HAS to be down, and the opposite of left HAS to be right. By attributing a strong will and a desire to fight back when disrespected to your "Dominant hard wiring" and not your individual personality, then you are, in fact, auatomatically attributing the opposite of that to the "Submissive hard wiring". Hence, logically, you are saying that submissives are weak willed, "stand there dumbstruck and take their medicine", and allow people to walk all over them, because these are the opposites of what define your "Dominant hard wiring". So you are, in fact, saying submissives are weak willed and doormats, because to have the opposite of your "Dominant hard wiring" and therefore be a submissive, they will have do the exact opposite of the things you have attributed to that "Dominant hard wiring". I guess people with "switch hard wiring" only fight back some of the time. Sorry, once again this is your addled thought processes projecting as allegedly something I stated. Remember when you so indignantly proclaimed that I "don't know you"? This is quite an example of your own outrageous hypocrisy to liberally distort and destroy the context of my words then assert this is what I said - you know me THAT well? quote: Archer, what you're not entirely grasping is that for many of us, "swallowing pride" or "trade(ing) service for information" is just too high a price for ANY information. quote: Your saying that by submitting or being in service, it would, in fact, come at a cost of your pride and therefore is humilating. By saying you have to "swallow your pride", you are saying that it is beneath you and lower than you. Perhaps you will attribute this to your "Dominant hardwiring". How does that work exactly when helping to deal with the insecurities of a submissive regarding their submission? "Well, babe, its only an insult to pride and humilating when I do it, not when you do it." Or perhaps... "Look, I was born with my uber strong willed dominant hard wiring and you were born with your weak willed submissive hard wiring. We all cant be winners so you gotta just deal with it." This is the "getting past" I was "preaching" about and the lesson that is inherent in the experience of being of service to a dominant. Godforbid, dominants try and view submission as something virtous and respecting and not as the derogatory "pride swallowing siege" you keep depicting it as when it comes to you doing it. Your fond of "homosexual and heterosexual" analogies in reference to this. Perhaps you will argue that you view being submissive as low and humilating because of your dominant orientation just like you view sucking cock as disgusting because of your heterosexual hardwiring. However, the flaw in this is that being a heterosexual excludes you from a relationship with a homosexual and being dominant includes you in a relationship with a submissive. So eseentially equating submitting with pride swallowing is the same as saying "God, I hate taking it in the ass! I wont swallow my pride to do it and be the little bitch in the relationship! Thank God, I got my faggot lover who likes to do it for me. If thats his preference, whatever. At least I dont have to play the catcher and I certainly dont envy him for doing it" Such derogatory views on what your intimate partner does for you in the relationship... See those little quotation marks around "swallowing pride", even though it's in my post? That'd be because Archer said that, not I - project it onto him.... Focus.

Focus50 -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/17/2007 2:20:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BossyShoeBitch Well, since you did quote my post: quote: Damn, I still can't believe I missed last night Michael! and incorrectly assumed I was referring to your rant with MadRabbit, I'd like to clear up any misunderstanding. I was referring to being upset I missed seeing Michael the night before. Surely narcissism hasn't become part of the psyche of the "*Much mighty DOMINANT that (you) obviously* a(re)," And as far as being a "vaccuous loudmouth" as you so eloquently put it, if that is your perception of me, then you are by all means entitled to your opinion. Interestingly enough, I too am entitled to state my opinion. You stated time and time in this thread that you are hardwired as a Dominant and have no need to submit, bottom or serve. You have no need to walk a mile in your submissive's shoes because you don't care to learn what the view is from their perspective. You run the show period. That's great. That is your choice and it is a valid choice. However, it is when you hear of another Dom's equally valid choice to experience things from a submissive's perspective and you belittle that choice because you don't understand it ... Ahh, the ever original "divide and conquer"(?) posting strategy, liberally bathed in patronising tones - whatever.... lol I quoted your post in its entirety for expedience; you incorrectly assume I (or the whole World?) might care what you get up to.** quote: How sad, intolerant, closed minded and just plain ignorant of you to mock another's choices and dare to attempt to label them according to your own, shortsided views. People like you deserve the darkness of your existence by spending your entire, unhappy lives in the same dark, inflexible, square box of your own construction. As opposed to being enlightened and liberated to just waltz in hurling your insults around as if it has substance, influence and credibility? Save it for someone you can actually intimidate.... Focus.

PairOfDimes -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/17/2007 4:58:53 AM)
Relatively few people I know have engaged in the Leather culture habit of serving as a submssive or slave in order to learn how to be a dominant. But quite a lot of people I know, myself and my partner included, switched more upon beginning to do BDSM and only later settled on a strongly-preferred role. Lots of people I know, again, including me, have bottomed to techniques in order to learn them, too.

BossyShoeBitch -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/17/2007 7:18:56 AM)
Yawn.... Bored now...

SimplyMichael -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/17/2007 7:20:18 AM)
Focus, perhaps you simply don't know how to speak about yourself without stating it as a universal truth. That is why I object to. While I think there ARE universal truths, the path to being a healthy and competent dominant isn't one of them. quote: There's a whole bunch of us folks out there whose D/s does not revolve around community, public play, sharing slaves and the notion of "learning" to be dominant through submission. quote: just as submitting, for eg, is NOT normal behaviour for a Dominant - IMO. The first statement is about yourself and I would back you 100%. The second, in the context of the path to becoming a competent and healthy dominance is trying to say YOUR way is the ONLY way, which is why people hear you as a "one true wayer".

BossyShoeBitch -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/17/2007 7:28:00 AM)
I'm learning from the best! Thank you! [sm=kiss.gif] I also have an idea for a new poll: Non-Celebrity Death Match- starring: an old Aussie and a guy wearing glasses and a pleather jacket... What do you think?

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625