quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

It is the suggestion that one's dominance and strength is derived from the submissive partner that I take issue with.

if one is devoid of dominant personality, has no interest in being the dominant partner in a relationship, yet still labels themselves dominant because they believe the meaning of it to be: having a sexual fetish/preference to Dominate...wouldn't it follow that THAT particular form of dominance requires a submissive partner to mainfest in reality?
 
taking it a stretch further and embellishing it with words like "power", "gift" and "strength" could be someone's gravy...or, for you, perhaps just an extension on the time the nails drag down the chalkboard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: colouredin



lead·er      /ˈlidər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lee-der] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.a person or thing that leads.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephann



Justme (& others in this vein) One needn't be a good leader, to be a leader.  One needn't be a good dominant, to enjoy dominating.  It should go without saying, when I'm presenting a position on what I consider to be valid, I'm addressing the values associated.  There's always more exceptions for every rule.  I don't have to prove every exception wrong, to demonstrate the quality of a position.

Stephan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Justme696

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephann



Justme (& others in this vein) One needn't be a good leader, to be a leader.  One needn't be a good dominant, to enjoy dominating.  It should go without saying, when I'm presenting a position on what I consider to be valid, I'm addressing the values associated.  There's always more exceptions for every rule.  I don't have to prove every exception wrong, to demonstrate the quality of a position.

Stephan

A leader is only a leader when his basic purpose "leading" is good. Else you are not a leader, you don't justify the word "leading".
Beeing a not so good dominant and saying you can enjoy it is of course true.
A not so good dominant in general has less power.
(that is why the words "not good" are used..else it would have been "good dominant").
To a sub....it has no vallue that a dominant enjoys his position, if she is unhappy with his not so good domming. What vallue does domination have then?


In my view...A dominant tries to enforce his power and a leader gets it more natural. But that can be caused by the way the words sound to me as non english person.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obis

In general I agree with Stephan (as usual), but I do agree with those who question his characterization of the leadership aspects of dominants. The sense I got from his writing (and those who agreed) was the sort of charismatic, charming person who everyone in the room wants to follow to the gates of Hell. Sure, that guy is a great leader, but I don't know that he is a dominant or that dominants necessarily have to share many qualities with him.

I think leaders get off on leadership, while many dominants get off on having things their way. Sometimes those emotional goals intersect in day-to-day life, but I don't think very frequently. Leadership generally requires a great deal of horse-trading and management. The one place we're willing to accept the mantle of leader is in dealing with our sub/slave, because it's the place where the energy is worth investing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Laro

The only place I sem to completley disagree, is that I can't imagine a situation where a true Dominant, follows.  I do believe you can be a submissive leader, but I just can't imagine a Dominant following.........

quote:

ORIGINAL: Laro

The only place I sem to completley disagree, is that I can't imagine a situation where a true Dominant, follows.  I do believe you can be a submissive leader, but I just can't imagine a Dominant following.........

quote:



Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Ghengis Khan, these are all men I would consider to be 'leaders.'  Fuzzy words like Good don't even begin to address the realities of power.

A natural leader can be a very dominant person, or a not very dominant person.  If he's dominant (Standard Disclaimer applies) he'll have a much easier time enforcing his will than he will if he lacks dominance.  But being dominant in no way suggests one is not a natural leader.

Stephan

quote:

The upper ranks of military service aren't populated with those who excel at leading; it is their capacity to obey orders that they are rewarded for.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtlantaMistress

I have heard a similar statement to the one in the OP: a Dominant has no control over the submissive until it is given to them. This I believe is true, to a certain extent.

I have gone through playing this game with one boy for quite some time. It was a banter we had...he enjoyed playing, telling me he could resist me, I had no control over him until he gave it to me, and that made him the boss. I could always beat him at his own game, knowing his buttons, using my sensuality, so by the end of the banter (usually an hour or so chatting) he would be begging to see me - to turn his power over to me, telling me I was in control. Over the course of time, as the relationship progressed, this became less and less of an issue, and eventually I knew that I had "broken him" - bad choice of words I think, but using them for lack of better ones. Still, I know that as long as this is consensual, I could lose his trust or respect one day (not likely - because I take my responsibility when someone submits to me very seriously), but if I did, he could take his control back from me.

Being Dominant is something that is very natural, and there have been excellent points made. I am Dominant - my personality, its in my genes. I do know, however, that I only have control over myself, my happiness, the things I do, and the people I bring into my life. I only have control over a submissive once it is given to me - and I believe it is a beautiful gift, worthy of appreciation and respect.

I do not need a submissive to complete me. I love to have a submissive to compliment me!

(Sorry if this is a bit rambling...I'm in terrible pain - threw out my back-can't think straight, get comfortable, trying to keep my mind off the pain)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephann

quote:

ORIGINAL: Laro

The only place I sem to completley disagree, is that I can't imagine a situation where a true Dominant, follows.  I do believe you can be a submissive leader, but I just can't imagine a Dominant following.........

Without even addressing the concept of a switch, take a good hard look at the Military.  The upper ranks of military service aren't populated with those who excel at leading; it is their capacity to obey orders that they are rewarded for.

Stephan

Normally, I take little exception with your comments Stephan, but I do somewhat on a couple of points you have raised in this thread so .... [insert standard disclaimer here ]

First, the saying under discussion, I've more often heard along the lines of .. "Behind every successful man lays a [insert positive adjective here] woman." 

You can change the adjective "successful", and you can put any number of adjectives in front of the "woman", but to me, the main sense has always been that a good male/female dyad is important to a man's full success in society and in his endeavors.

I think this is a true sentiment, and you can reverse it to understand it better: Behind every unsuccessful man lies a [greedy, selfish, lazy etc] woman.

A good human dyad - good at communicating with each other, with congruent values and goals that align, and a clear understanding of each others strengths and weaknesses - almost guarantees "success" or "happiness".

The pair can be a Male-Dom/fem-sub, a Fem-Domme/male-sub or whatever ... but it seems that the symmetry of a balanced and integrated human dyad is very conducive to happiness and success.

Part of the balance in a dyad is the power relationship.  I suspect that such power relationships are a little more complex than most people who haven't experienced it (and put a bit of deep thought into it) realize.  The common question "Who's really in charge, the Dom or the sub?" is an indication of the complexity of those relationships.

My point is that I don't think that a simple analysis of the saying, when it comes restricted to D/s will scratch much of that depth that the saying holds.

Second, I take exception to