KnottyMcLovin
Posts: 10
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
|
First of all, MasterFireMaam, I agree with you, my post isn't clear, in fact reading it again it isn't quite clear to me. The title of my post was meant to be both tongue-in-cheek and slightly incendiary, and despite the lack of clarity in my post I feel it has ellicited some wonderful comments, so thank you all. With that said . . .
I generally greatly enjoy Mallory's writings, and I was in part reacting to an article which seemed contradictory to other things that she had written. It seemed Mallory was trying to attribute a specific type of uber-Dom personality to twue Dom-sim. I may be misunderstanding, or reacting to her article from my own personal issues. After reading this article, I began to reflect on what in me told me I had always been a Dom, and what I had in common with other Dom/me's. In the process, I found another article by Mallory which struck me not because of the structure she was referring to, but because of the type of relationship she described. I have felt "Dom drop" in situations and relationships both in & outside the boudior, and some of the most fundamental and difficult growth experiences I have had as an adult has been understanding this dynamic.
Also, I should probably provide a little background on myself, as I am a newbie to the lifestyle, and it may help responders better understand my perspective. I have been practicing D/sBDSM in my romantic relationships for years without fully being aware that I was doing it, practicing 90% of the behaviors without the labels. This also means I never imposed things in our relationships out of labels or a book, generally it was done with alot of giggling and seduction. This may make me a 'fetishist', but being compelled to do this again and again may mean I'm a Dom with other coping skills, I dunno. I was a bartender for many years, so I learned smooth talking was often a better choice than pure aggression. The thing that brought me to 'the lifestyle' was being with a sub who knew she was a sub, and was very enthusiastic about being a sub for me. SunnyTwane, this is when I first experienced the cycle you talked about, and honestly, we were so connected it felt like I could make up any rule and we would have made it work.
Another important thing about me, in the past I have worked with disturbed children and teens, adult gang members, psychotics, transvestite prostitutes, run-aways, homicidal parollees, etc. What I personally think of as "submissive need" is palpable and real, like a neon sign on the forhead, and has been presented to me no matter how "femme" or "butch" the person showing it to me.
To answer one of Noah's questions, as near as I can tell, the submissive need is the deep need to have your strong (sometimes overwhelming, sometimes helpless) feeling of 'need' acknowledged, and to experience real world limits to satiate that feeling. The 'Dom thing', to me, as near as I can tell, is to have a skill at doing this, and really, really, really get a charge out of doing it. Sometimes people love me for it, sometimes hate me for it, but it's never a small reaction. In the bedroom, this exchange is coupled with meeting other innate desires, genrally polarized by our culture but united in our experience and therefore taboo: sex/violence, pain/pleasure, attention/binding, trust/fear, to name a few. What does this have all have to do with the lifestyle? Well, I'm hoping you can tell me, honestly.
Also Noah, I was paraphrasing Mallory, so it wasn't her crap writing, it was mine.  When I read Mallory's article on Dom Drop, I completely understood what she was talking about, and in a broader sense than the D/s relationship. Whether this drop is indicative of a type of co-dependance, whether or not the D/s relationship is a twuer means to explore this, again, you will all have to tell me. My term 'organic Dom' isn't an attempt to label, really, or say my dad can beat up your dad, so there I'm more truly Dom than you. Mallory's articles triggered in me a desire to identify that quirk that makes us enjoy doing what we do so much we'd spend all that money on leather pants  , I mean, get off on it so much more than most people in a statistical sense.
I agree with JuilaOceana, it is like playing chess, but with a little more psychological (and bringing out emotional) involvement. I also know that I don't walk through life trying to controll or play chess with everything, it is specific to the energy presented to me. I think I have learned to save my energy and chose my battles through experience. And CapnSpankn, I got a 404 on your article review but you get my point exactly, don't set yourself up. I really like that mantra, "This is not a contest, this is not a contest." Sambamanslilgirl, I agree, every relationship is different and needs to start off in a way that meets the needs of the participants.
The Dom Drop article is here:
http://www.steel-door.com/Dominant_Drop.html
The Dominant vs. Master article is quoted below, and available here:
http://www.steel-door.com/Dominant_vs_Master.html
"The Dominant person will range from lightly, moderately and heavily dominant. They may desire to engage in a relationship which is infrequent and strictly limited by rules, boundaries and limitations. These light Dominant's will generally have a very limited desire to have a significant D/s relationship, this is sometimes due to conflicting life events and other times due to being 'barely dominant'.
There is a second group of light Dominant's or persons with a desire to control without the adequate understanding or tools to do so. I sometimes call these person's low level Dominant's. Their range or sphere (their world) is small, they can be poorly educated, relatively low paying jobs, somewhat narrow minded and may be subject to 'dominant bursts', or short term barely or uncontrolled violent outbursts. These low level Dominant's are often abusive and were generally bully's or victims of abuse as children.
The moderate Dominant is the most common Dominant and will characteristically be interested in a 'relationship', though often they may not desire a full time relationship when they are fairly new to the community. They tend to have a broader range and more committed style than the light Dominant and the submissive will find them to be more stable. They will tend to be decently educated, interested in their outer world, midrange job. "
"One final thing to really confuse you. There is a category that I call the Alpha Dominant. (aka High-Level Dominant) (aka Natural Dominant). This individual appears to have been born Dominant. They often 'emerge' at a young age, (sometimes at puberty), they have natural skills, are highly imaginative and creative, flexible, energetic and intense. They have no need to 'prove' themselves to any other standards or measures. They may have no abuse whatsoever in their background. They are generally highly motivated, precise, detail oriented, aggressive, charming and capable of literally anything."
Ok, to me, it just seemed to attribute socio-economic status and history of abuse to how good a Dom you were was stretching it. I also knew that the "Alpha Dominat" personality she described was the same personality that my room mate would have come over to wash dishes wearing a frilly dress and a leash. This is what got me to thinking. Most of what I was thinking is along the same lines as TheInstrument.
First off, "society kind of drives it into your head that men should be both masculine and successful." In my limited experience gender politics also creates slightly different expectations for Dom's and Domme's even within the leather community, because we carry vanilla pressures with us in the door. (Vanilla) culturally it is out of the box for women to be Dominant and aggresive, (vanilla) culturally it is out of the box for a dominat male to be calm and thoughtful. You all may want to help clarify this. Also, this doesn't mean we have to agree with the cultural standard, just that we feel these pressures, and it may be healthy to acknowledge that. This also indicates to me that what we refer to as 'Dominant' within the lifestyle may be something different than in the vanilla world.
Second, as TheInstrument said, a lot of type-A's get "dominance from a place of fear or through growing tired of having their submissive natures abused." It makes sense they'd like to let that fear go behind closed doors with someone they feel close to, and/or trust a bunch. Hmm, all of my subs have been strong, succesful, articulate women with terminal degrees.
Soooo, I'm thinking 'dominance' in the Type-A vanilla sense and 'Dominance' in the BDSM sense aren't the same thing, which isn't to say you can't be both, just that they are 2 different things.
Now, this wasn't in my post because it wasn't clear to me until after reading your comments, but I think understanding the 'Joy of Dominance' as an experience, rather than Dominance as a construct of identity, is a good conversation to have. I think the latter serves the former, but on the other hand I'm a straight white male so it's easy for me to say.
Also, I think understanding D/s as a relationship, rather than a set of two roles, is a good conversation to have. This isn't to say that structure, etiquette, protocols and rules aren't important, they are. If I'm understanding LadyHugs correctly, they should serve the relationship, not rule it. BTW, those protocols you described are wonderful. I think we should also acknowledge that the aesthetic and experience of the protocols LadyHugs describes greatly adds to the experience of the participants, both leather bound and at a dinner party, and helps create a space where exchange can deepen. This is one reason why protocols are nice to have.
Now, to answer one of Noah's other questions, the principle I was trying to lay out. Hmm, can I do it, good question.
Acknowledge the feeling/need, meet it at a pace and within a structure defined by the Dom. I mean, even in vanilla sex, someone good in bed is going to let you know, one way or another, "Look, we're both going to enjoy this, slow down, relax, and follow my lead." A big difference for BDSM I'd imagine is that you'd want them to relax just for contrast to when you spanked them and pulled their hair, but the general idea is there.
And also A, B, C in my original post were not supposed to be hard limits, ever. DesFIP I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. They were supposed to be kinks or enthusiasms of the sub, who was baiting the dom by saying something like, "Oh look, my ass is bare and I'm leaning over a desk, golly I sure hope someone doesn't spank me."
Soooo, I'd like to read more about other people's experiences with D/sBDSM-kink as relationships, not roles. Ultimately, I think the point I was trying to get to was Leatherists point exactly, just with waaaay too many words, "You don't build sucsessful relationships by avoiding relating. . .You do it by fullfilling needs in another person. And there isn't a manual for doing that-you have to use smarts and compassion. . . "
Thanks all, keep posting! (& how do I do that cool box qoute thing?)
|
Total and Complete Secret to D/sBDSM Domination Revealed!! - 
Profile
RE: Total and Complete Secret to D/sBDSM Domination Rev... - 
RE: Total and Complete Secret to D/sBDSM Domination Rev... - 
RE: Total and Complete Secret to D/sBDSM Domination Rev... - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread