Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Dominant?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> Dominant? Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Dominant? - 7/21/2004 6:09:47 PM   
Leonidas


Posts: 2078
Joined: 2/16/2004
Status: offline 		After recently reading about the 34th variant I've seen of the old question "If he tells me to whip him and call him my bitch, isn't he still dominant because he's the one telling me to do it?", I got to thinking that maybe the mainstream BDSM definition of "Dominant" is just plain different from mine. Some of the arguments in the thread that I was reading were along the lines of:

"Hey, if you're the dominant, it's all about you, and you should do whatever makes you feel good"

and:

We shouldn't conform to any notion of what "Dominance" means because that's just being conformist, and non-conformance is what BDSM is all about".

and of course, the old stand by:

"It's not our place to judge anybody else's notion of dominance".

So my question is this: How is the "mainstream" notion of dominant different at all from just plain hedonist and egocentric? Is the notion as defined by the mainstream completely devoid of any nobility and sense of character? Is it really just about finding someone who is going to care as much about what you want as you do? I would be disappointed to think that that is the case. I would love to hear differently.

Take care of yourselves.

Leondias
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Dominant? - 7/21/2004 6:15:54 PM   
sweet`allure


Posts: 12
Joined: 5/28/2004
Status: offline 		oh lordy, sounds more like domineering than dominant to me

(in reply to Leonidas)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Dominant? - 7/21/2004 6:22:15 PM   
SherriA


Posts: 544
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Leonidas
So my question is this: How is the "mainstream" notion of dominant different at all from just plain hedonist and egocentric? Is the notion as defined by the mainstream completely devoid of any nobility and sense of character? Is it really just about finding someone who is going to care as much about what you want as you do? I would be disappointed to think that that is the case. I would love to hear differently.


I'm not sure that I know what the mainstream notion of dominance is, really. It manifests differently in most everyone, to some degree. As to it having anything to do with nobility and sense of character, I think those are *personal* traits, not "dominant" traits. People who identify as submissive personalities are just as likely to exhibit those traits as someone who labels him/herself as dominant.

If you were to ask me what dominance was all about, I'd say it's about power and control. How someone chooses to excercise those aspects is highly individual, and I don't think you'll find a cookie cutter definition that works across the board.

There is no One True Way.

_____________________________

-- Sherri

Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.

(in reply to Leonidas)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Dominant? - 7/21/2004 6:29:28 PM   
anthrosub


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/2/2004
Status: offline 		In one of Ayn Rand's novels, a character states that, "Words have an exact meaning." When you think about it, they do but they are tempered by the circumstances and context. i won't try to define "Dominant" in the Pro sense because that's a temporal situation.

i think lifestyle Dommes are understood to be the center of the universe they inhabit. How they establish and exercise control goes through several stages but the movement is always towards more control for them and less (or no) control for the sub/slave serving them. It is about them ultimately because it has to be by definition but this is not to say there aren't negotiations along the way. After all, for the dynamic to succeed, the sub must be functional and the negotiation is (or should) be tailored to extract the behavior that most benefits the Domme.

In my opinion, this negotiation process gets overlooked or misconstrued as becoming "about the sub" which is a mistake. What's actually taking place if the relationship is healthy is an adjustment process, which is a good thing because nothing in this world is static. A proficient Domme will know this and have no problems with it...so much so that if they read this post they will probably not give it a second thought. In their mind it's a given (i think).

anthrosub

_____________________________

"It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled." - Mark Twain

"I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde

(in reply to Leonidas)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Dominant? - 7/21/2004 6:55:05 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline 		Hello,

While it is certainly easy to sit on the Dom Couch and claim it is all about me, I am not sure it really is.

I generally define the dynamic of the relationship, and she chooses to join me in how I have defined it, but in my opinion once there is a relationship (no matter how tenuous) the rules of a system apply. We affect each other.

I feel my Dom space really hinges on the chemistry between us, and I derive my greatest pleasure from creating various hormonal changes in her brain chemistry, whether this is by ordering dinner, buying her gold chains to wear around her waist (*swoons*), engaging in sexual activity, or BDSM.

Looked at another way, it really is all about her.

But I do not have a personality that allows me to submit to the will of another person. I have had any number of co-workers, supervisors, friends, etc., who have said this about me. I was considered a maverick on a project proving a requirement nobody else had the technical expertise to prove on a multi-billion dollar project. I did it my way, I was given all the resources I needed, my supervisors, project managers, contract managers, etc., all ended up going along with my recommendations, and it ended up being written into the contract.

I feel this is why I choose to sit on the Dom couch. I want to drive.

But that is just me, and I could be wrong.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to anthrosub)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Dominant? - 7/21/2004 8:30:49 PM   
TallDarkAndWitty


Posts: 1893
Joined: 6/12/2004
From: Rochester, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Leonidas
So my question is this: How is the "mainstream" notion of dominant different at all from just plain hedonist and egocentric? Is the notion as defined by the mainstream completely devoid of any nobility and sense of character? Is it really just about finding someone who is going to care as much about what you want as you do? I would be disappointed to think that that is the case. I would love to hear differently.


Prefering the backwaters and bayous to the mainstream, I can only give my ideas on dominance. I hope they suffice.

My latest concept of dominance and submission deals with the concept of "the dynamic." Dominance and submission are really just two complimentary aspects of the dynamic. When two meet to exchange power, they establish the dynamic and both must play their part in the dynamic.

I tend to consider my role the "dominant" role, but I am still submitting to the overall dynamic. I care for my slave's saftey, her feelings, and her pleasure, but do so in a way that still leaves me in control.

Further, it is a shared dynamic, so it will never be all just about me. Without her playing her role, I am left alone, feeling rather silly. We both create and add to the dynamic, submitting to it for the enjoyment of both.

Not sure where that ramble was headed, but I am fairly certain it didn't get there...will continue my thoughts later.

Yours,
Taggard

< Message edited by TallDarkAndWitty -- 7/21/2004 8:39:36 PM >

_____________________________

A most rewarding compliment is an insult from the ill-informed.


My slave: Kat (RainaVerene on the other side) and her website: RainaVerene.com

(in reply to Leonidas)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Dominant? - 7/22/2004 3:29:12 AM   
MzBerlin


Posts: 378
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: anthrosub

In one of Ayn Rand's novels, a character states that, "Words have an exact meaning." anthrosub


Hello, Y'all-
Words DO have an exact meaning. I think in very black and white terms, very little grey. I suppose this is why I prefer the written word as rules and not the spoken. So much can be left to interpretation.
I love Ayn Rand.
As Always-
Berlin

(in reply to anthrosub)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Dominant? - 7/22/2004 4:40:33 AM   
LadyAngelika


Posts: 8070
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Leonidas
After recently reading about the 34th variant I've seen of the old question "If he tells me to whip him and call him my bitch, isn't he still dominant because he's the one telling me to do it?",


Well change some gender roles around in my case and yeah, I agree it that the one calling the shots is the dominant. Would I ask my submissive to whip me? Probably not. But that doesn’t mean I don’t find it legitimate for others who have established this dynamic.

And I ask this nicely: “How does it concern you what dynamics other people negotiate? Why is it so important that you fit into a rigid definition and dynamic?”

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leonidas
I got to thinking that maybe the mainstream BDSM definition of "Dominant" is just plain different from mine. Some of the arguments in the thread that I was reading were along the lines of:


I’m not sure what the mainstream BDSM definition is. One source I like for kink lifestyle definitions is The Deviants? Dictionary:

Domination: Alternatively, dominance (a form sometimes preferred in the US). The practise of taking the dominant role in a scene, running the scene, controlling the bottom's behaviour, perhaps simply as role play or humiliation or perhaps reinforced by the threat or the actual use of intense or painful physical activities directed at the bottom, and/or by restriction, bondage and physical control. A person who takes on this sexually dominant role, either habitually or for a specific scene, is known as a dominant or dom. The term dominatrix has a more specific meaning.

The complimentary term for the bottom is submission, and someone bottoming to a dominant is called a submissive or sub. 'Submissive' is also an adjective, but the term subby is sometimes heard. The terms 'dom' and 'sub' to describe individuals have slightly more currency in the heterosexual scene that among gay men and lesbians, where the terms 'top' and 'bottom' are more common. Femdom, meaning a female dominant or a scene with a woman top, and its equivalent maledom, are invariably used to refer to heterosexual interaction. The overarching term for games involving domination is domination and submission (dom-sub, DS, D/S, D/s or D&S).

I fit in that definition. And, imnsho, “running the scene, controlling the bottom's behaviour” are the most important parts of that definition.

quote:

We shouldn't conform to any notion of what "Dominance" means because that's just being conformist, and non-conformance is what BDSM is all about".


I totally agree with this statement. Along these lines, I posted something in Ask a Mistress related to Dommes & penetration which really was a discussion about this. I won’t bring up all the excellent points made by the participants of this thread (you can read them yourselves if you so chose) but they were amazing. And very different then what I’ve heard from other Dommes & subs.

Essentially, there are 2 camps: the ones that believe Dommes should let their submissives/slaves penetrate them if that is what they desire and the ones that think that they should not. As a Domme, I can pick my camp or start my own, no?

So there is not just one notion/definition (for which I am so very grateful for). I think there is an essence. A dynamic (as Taggard pointed out).

- LA

_____________________________

Une main de fer dans un gant de velours ~ An iron hand in a velvet glove

(in reply to Leonidas)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Dominant? - 7/22/2004 4:54:23 AM   
MizSuz


Posts: 1881
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MzBerlin

I love Ayn Rand.
As Always-
Berlin



But, who is John Galt????

_____________________________

“The more you love, the more you can love—and the more intensely you love. Nor is there any limit on how many you can love. If a person had time enough, he could love all of that majority who are decent and just.”
- Robert Heinlein

(in reply to MzBerlin)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Dominant? - 7/22/2004 5:38:09 AM   
MrThorns


Posts: 919
Joined: 6/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Leonidas


"Hey, if you're the dominant, it's all about you, and you should do whatever makes you feel good"


I actually agree with this one very strongly. It is very egocentric...it IS very selfish..I am okay with that. This does not mean that I don't make concessions or sacrifices. We negotiate. I know I cant always have things my way...life happens, but I'm still going to try and negotiate "my way" into any agreements.
quote:




We shouldn't conform to any notion of what "Dominance" means because that's just being conformist, and non-conformance is what BDSM is all about".

I agree with this, to a point. So often we find ourselves being neatly packaged by some person/group or another. "A "real" (ugh) dominant must behave in this way...yadda yadda" I won't say that being non conformist is what BDSM is about. Quite the opposite, in my opinion. BDSM thrives on structure and conformity. Its just that we decide for ourselves as to what that structure will be and how we choose to conform to that structure.
quote:




"It's not our place to judge anybody else's notion of dominance".

Amen.
quote:



So my question is this: How is the "mainstream" notion of dominant different at all from just plain hedonist and egocentric? Is the notion as defined by the mainstream completely devoid of any nobility and sense of character? Is it really just about finding someone who is going to care as much about what you want as you do?


I'm not entirely sure who you are referring to as the "mainstream", but if you are referring to the BDSM community as a whole, I cant really speak for them. There are so many variations that range from spirituality to superficial play. I think dominance represents the order to the universe. Dominance is the structure, the discipline, the natural order of things. Submission, is the chaos that balances the order. Yin and yang...opposites attract, etc.

I dont think the mainstream notion is deviod of character. I think many of the dominants that I know and associate with are honorable people who value honesty and are people of their word. I think online D/s is in a large part responsible for the decline of honor within the community....but perhaps I should save that for another topic.

Anyway...hope this provided you with some additional information.

~Thorns

_____________________________

~"Do you know what the chain of command is? Its the chain I beat ya with when ya don't follow my command."

"My inner child is a mean little fucker"

(in reply to Leonidas)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Dominant? - 7/22/2004 5:53:25 AM   
January


Posts: 891
Joined: 4/17/2004
Status: offline 		In my mind, there is "dominance", and then there is "dominance I can respect". IMO "dominance" doesn't exist in a vacuum (it's like one hand clapping.) Without another person to "dominate", it doesn't exist.

However, dominance I can respect has nothing to do with bossing around a partner. It surely is unrelated to gender. And it doesn't have anything to do with any bdsm role. It's eye-popping, admirable competence. It could be in bdsm techniques, could be in sex or science research, could be competence in leading nations, or growing roses, or writing software, or in building houses, or even parenting.

January

_____________________________

[link: http://www.bookstrand.com/miss-you-sir] Miss You, Sir by January Rowe is available from Siren now! It's my latest smokin' hot bdsm romance.[/link]




(in reply to Leonidas)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Dominant? - 7/22/2004 6:08:51 AM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline 		Dominance and submission being complementary has me thinking about Taoism.

Taoism is symbolized by the symbol of Yin and Yang. Many people I have spoken
to view Yin and Yang as opposites. This is not really the case; they complement
each other and without their polar complement, they would not exist. This is actually
expressed in the symbol itself by the eyes. The white side has a black eye, and vice
versa. This symbolizes that the essence of one is the eye of the other.

To me, the opposition of the two halves is not what interests me about the lifestyle.
I see a D/s couple as a partnership chasing a dynamic (the Tao, or path) together;
a dynamic we will not reach without melding what we each bring to the partnership.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to January)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Dominant? - 7/22/2004 6:25:44 AM   
Leonidas


Posts: 2078
Joined: 2/16/2004
Status: offline 		A man who does only what is required of him is a slave. A man who does what he believes is right is a free man

-- Ancient Chinese Proverb

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Dominant? - 7/22/2004 6:49:37 AM   
melycious


Posts: 45
Joined: 1/20/2004
Status: offline 		In my mind, there is "dominance", and then there is "dominance I can respect". IMO "dominance" doesn't exist in a vacuum (it's like one hand clapping.) Without another person to "dominate", it doesn't exist.

*giggles..is 1 handed clapping.. that thing they do with 1 hand on my ass?)

*grins.......... ummm of course domming is about being egocentric, so is subbing.. lol.. so is bottoming and topping.. why do something if you get nothing out of it? ok.. i'm sure there are some folks who will take exception to tthat and say..i do it for the pure joy of serving.. my answer is still the same.. you offer something..because you get something back..

and.. once we start talking bout mainstream dominance i think we are sunk.... mainstream BDSM? hmm interesting theory.. i must admit... for me..its about what works for me.. and then i find someone who what works for me, also works for them...

i have a friend who beats me for stress control, .. its the most asexual beating i get.. for me its fun... but doesnt involve much input on my part.. just my ass *grins* thats her thing..

i have another person who beats me.. who demands everything of me.... the play is contingent on what he desires, and he makes sure i know it.. do i get off on knowing i'm playing for his pleasure.. OMG yesssssssssss.. does it make it less about me? course not.. bottom line.. both scenerios work for me........... and for my ego...

as for personalities playing into.. i'm about as far from a "sub" in my day to day life as anyone can be.. *grins* i get accussed all the time of not being a "real" sub.... ... one cant be............. a particular way all the time.... one can have character and morals which effect the way you make decisions and choices.

~chuckles.. OMG i'm umm rambling.. back to the cellar for me...

mely

(in reply to January)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Dominant? - 7/22/2004 6:52:44 AM   
January


Posts: 891
Joined: 4/17/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: melycious

*giggles..is 1 handed clapping.. that thing they do with 1 hand on my ass?)



Heh! Good one!

(in reply to melycious)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Dominant? - 7/22/2004 7:10:34 AM   
Leonidas


Posts: 2078
Joined: 2/16/2004
Status: offline 		I appreciate the responses, and I'm still reading. Perhaps I'll comment more later. One thing that I find interesting though is that so many are claiming that there is no mainsteam, and yet most are saying more or less the same thing. Sure looks like there might be a mainstream to me.

Take care of yourselves

Leonidas

< Message edited by Leonidas -- 7/22/2004 7:11:43 AM >

(in reply to Leonidas)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Dominant? - 7/22/2004 7:13:38 AM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

*grins.......... ummm of course domming is about being egocentric, so is subbing.. lol.. so is bottoming and topping.. why do something if you get nothing out of it? ok.. i'm sure there are some folks who will take exception to tthat and say..i do it for the pure joy of serving.. my answer is still the same.. you offer something..because you get something back..


Hello,

Buddhism has a certain attitude about egocentrism.

Basically, to a Buddhist everything which exists outside of one's own consciousness is simply a distraction to keep one from arriving at The Truth.

So technically, there is no such thing as a non-egocentric view to a Buddhist.

Yet, Buddhists, as a general rule, are non-confrontational, non-argumentative, altruistic, and kind.

I guess my point in response to your post is that everything we do in the lifestyle, to me, is completely ego-centric. The submissives I have known enjoy being played with (however one defines that), wearing cheerleader outfits, cleaning up the dishes, etc., but they do not enjoy it specifically for my benefit. Yes, it is nice to say that it all about the Dominant, but I think it is fairer to state that by doing what we do, we both have our needs met.

Just me, could be wrong, but there ya go.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to January)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Dominant? - 7/22/2004 7:26:26 AM   
Leonidas


Posts: 2078
Joined: 2/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Basically, to a Buddhist everything which exists outside of one's own consciousness is simply a distraction to keep one from arriving at The Truth.

So technically, there is no such thing as a non-egocentric view to a Buddhist.


As a buddhist, I'd have to take issue with what you have said here. The notion of anatta (Pali) or anatman (Sanscrit) literally meaning "no self" is at the very center of the philosophy. You are correct in saying that a Buddhist seeks to remove illusory constructs that obscure the truth, but "self" just happens to be one of them. This could be a thread of its own, but I think that a thread on the nature of self (and whether self really exists) is probably a little deep for this particular board.

Take care of yourself

Leonidas

< Message edited by Leonidas -- 7/22/2004 7:49:40 AM >

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Dominant? - 7/22/2004 8:02:06 AM   
MrThorns


Posts: 919
Joined: 6/4/2004
Status: offline 		A lot of the answers that have been posted do seem to follow a very spiritual view of BDSM. I am not a religious man, however I am spiritual. If I were to choose a spiritual path...I would choose BDSM. I know this sounds corny as hell, but its true. BDSM has provided me with more answers about Life, The Universe and Everything than anything else I have encountered. I don't believe this view is mainstream. I know lots and lots of people who just play for the quick fix. No relationships...no TPE...no 24/7. Just people having fun while beating each others hindquarters. I believe that this is more mainstream than anything. The mostly silent masses who simply enjoy tastes of BDSM in the bedroom. No deep, meaningful attatchments. Those of us that are very committed to exploring the deeper recesses of BDSM...are usually the ones out here in the forums...out there active in the community...sharing ideas and such. But we pretty much share a similiar belief system as far as the spirituality aspects go...and seem to run in the same, small circles. So with that in mind...it definately seems like the spirituality of BDSM is mainstream.. I dont think it is. I think Ive had too much coffee. I'm beginning to ramble.

Post more later...

~Thorns

_____________________________

~"Do you know what the chain of command is? Its the chain I beat ya with when ya don't follow my command."

"My inner child is a mean little fucker"

(in reply to Leonidas)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Dominant? - 7/22/2004 8:15:39 AM   
Leonidas


Posts: 2078
Joined: 2/16/2004
Status: offline 		Hi Thorns,

Just an aside that has nothing to do with this thread. I saw that you attributed that tag line of yours to a TV show. The writers of the show "lifted" it I'm afraid. I have heard it variously attributed to Chesty Puller (a notable marine), Phil Buchlew (The guy who organized the Navy Seals) and Hackworth (a notable Green Beret). It's been in use in military circles for 20 years that I know of first hand, and probably a lot longer. Of course, whoever said it first, it's still pretty funny.

Take care of yourself

Leonidas

< Message edited by Leonidas -- 7/22/2004 8:24:27 AM >

(in reply to MrThorns)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> Dominant? Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094