quote:

And the words "They make a great challenge, need to be conquered, and are the best way for a dom to prove he's got the chops to be a good dominant" were literally spoken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross
"They make a great challenge, need to be conquered, and are the best way for a dom to prove he's got the chops to be a good dominant"

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross
A local group had a class tonight labeled "The Dominant Submissive."  It was taught by someone I know semi-well and I think she's got a lot of spunk and some real good ideas so I was definitely curious to go.

Ironic that this is perfect timing with this thread topic for me personally. 

I thought the discussion would be more of a breaking down of stereotypes- pushing forward the notion that submissive isn't a personality type, that they need to be active and responsible in their relationships, that their actions should not be judged as their orientation and so on.

I tend to not hold a black and white view when it comes to orientation and personality types.  I believe being Dom or submissive is the personality of the person.  However, I tend to think there are other things that effect one self indentification of being sub or Dom.

In many respects "some" (not all) DOMs are not naturally Dom in their personality, but their desire for control is the result of insecurity and fear.  In many respects this holds true for "some" (not all) under the submissive label.   Again, I stress for SOME, not ALL. 

There is a degree of varience of personality in both submissives and Doms alike in my opinion or thought. 

I suppose there was some of that, but in many ways it felt like even MORE bad stereotypes were being created.
It started out well enough- discussion of labels and how useless they can be and how you should feel free to play with them, create your own, have fun and that what's ultimately most important is to be true to yourself.  Nice stuff.

I personally find sub-labels, sub-titles or combination useful, because they help break down general stereotyping into less generalized steretyping.  I agree it still involves more stereotyping, however it's a little more accurate stereotyping.  At least this is my thought on the matter.

Be true to yourself, single most important rule in this lifestyle.  I see a lot of people trying to squeeze themselves and their lives into some label, verse using the labels that best can be applied.

Next, moving on to how often subs are put down for not being "sub enough" and how dorky guys will try to do whatever they can to get you to listen to them and how obviously dorky that is and no one would give it any attention.  Again, nice.

I tend to dispise this mentality where people put down a submissive or slave for not being "sub enough".  Basically, I see a lot of idiots expecting for some Sub/slave that they are not in a relationship expect for that sub or slave to conform to some fantasy stereotype ideal they have.  Makes me want to scream Wanna be Dom out loud in a room.  However, this is my own stereo type notion of what a Real Dom should be.  With that said,  I feel like screaming Asshole DOM, or Insecure DOM many other not so nice thoughts.   I like your choice of using the word "Dorky".   Because basically it's like a Geeky Nerd with no common sense regarding social skills. 

Then, she got into defining what "The Dominant Submissive" is.  Generally it's someone who is stable, doesn't need micro managing, and does not bend easily to anothers will.  Getting a little too boxy here, but ok.

I agree with it getting a little too Boxy as well.  I'm not certain if even Dominant is the best prefix.  I tend to use words such as "Strong submissive", "Assertive submissive".  Some people I notice express "Alpha Sub".   However "Dominant Submissive" does work to a degree.  For lack of better words.   Still what you shared by difinition get's a little boxy and at risk of stereotyping.

Next, she went into why a dom would want a "dominant submissive."  And the words "They make a great challenge, need to be conquered, and are the best way for a dom to prove he's got the chops to be a good dominant" were literally spoken.

I totally relate to this 120%, in fact it actually turns me off if anybody wants to quickly submit to me.  Trust me that's not the way to hit my DOM button.  Sort of has the opposite effect.  Don't ask me why, just does.  To make matters even worse, I tend to catch on quickly to somebody trying to get me to Dom their ass as well.  I know somebody is going to be reading this and laughing thier ass off too. 

I do tend to like a great challenge at times, however this is not always true.  There's some strange combinations of things that does it for me.  The combinations are a little different.

I don't mind friction or anybody that challenges me.  In a sense, it's not about proving I have the chops.  It's a matter that my Dom nature does not go all soft.   It tends to keep me in my Dom role, if anything.  Keeps me on my toes as a DOM. 

It's not about proving I have the chops, It's about keeping my chops in good shape, if anything my chops get better as the result of this.  I tend to grow and improve.

In many respects this is what I enjoyed about being in a DOM couple relationship.  It was challenge, that pushed me and I grew from it.  If you can deal living 24/7 with another DOM personality and do it well, you can grow. 

Um, what?

She used a specific idea that she needed a dom who could say NO to her and mean it- that he wouldn't just roll over, that he wouldn't just make her happy to get laid.  That "most dominants are not strong enough to handle the challenge of a dominant submissive" (again literal words)

This is one of the things the last girl I was seeing loved about me.  I could say NO and mean it.  Because if I tell somebody NO it's with good reason, and not something to be used as a Weapon to Maintain Power over them.  Hope that makes sense to somebody.  So if I say NO, I sincerely mean it.  I also will express my reasons for saying NO as well.  I will listen to whatever they have to say about it.  I may or may not change my mind.  But if I change my mind, it's because of a reason.  Basically, I believe in explaining things and listening and using my mind and best sense of judgement.  Again I don't use the NO word as a mindless weapon of Power control.   

Someone attempted to bring up the double bind situation that puts the sub in- if a dom says "No I'm not interested in that sort of challenge" well he's just said NO to her firmly, but she's probably not happy.  If a dom says "Yes, I'm interested in that sort of challenge" then he's just said yes and that's not what the dominant submissive wants!

Here's something funny, At times when somebody asks me for a Yes/No answer.   I can be a real Smart ASS and say NO! then go ahead and give them the YES answer.  Call it a small mental mindfuck for a moment.   If however, my answer is a serious NO.  I will firmly say NO and perhaps explain why not.   I might make a joke out of "Yes, Life is not always fair" or "just because you want it does not mean you're gonna get it".   However, I use a little humor in the mix.  Depending how the other person asserted themselves.   I don't do this all the time either. 

Call it a blend of being an Asshole and Mr. Nice Guy mixed together at the same time with a small mind fuck.

I do this without really giving a rats ass about the orientation of the person I am dealing with as well.
 
If somebody were to ask me to see my lighter.  I might pull it out my pocket and say "See it" and put it back into my pocket.  I will do this using humor.   I'm twisted I know.   I'm a bit of a smart ass.  If you don't have a sense of humor trust me, I'm not the person you want to be hanging out with or involved with on a day to day basis.     

I asked my question badly as well.  I think I should have asked "What's the difference between a dom who doesn't WANT to deal with that sort of challenging attitude, and a dom who CAN'T deal with that sort of challenging attitude?"

It really bothered me to hear all those phrases thrown around "Not strong enough" "still opinionated" "doesn't just submit without thinking."  It scares me that it's just creating another generation of people who are afraid of the concept of "slave" because they've been told it equals weak unthinking doormat.

It actually sort of saddens me to a degree.  Slaves are faced with so much stereotyping at two ends of the stick.  One end, all the assholes with fantasy notions of what a slave is, and the same stereotyping from  Non-Slave type submissives and others.  I find I have growing empathy for slaves and slavish submissives.   In manys, it actually sickens me.

I honestly got a sense that part of the "dominant submissive" mindset is that they aren't secure in just relaxing and submitting, they need to be forced down because if they are forced, it's ok.  They actually take LESS responsibility because it's all about whether the DOM is strong enough or not.  So if a dom doesn't push them down- well it's just because they weren't strong enough.  They get to stay safe and warm in their security blanket.

Earlier this week, I was giving careful consideration to Bratty Girl types.  I was wrapping my mind around the elements of force involved.  To the extent that punishment is a part of the dynamic that is enjoyed by both.  I many respects it would be similar in nature to the kind of play I engaged in with a SadoMaso Domme.   However, in this case... it would lead to basically a take down that reinforced D/s.   A more fluid form of D/s based on friction and challenge.  However, even this would need to have limits.  You can only push or play this game so far, at least from the thoughts I have been exploring in my mind.   I have been contemplating this dynamic.  Including the element of Forced Sex and other forced things.  Again, like any other BDSM relationship it would be a mutual dynamic with limits and understanding that this is the way things work.  In many senses, It's made me step back from the thoughts of Owning a Well Mannered and Behaved slave as I have in the past, to having a Brat on my hands.  Certain aspects of this appeal to me, because of the type of interaction that happened in my DOM couple relationship. 
 
I'm still in the process of wrapping my mind around this.  So this thread comes at a perfect time.


It felt like the some of the people really had made this distinction- slaves and most subs are unthinking repressed weak passive followers.  In order to break away from that, they created this new genre.  It's as if they can't reconcile a slave being opinionated, non micro managed AND also completely obedient and relaxed as a doormat.

Again the misconceptions of what a slave should or should not be.  I have noticed a growing number of slave profiles where the slaves are expressing they need to be micromanaged and a whole string of How they Want a Master to treat them.  I consider myself adaptive on some levels.   Being Adaptive is not a bad thing, it's simply a matter of being realistic.  For instance I have no problems micromanging somebody's ass, provided it does not consume so much of my time, that it distracts me from other things I need to do.   Do I feel that Micromanagement is required in the ownership of a slave!  Hell, no!  I know better, because of my experiences.   It's rather hard for me to say that some people are not Experienced, I do question the Quality of their BDSM experience(s).   Then again, my own thought fall close to one wayesm line of thinking.  To which, I have been trying to step outside of, and keep a more open mind about. 

My experiences, and what other peoples experiences are different.  My POV and others will not always match or agree. 

Someone mentioned it being a leather thing and speaking as a very NON leather person, I don't think it has anything to do with that.  I think it's the fact that we recognize and celebrate all forms of strength and we OWN our submission for ourselves.  Sure who doesn't love a good take down or force play?  But AFTER permission is granted.  A slave who willingly crawls across the floor can have just as much if nor more strength within her than one who bucks and pulls at every step.

Personally, I've never adopted or followed any BDSM Dogma of Leather, Old Guard, or Gorean.   Mind you certain aspects and elements of these things I have adopted.  I have Ate small pieces of the pills, but have never ever taken the whole pill.  If I did, then I would not being doing things they way I see fit, I would be following what somebody else believes is the right way.

I tend to view "many" (not all) slaves as having more strength compared to their Masters.  Many Masters could not withstand the pain of being flogged, could not endure many things.  Many Masters don't have to place incredible levels of trust in a slave, as a slave does thier master.  A slave has set aside much of their self to serve a Master.   While Many (not all) tend to be self centered and greedy on the whole in how they interact with others or in society itself.   In many ways it's like the Difference between Individualism of Western Society, and a Buddist of Eastern Culture.   There is a certain element of weakness in Greed, being self absorbed.  Many (not all) Doms/Masters get to hold onto their fears and insecurities, these things in fact can become negatives in terms of being driving control forces.  Basically where as a Dom/Master asserts control out of fear and insecurity.  Ironic, the Dom/Master is control by fear and insecurity.

It's amazing though how those fears and insecurities can end up as Control buttons.  Think anybody who's done it knows how easy it can become to control a Dom/Master using their own insecurity and fear as a weapon.  Advanced Mental Kung Fool type of stuff.  You can also simply press a button and watch the DOM/Master self destruct and loose self control as well.  Then they are vulnerable to making big mistakes.  It's a bit like a chess game, whoever makes the first mistake looses.

For those who have seen or read "Battlefield Earth", there's the whole concept of "Leverage".  But I'm rambling on too much in this post.  I should move onward in response.


The worst part is that she's not wrong- there are more than a ton of dorks out there willing to shame and humiliate subs by saying "You're not sub enough" and subs who let them get away with it every day.  But IMO, the answer is not to build walls and decide all slaves are unthinking beings.  But to recognize the difference between dynamics which come from a place of strength and those which come from a place of insecurity.

I love your conclusion... the whole bit about a place of insecurity. 

Sorry if I rambled, but I wanted to share with you. Thoughts?

I rather enjoyed this well thought out post of yours and your ramble. 
I don't know what other people will make of it, but it made a lot of sense to me.

Sorry if rambled, but I found a lot to ramble back in response.

quote:

ORIGINAL: shivermetimbers

I hope I'm staying true to your post, but this is what started running through my mind, so I apologize if I am way off base.  I was in the military, and as everyone knows, there is a rank structure. You have at one end of the rank structure generals, the other privates.  Neither can exist without the other.  Both have a responsibility to either give or execute commands.  The general is tasked with a multitude of decisions.  The private is tasked with the final obedience to execute those decisions.   That mutual respect for each other, the knowing one can't exist without the other,  is what makes a functional unit. A good private doesn't demand a general to prove their stars, and a good general doesn't need to  prove their status by pulling rank. (Emphasis on the word "good" for former and current military folk who want to challenge about generals and privates who don't deserve their rank)

When either starts trying to usurp the other by "challenges", problems occur. IMHO in the D/s world, you can assume the role you desire, because unlike the military, you don't have qualifications that must be met. For one to take the title of dominant or submissive, you made the choice without qualification by saying, "I'm this".  So a submissive who requires the dominant to "prove they are dominant enough" are IMHO someone who really wants to be on the other side, but doesn't have the guts themselves to face someone just like them.  It's no different than joining a club of some sort, and sit on the sidelines kibitzing and complaining about how things are run, but not willing to step up and actually take a chance at being responsible for how the club runs.  To me, a "dominant submissive" is just the equivalent of the role Fred MacMurray played in "The Caine Mutiny".  He loved challenging authority, he loved stirring the pot, but when the time came to put up or shut up, he cowered, and destroyed the functioning unit.  If you have never seen the movie, rent it, and you'll see the kind of person I envision the "dominant submissive" to be.

quote:

Next, she went into why a dom would want a "dominant submissive." And the words "They make a great challenge, need to be conquered, and are the best way for a dom to prove he's got the chops to be a good dominant" were literally spoken.

quote:

She used a specific idea that she needed a dom who could say NO to her and mean it- that he wouldn't just roll over, that he wouldn't just make her happy to get laid. That "most dominants are not strong enough to handle the challenge of a dominant submissive" (again literal words)

quote:

I asked my question badly as well. I think I should have asked "What's the difference between a dom who doesn't WANT to deal with that sort of challenging attitude, and a dom who CAN'T deal with that sort of challenging attitude?"

quote:

It really bothered me to hear all those phrases thrown around "Not strong enough" "still opinionated" "doesn't just submit without thinking." It scares me that it's just creating another generation of people who are afraid of the concept of "slave" because they've been told it equals weak unthinking doormat.

quote:

I honestly got a sense that part of the "dominant submissive" mindset is that they aren't secure in just relaxing and submitting, they need to be forced down because if they are forced, it's ok. They actually take LESS responsibility because it's all about whether the DOM is strong enough or not. So if a dom doesn't push them down- well it's just because they weren't strong enough. They get to stay safe and warm in their security blanket.

quote:

Someone mentioned it being a leather thing and speaking as a very NON leather person, I don't think it has anything to do with that. I think it's the fact that we recognize and celebrate all forms of strength and we OWN our submission for ourselves. Sure who doesn't love a good take down or force play? But AFTER permission is granted. A slave who willingly crawls across the floor can have just as much if nor more strength within her than one who bucks and pulls at every step.

quote:

The worst part is that she's not wrong- there are more than a ton of dorks out there willing to shame and humiliate subs by saying "You're not sub enough" and subs who let them get away with it every day. But IMO, the answer is not to build walls and decide all slaves are unthinking beings. But to recognize the difference between dynamics which come from a place of strength and those which come from a place of insecurity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

Next, she went into why a dom would want a "dominant submissive."  And the words "They make a great challenge, need to be conquered, and are the best way for a dom to prove he's got the chops to be a good dominant" were literally spoken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross
A (slave) who willingly crawls across the floor can have just as much if nor more strength within her than one who bucks and pulls at every step.