Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Who is really dominant?


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

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> Who is really dominant? Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Who is really dominant? - 7/26/2004 8:55:42 PM   
dmc68


Posts: 32
Joined: 7/17/2004
Status: offline 		The sub or the dom?

It seems to me that in the end it all equates out to an equal exchange. If the sub walks the dom is left with nothing.

Just an observation.

Discuss
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Who is really dominant? - 7/26/2004 9:08:36 PM   
SherriA


Posts: 544
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline 		Honestly? I don't think it really matters. At least it doesn't to me. I don't need to analyze things that way. I prefer to simply enjoy them for what they are.

As long as the ride is giving me the rush I want, people can make whatever judgements they like or slap whatever labels they want on it; I'm still going to enjoy the ride.

_____________________________

-- Sherri

Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.

(in reply to dmc68)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Who is really dominant? - 7/26/2004 9:24:29 PM   
MistressDREAD


Posts: 2943
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

if the sub walks the Dom is left with nothing?


You seem to have over looked the value of the Dom.

(in reply to dmc68)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Who is really dominant? - 7/26/2004 9:52:01 PM   
MzBerlin


Posts: 378
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline 		dmc66-
The Dominant is the dominant because he/she plays the dominant role. The submissive is the submissive because he/she plays the submissive role. The dominant has all of the power within certain guidelines.
If the sub walks out the dominant is not left with nothing. What is the dominant suppossed to recieve? I don't really understand the full intent of your posting, but I'm going to work with you here. It is an exchange, but there's no winner or loser. (At least not in a consensual, informed exchange IMNSHO). Both players are, in one sense or another -submitting to the dynamic. (I love this phrase.) It is a dynamic that is created through the negotiation of the guidlines both believe in.
This is a generic answer, and I hope that you put up a clearer post of what you desire to learn about.
As Always-
Berlin

(in reply to dmc68)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Who is really dominant? - 7/26/2004 10:33:55 PM   
Estring


Posts: 3314
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline 		If a Dom walks, the sub is left with nothing either. People stay in a relationship when they are getting what they need. As Berlin stated, each plays a role and each role should compliment the other.
I have had slaves leave me in the past. It doesn't mean I wasn't a Dom, it just means things didn't work out.

(in reply to dmc68)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Who is really dominant? - 7/26/2004 11:47:14 PM   
dmc68


Posts: 32
Joined: 7/17/2004
Status: offline 		just interested in seeing everyones views on it Berlin, dont take it personal gorgeous lady.

(in reply to Estring)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Who is really dominant? - 7/27/2004 12:46:21 AM   
MzBerlin


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

ORIGINAL: dmc68

just interested in seeing everyones views on it Berlin, dont take it personal gorgeous lady.


Pardon, dmc?
I haven't taken anything personally. You asked a question, I asked for clarification. You flatter yourself.
As Always
Berlin

(in reply to dmc68)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Who is really dominant? - 7/27/2004 1:20:20 AM   
dmc68


Posts: 32
Joined: 7/17/2004
Status: offline 		no flattery here Berlin, just sincerity.

Cheers

(in reply to MzBerlin)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Who is really dominant? - 7/27/2004 6:04:52 AM   
melycious


Posts: 45
Joined: 1/20/2004
Status: offline 		~gots to agree with sherri on this one.. long as the reasons folks entered into the interaction is being met, it doesnt matter what you call it.. we say dom sub for a common language, but between 2 folks with the same plans, they could call it cat dog, milk fish... they are just words....

and as for walking away with nothing... all i can say is this.. no matter what kind of relationship i have ever been in..if it came to a point of walking away, you can be sure, that i never walk away with nothing... we all end up with something, sometimes its intially pain and hurt, sometimes guilt, sometimes longing, but something. .over time, if we are able to look inside, we find other things we walked with, hope, a plan for the next time, what we will never settle for again, what we liked, something.. its a matter of us finding it, and then using it...

relationships on whatever level, exist for a particular reason or reasons, if those reasons become less compelling then others, the majority of us, take inventory and make new choices...

mely

(in reply to dmc68)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Who is really dominant? - 7/27/2004 8:49:16 AM   
ScorpioMaster


Posts: 146
Joined: 3/30/2004
Status: offline 		dmc68 Think of it in these terms if the employee walks is the Boss still the boss with no one to boss over. In any social or group hierarchy you will always have leaders and followers. If the followers do not follow the leaders do they loose their status? If you go too deep into any thing it will loose the effect. When it comes down in the end we will always need each other for one thing or another what we do in life. Enjoy this lifestyle it is what you make of it.

(in reply to dmc68)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Who is really dominant? - 7/27/2004 8:52:26 AM   
Leonidas


Posts: 2078
Joined: 2/16/2004
Status: offline 		Some folks would say that the dominance of an individual is not defined by their sub, or even whether they happen to have a sub, or slave. Slaves submit to dominant individuals because they possess the quality of dominance already. The quality is not bestowed by the slave's act of submission.

Take care of yourself.

Leonidas

< Message edited by Leonidas -- 7/27/2004 8:53:12 AM >

(in reply to dmc68)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Who is really dominant? - 7/27/2004 9:29:52 AM   
TallDarkAndWitty


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

ORIGINAL: Leonidas
The quality is not bestowed by the slave's act of submission.


That is such an interesting statement. It reminds me much of the old riddle, "If a tree falls in a forest an no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Is a dominant dominant without someone to submit? I suppose one can dominate their surroundings, nature, the business world. All of these things which I think you have touched on in many of your other posts, Leonidas. (Quite Randian of you, by the way...I think you would love The Fountainhead.) Yet even in those terms, if you remove the dominant from the things he dominates, is he still a dominant? Is he defined by his inate being, or by the reaction he creates in others?

Try this thought experiment:

What if you take a man who is the tallest, strongest and most intelligent man in a group of paradise dwelling little people, who also don't happen to be very smart. He is the top man in the colony, he knows how to open a coconut, and the women flock to him like nyc gals to a pair of Manolo Blahnik's. One day he is playing with his slaves by the shore and is swept out to sea by a giant tidal wave. He is rescued up by a colony of iceburg dwelling, really tall, geniuses. They bring him back to the 'burg and treat him very kindly, because he really isn't very smart, would die of exposure of left to his own devices, and can't do the work of a real "man." They treat him as a treasured pet, and he learns to live with it.

Where did his "dominance" go? Did he really possess the "qualities of dominance", or was he just in an environment that easily submitted to the qualities he just happened to possess?

I'll tell you right now, Leonidas, that I respect your mind and your way of putting things. You have caused me to really think about things. The more I think, though, the more I come away convinced that it is the "dynamic" that creates the dominant and submissive, not the participants themselves.

The little dom was dominant in the "paradise dynamic," but only in the "paradise dynamic." Outside of that dynamic, he was simply a small idiot. I think the BDSM roles work much the same way. By creating, then submitting to, the dynamic, we can define our roles and play them out to the pleasure of our partner.

Just thoughts on a Tuesday afternoon...

Yours,
Taggard

< Message edited by TallDarkAndWitty -- 7/27/2004 9:39:08 AM >

_____________________________

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 #: 12
RE: Who is really dominant? - 7/27/2004 10:01:58 AM   
Leonidas


Posts: 2078
Joined: 2/16/2004
Status: offline 		You have a pretty good scenario going there, right up to the "he learned to live with it" part. I would contend that the man that you describe was no more dominant than the island slaves he kept. He just happened to fall into a fortunate circumstance.

If he were a dominant man, he wouldn't have "learned to live with it". He would have left, maybe to die on his own, rather than be kept as a "pet". As I have said on a couple of other threads, one of the things that separates those who are inherantly submissives or slaves from those who are dominant and inherantly free is the passion for self-determination. Our fundamental disagreement about the nature of dominance is that I see it as an inate quality, and you see it as a role that must be validated by the submission of someone else.

By way of illustration, the name that I use on this board belonged to someone that I admire from history. He lead 300 Spartans at a place called Thermopolae against a force hundreds of times as large, just to give his countrymen time to organize and repel an invasion. Notice I say he lead, not that he sent them (it wasn't all about him). As was their custom, they fought to the last man rather than be lead away in chains by their enemy. They were dominant men. They did not need the submission of anyone to validate that fact.

Take care of yourself

Leonidas

< Message edited by Leonidas -- 7/27/2004 10:02:27 AM >

(in reply to TallDarkAndWitty)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Who is really dominant? - 7/27/2004 11:43:25 AM   
TallDarkAndWitty


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

ORIGINAL: Leonidas

As I have said on a couple of other threads, one of the things that separates those who are inherantly submissives or slaves from those who are dominant and inherantly free is the passion for self-determination.


Again, another quite fascinating discussion.

So, if I read you correctly, it is not the actual act of domination that makes one dominant, it is the lack of submission. Domianance is the dark to submission's light. Just as dark is what's left when light is not present, dominance is what is there when there is no submission present.

I am guessing your ideas are more complex than that. I believe you see dominance as some positive, active force as well. But it looks to me like the presence of a certain amout of submission will cancel out any previous acts of domination (such as our little paradise idiot dom, who wasn't ever dominant because he agreed to live as a treasured pet once his circumstances changed).

It's almost as if your idea of domination can only be proven by reaction to situations where the choice to be dominant (and self-determining) is a difficult one. A person who had all the trappings of dominance (slaves, people following their orders, respect of peers, etc) might not be a real dominant (just fortunate circumstances) , while the person who had none of the trappings of dominance (alone, living in a burned out building, spat upon by children, etc) might be a "real" dominant because they chose not to live as a treasured pet.

All so very Randian...Howard Roark to the nth power.

I am not trying to argue. I think your ideas would be comfortable amongst many of the ideas I hold myself.

I would like to point out that while you say I consider dominance to be "validated by the submission of someone else" (and I don't think I am prepared to argue that I don't), you have merely given a definition of dominance that is validated by the lack of submission to someone else. We both need submission to define dominance. One can not exist without the other. Thoughts?

Yours,
Taggard

_____________________________

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 #: 14
RE: Who is really dominant? - 7/27/2004 12:44:56 PM   
Leonidas


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

Just as dark is what's left when light is not present, dominance is what is there when there is no submission present.


You could just as easily say that submission is what happens when dominance is not present. All you are saying here is that someone who is dominant is possessed of an indominable spirit, which is true enough.

quote:

It's almost as if your idea of domination can only be proven by reaction to situations where the choice to be dominant (and self-determining) is a difficult one. A person who had all the trappings of dominance (slaves, people following their orders, respect of peers, etc) might not be a real dominant (just fortunate circumstances) , while the person who had none of the trappings of dominance (alone, living in a burned out building, spat upon by children, etc) might be a "real" dominant because they chose not to live as a treasured pet.


A dominant man who is born to fortunate circumstance will make more of what he has inherited, not because he wants something more, it's just that his spirit will drive a desire to assert himself in the world. I do agree with your statement somewhat, though. The true metal of a man will never be known until it is tempered on the forge of adversity. A truly dominant man or woman lives for something, not from something.

quote:

I would like to point out that while you say I consider dominance to be "validated by the submission of someone else" (and I don't think I am prepared to argue that I don't), you have merely given a definition of dominance that is validated by the lack of submission to someone else. We both need submission to define dominance. One can not exist without the other. Thoughts?


Philosophers have been arguing whether a concept can exist in the absence of its opposite at least since the classical era, and probably longer. It is still an area of philosophical inquiry today. Would there be love if indifference did not exist? Can there be kindness if there is no cruelty? Would truth exist if a lie had never been uttered? I think that it would, which puts me on one side of that philosophical divide.

All of this said, life would be brutal and short if everyone was possessed of the qualities of which I speak in abundance. Civilization, if it had formed at all, would be radically different than what we know, and probably so harsh as to be unbearable for many. Nothing that I have said here should be construed to suggest that I find the desire in some people to submit to dominance and serve those posessed of it to be despicable or worthless. On the contrary, such people can be of great worth. They can be possessed of limitless grace and modest dignity, and fine hearts. I have known many who fit this description, and they are people that I have cherished, though I might not aspire to be like them.

More to think about.

Take care of yourself

Leonidas

< Message edited by Leonidas -- 7/27/2004 12:47:37 PM >

(in reply to TallDarkAndWitty)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Who is really dominant? - 7/27/2004 1:37:37 PM   
darkinshadows


Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

Yet even in those terms, if you remove the dominant from the things he dominates, is he still a dominant? Is he defined by his inate being, or by the reaction he creates in others?


I really felt I had to add in my simple two pennies worth. If a woman is a woman alone on an island... is she still a woman? Is a Man a Man removed from the world and on His own, still a Man?

In Angels opinion, yes. Just as a Dominant is themself.
The difference is Dominant vs. Master. A Master implies ownership or that someone has something the majority does not(in educational terms, a Degree...etc). If a person has nothing, and achieves nothing, He cannot be something. But if He has Himself and knows His identity, then He simply, Is.(just using masculine, not meaning to be sexist*grinz*Just making it easier on myself)

Thats just Angels humble opinon and hopes she wasnt 'butting in'... smiles

_____________________________
.dark.



...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to TallDarkAndWitty)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Who is really dominant? - 7/27/2004 1:52:39 PM   
TallDarkAndWitty


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

ORIGINAL: Leonidas

quote:

Just as dark is what's left when light is not present, dominance is what is there when there is no submission present.


You could just as easily say that submission is what happens when dominance is not present. All you are saying here is that someone who is dominant is possessed of an indominable spirit, which is true enough.


I wasn't speaking for myself in the above quote, simply making sure I was reading you correctly (which it appears I was). I quite simply don't agree that someone is dominant if they can't be dominated. I see no connection between one's ability to dominate and the lack of desire to submit (or the strength to resist forced submission (or the choice to die rather than submit)).

For example, an alpha dog will submit to a human master, yet still dominate the pack. The qualities that make the alpha dog domianant over the pack do not vanish simply because he submits to a creature that is more alpha.

quote:


A dominant man who is born to fortunate circumstance will make more of what he has inherited, not because he wants something more, it's just that his spirit will drive a desire to assert himself in the world. I do agree with your statement somewhat, though. The true metal of a man will never be known until it is tempered on the forge of adversity. A truly dominant man or woman lives for something, not from something.


Third and last time I will mention this...if you have not read any Ayn Rand, you simply must.
You will absolutely love her fiction.

One passing point. What if there was a man or woman who did all of the things you mention above, yet also submitted to another? Would all those great acts of "dominance" be cancelled out? Do you think it is impossible to be the kind of person you describe above and yet enjoy submitting to another?

quote:


All of this said, life would be brutal and short if everyone was possessed of the qualities of which I speak in abundance. Civilization, if it had formed at all, would be radically different than what we know, and probably so harsh as to be unbearable for many. Nothing that I have said here should be construed to suggest that I find the desire in some people to submit to dominance and serve those posessed of it to be despicable or worthless. On the contrary, such people can be of great worth. They can be possessed of limitless grace and modest dignity, and fine hearts. I have known many who fit this description, and they are people that I have cherished, though I might not aspire to be like them.


So, in your mind, the dominants are the movers and shakers in the world. They naturally attract the submissives of the world with their joi de vivre and the power that exudes out of them. They don't need to own slaves, or even want to (though many slaves and submissives will offer their services). If they are ever kidnapped, they will die before becoming a slave or even a treasured pet. They are indominatable. They are driven.

Interesting...as always. Thanks for sharing your viewpoint.

Yours,
Taggard

_____________________________

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 #: 17
RE: Who is really dominant? - 7/27/2004 2:38:41 PM   
Leonidas


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

For example, an alpha dog will submit to a human master, yet still dominate the pack. The qualities that make the alpha dog domianant over the pack do not vanish simply because he submits to a creature that is more alpha.


True enough, but consider that dogs have been selected for the qualities of docility, obedience to authority, and submissiveness for a long, long time. It's fairly well known, however, that if you take a wolf pup into captivity, you may get a faithful pet, but you are not unlikely to get a big, agressive animal that might decide one day that you don't happen to be his master. Men (at least until recently) have not been actively selected for the traits that we value in dogs.

Three hundred men followed a King into battle in the example that I gave you above. They all, as free men, gave him their allegence. They all obeyed his commands. In a certain sense, you could say that they were submissive to him, but where they? Why, after their King had been killed, did they still fight to the last man? Would slaves have done so? Remember again what I said above. The free man, the dominant man, lives for something, not from something.

quote:

One passing point. What if there was a man or woman who did all of the things you mention above, yet also submitted to another? Would all those great acts of "dominance" be cancelled out? Do you think it is impossible to be the kind of person you describe above and yet enjoy submitting to another?


An act that would be an act of dominance in a free man becomes an act of devoted service in a slave. A slave serves a master. They are not, and do not want to be, self-determined. There is a certain nobility in such an act in a slave as well. It is not ignoble. Far from it. It is just different. Some of the slaves that I have known have been extrordinarily talented and accomplished. They just used their talents and abilities in service to their master. In the vernacular of this site, that is their "kink".

quote:

So, in your mind, the dominants are the movers and shakers in the world. They naturally attract the submissives of the world with their joi de vivre and the power that exudes out of them. They don't need to own slaves, or even want to (though many slaves and submissives will offer their services). If they are ever kidnapped, they will die before becoming a slave or even a treasured pet. They are indominatable. They are driven.


With most of this, I agree, except perhaps that you have to be a "mover and shaker". There is a man who works on the dock where my boat is moored. He is the absolute master of the craft of rigging. He needs no supervisor standing over him to see that he does not shirk. He has done things to my boat that I didn't even know needed to be done, just because he takes pride in his craft, and would consider it shameful to have something break because he saw it, and didn't take care of it. He stands in front of you, and looks you in the eye when you shake his hand. He is certainly not a mover and shaker, but he is a free man. A dominant man. I am as proud to know him as I would be to know Bill Gates. Maybe moreso. I doubt that he keeps slaves, but a slave could do worse than to submit to such a man.

Take care of yourself

Leonidas

< Message edited by Leonidas -- 7/27/2004 4:44:44 PM >

(in reply to TallDarkAndWitty)
Profile   Post #: 18
Manolos! - 7/27/2004 4:17:32 PM   
SherriA


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

ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty
the women flock to him like nyc gals to a pair of Manolo Blahnik's.


Manolo's? Where? Where? Show me!

Sorry if you had a point somewhere in there...I got distracted by the shoes. *swoon* There's something just sooooo right about a shoe store that has a locked door with a doorman who decides whether or not you look like you belong inside. And those little grey flannel boots I saw there...oh myyyyyyyy....I'd submit to the man who created those boots in a hearbeat.

_____________________________

-- Sherri

Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.

(in reply to TallDarkAndWitty)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Who is really dominant? - 7/27/2004 4:32:31 PM   
afmvdp


Posts: 494
Joined: 7/10/2004
Status: offline 		Isn't that the whole nature of D/s though at least what seperates D/s from M/s. Of course the sub could leave but it is their desire and fulfillment in serving that wills them to stay. Outside of slavery they could honestly leave at any time they choose BUT they instead choose not to because of their inate and inborn desire to serve and please. Just my thoughts on the matter.

(in reply to Leonidas)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> Who is really 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