|
Real_Trouble -> RE: Dominance, and Power (5/10/2008 2:23:07 PM)
|
quote:
all that i meant from this line was that dominance and submission are a cooperative, without submission, dominance cannot occur. not that the dominant is powerless in himself, simply that with such a dynamic, where the power of submission isnt offered there is nothing he can do, submission cannot be forced and no good dominant would want to.
Correction: consensual dominance cannot occur.
That's very different than saying dominance cannot occur; it can. It's just not going to be pretty to watch.
This relates somewhat to ShaktiSama's point; I sure as fuck can have power over people who don't want to submit to me. Just hand me a gun in general or the ability to fire their ass at work, and I'll show you how quickly you can abuse power to get people to do what you want.
Dominants tend to accumulate (legitimate?) power, but the power itself and the ability to compel others can come from many sources.
quote:
Dominant people attract submissive people. For a submissive to walk the "you only have power because I give it" line, implies that she isn't really being dominated. For a dominant to say "I'm powerless without my submissive" might lovely and romantic to lots of people, but it rubs me as being co-dependent and needy.
I concur entirely; if you cannot be strong and functional without a submissive, you aren't likely to be with one, in my experience.
Now, having said that, I think there is a fine line to be drawn between Dominant as in leader overall, and Dominant as in controls in a very localized setting; I can see that varying on a case to case basis.
But if you are spineless or co-dependent in general, you aren't going to change in specific.
quote:
it is the strength of personality in a dominant that draws the attention of a strong submissive - this is echoed throughout these halls i think, time and again. softness put it very well somewhere, that for a strong submissive to submit to any dominant he has to be a strong and powerful individual in his own right, stronger willed than her.
I think this is a good point by Lally as well - people tend to self-select for what they want, assuming they are somewhat functional (I know a few people who fail at this, but they fail in general, to be blunt). The stronger dominants tend to attract a certain kind of sub.
quote:
Thanks for the comments. Actually, I wasn't intending to suggest the only sort of dominants in existance are those who are charismatic enough to charm an army or harem. Such leaders aren't necessarily excellent dominants (as we use the noun dominant in BDSM) but possessing leadership qualities can make life much easier for a BDSM dominant. Rather, what I suggesting is that people who are, in fact, dominant (as an adjective) often do possess such leadership qualities. Men who are not good leaders, on the other hand, may very well identify as 'a' dominant, but aren't necessarily skilled at dominating others. None of this directly impacts my initial beef with the statement lally made: "without submission, a dominant is powerless."
Let's not conflate two issues, which are:
- What qualities do actual Dominants have?
- Who identifies themselves as a Dominant, and is it accurate?
If you look only at the former question, then it's clear many of the qualities of leaders and dominants necessarily overlap; both involve controlling other people, one way or another.
quote:
They don't really make a distinction about a man being anything but free. Free to be his own man. Which is a form of independence that needs no ownership to validate it.
Ironically, I am finding lately that I prefer having no sub (or no anyone, more to the point) over anything else. I suppose I'm a Dominant Misanthrope, both with capital letters.
I very sternly will make you fuck off and leave me alone.
Ahem.
|
|
|
|
