RE: Dominant?

RE: Dominant? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

MrThorns -> RE: Dominant? (7/22/2004 8:56:46 AM)
Smiles... Well happy to hear where it originally came from. I would hate to not give credit to Chesty Puller. (We knock out a few extra pushups for him...the commandant...and the ariborne ranger in the sky...) I know...mixed services...but I'm Army and work with a bunch of former Marines... I'll research it so I can give credit where the credit is due. ~Thorns

Leonidas -> RE: Dominant? (7/22/2004 9:40:12 AM)
quote: 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. Not really in the vein of the thread, but this statement fascinates me. So, by this standard, when the party calling themselves the submissive tells the party calling themselves the dominant "OK, I like it when you [blank] my [blank] and [blank] my [blank], and you can [blank] my [blank] if you want to, but you better not [blank] my [blank], that's a hard limit, oh, and by the way, if I say "grapefruit" you'd better stop [blanking] my [blank] right away". And in response the party calling themselves the dominant says in effect "oh goody, she's gonna let me [blank] her [blank]. OK!!" The party calling themselves the submissive is actually the dominant, and the party calling themselves the dominant is actually the submissive, because the party calling themselves the submissive is calling the shots? Take care of yourself Leonidas

darkinshadows -> RE: Dominant? (7/22/2004 9:45:49 AM)
Istn't that topping from below?

MzBerlin -> RE: Dominant? (7/22/2004 12:25:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MizSuz quote: ORIGINAL: MzBerlin I love Ayn Rand. As Always- Berlin But, who is John Galt???? I spend most of my time wondering Where Howard Roark might be.[:D] B

melycious -> RE: Dominant? (7/22/2004 1:06:10 PM)
~chuckling at Leonidas post.... as far as topping from the bottom? i suppose it depends on.. what the purpose of play is.. if i'm tripping down the whole submissive road.. then yep probably it is topping from the bottom.. however, if i'm looking to find a nice peaceful spot by getting those endorphins running by getting beat.. then it makes sense for me to help direct someone who may not know what i like (which is just about everything.. well cept if Sherri likes it.. i'm probably scared to death of it).... mely

MrThorns -> RE: Dominant? (7/22/2004 1:31:51 PM)
Leonidas... The statement is true. But it has to be for safety reasons. I think once people transition into a 24/7 relationship the dynamic changes dramatically. Originally...yes. My slave had control over what I did to her. Now? I'm gonna {blank} her {blank} whenever I {blank blank} and shove that {blank} right in her {blank}{blank} and she'll thank me for it. But we have evolved within our relationship. The trust is there. I think the sub in control dynamic is somewhat necessary. Problem is...if they dont eventually let go of that control...what happens to the relationship? Just a few thoughts... ~Thorns

LadyAngelika -> RE: Dominant? (7/22/2004 2:42:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leonidas Not really in the vein of the thread, but this statement fascinates me. So, by this standard, when the party calling themselves the submissive tells the party calling themselves the dominant "OK, I like it when you [blank] my [blank] and [blank] my [blank], and you can [blank] my [blank] if you want to, but you better not [blank] my [blank], that's a hard limit, oh, and by the way, if I say "grapefruit" you'd better stop [blanking] my [blank] right away". And in response the party calling themselves the dominant says in effect "oh goody, she's gonna let me [blank] her [blank]. OK!!" The party calling themselves the submissive is actually the dominant, and the party calling themselves the dominant is actually the submissive, because the party calling themselves the submissive is calling the shots? Leonidas, In all sincerity, I'd love to answer this. But first I need to be able to decrypt it. - LA

LadyAngelika -> RE: Dominant? (7/22/2004 2:45:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Dominance and submission being complementary has me thinking about Taoism. Taoism is symbolized by the symbol of Yin and Yang. I like the Yin/Yang analogy. I also love the analogy of symbiosis. - LA

LadyAngelika -> RE: Dominant? (7/22/2004 2:49:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrThorns 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'm atheist. But I love philosophy and spirituality on a personal level, such as Zen which, btw, is not a religion. On that same note, BDSM could be your life philosophy, but not a religion. A religion requires Theism. You need a divinity... unless you want to play God ;) - LA

Leonidas -> RE: Dominant? (7/22/2004 3:06:38 PM)
Not to be picky, but you don't have to have a diety to have a religion. Zen, and other forms of Buddhism qualify. To have a religion you must be devoted to, and have faith in, some notion of an ultimate reality. Some people's "ultimate reality" is that everything emanates from God. The ultimate reality that others have faith in doesn't include the notion that there is a God at all (this would include the various forms of Buddhism). You want BDSM to be a religion? Maybe the ultimate reality that you have faith in is that order in the universe is perpetuated when complementary forces (dominant/submissive, sadistic/masochistic, for example) converge and actualize one another. Absent these convergences, more and more of the energy in the universe becomes unavailable. Entropy increases, ultimately leading to chaos. It is our moral and religious duty to seek out the energies in the universe that complement ours, so that both may be actualized, perpetuating universal order. Wow!!! Look Ma, I just made a religion! Take care of yourself Leonidas

ballz4u2bust -> RE: Dominant? (7/22/2004 3:38:07 PM)
yin and yang also is about balance and being in harmony,so dom needs sub ,and sub needs dom-together they are in harmony with each other,thats basic and simple to understand ,so we start adding /seeking a more complex label /definition and we divide into more groupings /segregations and its become confusion,just stick to the pure and simple form and who needs labels anyway- role players or role models,?

darkinshadows -> RE: Dominant? (7/22/2004 3:46:56 PM)
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. As a question kinda from the sidelines(I hope You dont mind me asking) I am unsure about the meaning of the word 'conciousness'. Is that as in 'Your awareness of whats around You, everything about You'... or 'the conciousness of oneself'? Thank You for reading this.

MizSuz -> RE: Dominant? (7/22/2004 4:46:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Dominance and submission being complementary has me thinking about Taoism. Taoism is symbolized by the symbol of Yin and Yang. I like the Yin/Yang analogy. I also love the analogy of symbiosis. - LA And reciprocity.

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Dominant? (7/22/2004 4:47:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MzBerlin I spend most of my time wondering Where Howard Roark might be. That's because you have not yet read Atlas Shrugged. Get thee to a library! smile Yours always, Taggard

MrThorns -> RE: Dominant? (7/22/2004 4:51:45 PM)
Amen!

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Dominant? (7/22/2004 4:56:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leonidas So, by this standard, when the party calling themselves the submissive tells the party calling themselves the dominant "OK, I like it when you [blank] my [blank] and [blank] my [blank], and you can [blank] my [blank] if you want to, but you better not [blank] my [blank], that's a hard limit, oh, and by the way, if I say "grapefruit" you'd better stop [blanking] my [blank] right away". And in response the party calling themselves the dominant says in effect "oh goody, she's gonna let me [blank] her [blank]. OK!!" The party calling themselves the submissive is actually the dominant, and the party calling themselves the dominant is actually the submissive, because the party calling themselves the submissive is calling the shots? I love safe words and have no problem with limits, but I simply don't look at it the way you do. Here is how I see the above conversation: "Submissive": At this stage in my life/development/journy toward enlightenment, I feel comfortable doing [blank], [blank], and [blank]. [blank] scares but excites me. [blank] and [blank] are things I do not want to do. "Dominant": Hmm...good thing you like [blank] and [blank] or this would never work. As far as your hard limit on [blank], that particular act is very important to me and I hope as you begin to trust me we can begin to explore it. Once both agree to the terms, the "dynamic" is formed. Each partner plays their role in the dynamic, the top doing what he agreed and the bottom doing her part. The "Dominant" isn't submitting to the "submissive", he is "submitting to the dynamic" created out of their negotiations. Of course, it need not be as formal as above, or (if I have anything to say about it) it might be much much more formal, evoloving into contracts and checklists and all sorts of stuff to please a paperwork fetishist. Yours, Taggard

anthrosub -> RE: Dominant? (7/22/2004 5:29:36 PM)
When i see discussions begin to start talking about philosophy, religion, and the like...i always remember a little joke i heard once that seems to have a ring of truth to it. "Reality...what a concept!" All the terms that are being mentioned in this thread, like everything else in the world of human beings is subject to interpretation, hence this discussion and all the others on this and every other board. For myself, i think i have an awareness composed of everything i sense around me, my memories, my sub-conscious, and my genetic memory (or whatever you choose to call it). This is the box i live in. Whatever "IT" is outside that box, i can infer exists because i know that i don't know the whole of everything. In other words, there's the unknown to be considered. That...is the mystery we all are in wonder about and have in common. People ask me if i'm religious and i say, "Yes." Then they ask me what religion i practice and i reply that i don't subscribe to any particular belief system. "Truth is a pathless land." - Krishnamurti anthrosub

Leonidas -> RE: Dominant? (7/22/2004 5:47:49 PM)
Hi Taggard, I don't see it any particular way. I was just trying to get the lady to confirm her hypothesis by examining its inverse. She demured. She seemed to be saying that the acts being performed were not what made the dominant the dominant and the submissive the submissive. The determing factor, according to her anyway, was which party is "calling the shots". What I was pointing out is that, at least from what I've seen especially in those who are more scene play than power exchange oriented, the "submissive" often calls the shots (spells out what they want to have done to them) and the "dominant" accomodates. By her definition, that would be a role reversal, regardless of who was on the handle end of the whip, and who was on the business end. She's headed into some conceptually tricky (if well trodden) ground in her thinking, and I just wondered if she had thought it through. As I said in the post, this question isn't really relevant to the original question about how, if at all, dominance as defined by the mainstream of the BDSM community differs from egocentricity and hedonism. Take care of yourself Leonidas

Leonidas -> RE: Dominant? (7/22/2004 6:00:28 PM)
I'm glad someone saw the humor in that. I understand exactly what you are saying. What about the folks though that never progress past scene play? No relationship, just play? Is the necessary role reversal that you just talked about always in effect then? Are most of the scene-play doms walking around out there really the subs, and visa-versa? Take care of yourself Leonidas

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Dominant? (7/22/2004 6:28:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leonidas What I was pointing out is that, at least from what I've seen especially in those who are more scene play than power exchange oriented, the "submissive" often calls the shots (spells out what they want to have done to them) and the "dominant" accomodates. What you have described here is the old "doing what someone else wants is submission" canard mixed with a bit of the "having limits is topping from the bottom" fiction. Negotiation, communication, and setting clear boundaries isn't "calling the shots." It's dealing with issues in an honest, straightforward and realistic manner. Enjoying giving pleasure to another isn't submission. It's finding joy in the pleasure of others...even if that pleasure comes from being used, humiliated or made to suffer. Yours, Taggard

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125