quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaze

Defining dominance as an art form is a stretch beyond the wildest imagination; there are refinements skills and expertises few ever venture into and I strongly suspect even fewer have even read or heard about but that is not the issue at hand and contrary to the belief of many dominance is not the byproduct of a so-called sub-cultures social indoctrination.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IrishMist

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaze

Defining dominance as an art form is a stretch beyond the wildest imagination; there are refinements skills and expertises few ever venture into and I strongly suspect even fewer have even read or heard about but that is not the issue at hand and contrary to the belief of many dominance is not the byproduct of a so-called sub-cultures social indoctrination.

She did not ask for a definition of DOMINANCE; she asked for a definition of DOMINATION.
Two different fucking things.
[8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: kallisto

Domination is different things to different people.   Yes, it is control the dom has over the sub.  For me it is different depending on the relationship.   If it's a play relationship, then he will have control over me in that realm.   If he's my lover then the domination will expand into other areas of my life.    If he's my everything, then he will have complete domination over me and my life.    I think that makes sense. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: amadeus77

I'm new to D/s and I've thought a lot about the question: what is dominance? I was recounting to a new friend that, even before I had come to terms with my dominant nature, I was placed in positions of leadership. Or, if the role wasn't official, my peers looked to me for guidance and direction. I've come to think that dominance means leadership in the context of personal relationships.

There was an interesting thread in which confidence was noted as one mark of a dominant person -- a leader. That's certainly one kind of leader, but then we have the reluctant leader. For Lost fans, think of Jack. But reluctant or charging ahead, a leader can't seem to hide (at least for long) that quality of leadership. And people respond: leaders are followed, whether the leader likes it or not.

The conventional wisdom is that all people are equal and relationships with power imbalances are dysfunctional. But I see no evidence for such a belief, thoughI understand the wish that it were so. We have many examples of leaders who were not ethical. They led their followers into disaster. But they were leaders nonetheless. Attempting to establish a world by fiat in which all are equal (I'm speaking of the roles we play, not our personal worth) only leads to a muddle-headed mess.

Then (and, again, I speak as a newbie) there is the idea that some Doms have that their leadership exempts them from the responsibility to be ethical: "whatever I want is right, simply because I want it". I've seen several threads on "twue" Doms. A leader is a leader. A jerky Dom may well be dominant (a leader) but they can still be obnoxious and it seems clear that such obnoxiousness, if carried to an extreme, can undermine that leadership: given a choice between following two leaders, one a jerk and the other not, I believe most will eschew the jerk.

Amadeus77