Mercnbeth -> RE: Dom or control freak? (1/2/2008 8:00:43 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: parttimehotty Are you a Dominant because you got tired of "vanilla cunts" and just want to have your way ie control of everything in the relationship? Do you not like a woman/man to speak her/his mind thus your entry into the Dominant world? i ask because i remember in the beginning my potential Dom stated that He was tired of "vanilla cunts" mouthing off to Him and He wanted to be the ruler of the household, having the final word. Is that the action of a "true" Dom or just a control freak or are they one/the same? pth, It would seem your "potential Dom" couldn't live up to his own image and ideal of dominance. At the very least he lacked the confidence and doubted the strength of his convictions; exhibited by him not wanting to hear a conflicting opinion. It would be worse if he saw any differing opinion as a challenge or a personal attack. Ultimately, a submissive should surrender decisions to a Dominant. However, that surrender comes from earned trust and confidence gained that those decisions have value. Notice I didn't say that they had to be always right, or what the submissive would do. For this to occur a submissive shouldn't be stifled from speaking their mind, quite the contrary speaking one's mind from either side of the flogger should be encouraged. In my case, it was always required. A submissive shouldn't fear exposing their beliefs and neither should a Dominant. More important, neither a Dominant nor submissive should fear scaring away a partner by clearly and in detail exposing his relationship goals. Granted getting that 'naked' isn't easy, and is inversely proportional to the desperation factor about wanting to be in a relationship. I think it counter-productive to start, and/or base, any decision process with an image of what you "don't want". A "vanilla" label, assigned to a body part or the entire person, wasn't a dis-qualifier during my search. I knew the personality, ability, intelligence, strength qualities that I sought and when someone exhibited those traits it was my task to get to know them and to let them know me better. The sensations, and/or 'chemistry' that results from us getting together occurs naturally. Outside the relationship philosophy I don't see any need for submission regarding philosophical beliefs. I find it amusing that many have a requirement that a partner share the same religious, or political beliefs. To me it seems a classical example of insecurity. Telling beth to flash at the Vatican and having her do so as I took a picture got no argument and no "mouthy" reply. If there was one - I would have doubted her commitment to 'US'. Walking out, making a statement to her saying to the effect, "There is no god!"; would generate a heated debate. In that case her "mouthy" response IS an illustration of her commitment to 'US'. My strength and hers had, and has, equal importance. Our beliefs and convictions were not compromised for the sake of our relationship. It would be counter productive to have a requirement to "know yourself" and then require that a partner leave that knowledge at the door as a requirement for entering a relationship. Holding back, or keeping secrets for fear it will be a deal breaker is as silly as getting into a relationship with someone and then expecting to change them after the fact. In either case the probability for failure is high. After five years I think we know each other's arguments on points in disagreement by heart. That fact is illustrated by any current debate being full of smirks, smiles and laughter. We KNOW we won't change the other's mind. We respect each other too much to need or expect to do so. However, it's still fun to try.
|
|
|
|