RE: Vulnerable Dominants

RE: Vulnerable Dominants (Full Version)

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

Message

Icarys -> RE: Vulnerable Dominants (11/30/2008 7:40:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marie2 I think everyone has certain vulnerabilities, some more than others, whether they identify as dominant or not. Personally, I think it's good to know that the person who is dominating me is human in that regard, however, vulnerability isn't something I'd want to see in excess in my dom. Hi marie..Poivoit here.. I think a good balance is the best idea. I've got no problem being an arse if I feel I need to. I'd rather see things move nicely along but I also know, that's most likely not gonna be a reality. If a female doesn't like my brand of Dominance then she's always welcome to start a new search.

moonvine -> RE: Vulnerable Dominants (11/30/2008 7:41:09 PM)
I'm suspicious of anyone who doesn't coo at kittens.

Sexycelticlady -> RE: Vulnerable Dominants (11/30/2008 7:41:09 PM)
It applies not only to Doms but to everyone. I think a lot of it is about acceptance, of who you are and the person you portray to others. We are all human, with human emotions and fault. We can control ourselves to the point where we take responsibility for our own actions and prevent ourselves from being hurt by the actions of others, recognising that we can only be hurt by other people if we let them. However, there will always be times when we can be hurt, for example the death of a loved one, and there is no shame to anyone in showing that. Those who have accepted themselves know this. Those who are afraid of showing that type of emotion still, in my opinion, have issues to deal with.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Vulnerable Dominants (11/30/2008 8:17:58 PM)
*~ FAST REPLY ~* My vulnerability has a name - beth. Acknowledging the condition doesn't represent that all dominants, or any other dominant, should or shouldn't be vulnerable; only the fact that this dominant is in spite of a long and diligent attempt not to be vulnerable to anybody or anything. I attribute it to never being able to trust someone enough to become vulnerable. Over time, usually a very short time, they lived up to my cynical expectation. Each adding another brick to the wall of hard indifference I contently existed behind. If there was any ancillary emotion generated by being vulnerable it is anger, but I'm learning to live with it, as well as its cause; also named - beth. It is a statement of fact that nobody else in the world but beth could affect my life negatively. As long as she is in my life nothing materially, or emotionally, matters. I'd say that condition generates the only fear I can reference in my life. Fear of being without her is the serious pragmatic fact behind the silly representation that she doesn't have permission to die before me.

trealeon -> RE: Vulnerable Dominants (11/30/2008 8:26:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lockit Vulnerable to me is placing myself in a position where someone could hurt me, see me or know me. Until I am vulnerable no one can do any of these things. It is a must in my involvement even with just friends. I am not afraid of it, but I would be afraid of not being vulnerable. I'm going to echo this and add that when you love someone then you will be vulnerable to that person hurting you emotionally. I also agree with the posts that I've read, especially persephonee, about being able to admit mistakes, correct them, and not deny them. I'm not infallible and I don't try to make myself out to be.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Vulnerable Dominants (11/30/2008 8:35:34 PM)
Well that would mean that if you love an abusive asshole, you should open yourself to them to the possibility of them hurting you emotionally. No, love does not equate to allowing vulnerability. In fact in many cases it's GOOD to close that off. We can love someone and still be bad to be in a relationship with them.

MadRabbit -> RE: Vulnerable Dominants (11/30/2008 8:35:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth *~ FAST REPLY ~* My vulnerability has a name - beth. Acknowledging the condition doesn't represent that all dominants, or any other dominant, should or shouldn't be vulnerable; only the fact that this dominant is in spite of a long and diligent attempt not to be vulnerable to anybody or anything. I attribute it to never being able to trust someone enough to become vulnerable. Over time, usually a very short time, they lived up to my cynical expectation. Each adding another brick to the wall of hard indifference I contently existed behind. If there was any ancillary emotion generated by being vulnerable it is anger, but I'm learning to live with it, as well as its cause; also named - beth. It is a statement of fact that nobody else in the world but beth could affect my life negatively. As long as she is in my life nothing materially, or emotionally, matters. I'd say that condition generates the only fear I can reference in my life. Fear of being without her is the serious pragmatic fact behind the silly representation that she doesn't have permission to die before me. Wow, I think that is probably one of the more awesome things I have read here in awhile. Probably because the bolded part reminds me a bit too much of me.

trealeon -> RE: Vulnerable Dominants (11/30/2008 8:38:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross Well that would mean that if you love an abusive asshole, you should open yourself to them to the possibility of them hurting you emotionally. No, love does not equate to allowing vulnerability. In fact in many cases it's GOOD to close that off. We can love someone and still be bad to be in a relationship with them. Actually people who love abusive assholes will often explain away the fact that the hurt them emotionally or physically because they do love them. It happens a lot. When you open yourself up to someone, you are making yourself vulnerable and people tend to open up to people they are in love with.

spragueA -> RE: Vulnerable Dominants (11/30/2008 9:34:21 PM)
This is a great thread Padriag! Thanks for starting it! It's very insightful and intiguing in many ways. No matter what our orientation, identification or preference, we all have experiences that we can draw upon and we are fortunate to have C.me as a sounding board to bounce these ideas around without discrimination. ~Miss Mafia

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Vulnerable Dominants (11/30/2008 9:44:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: trealeon Actually people who love abusive assholes will often explain away the fact that the hurt them emotionally or physically because they do love them. It happens a lot. Yes it does. And it also happens that they say "I love you, but you're an abusive asshole and we are not going to be together" quote: When you open yourself up to someone, you are making yourself vulnerable and people tend to open up to people they are in love with. Tend to, yes. But as I clearly stated, sometimes it's best to CLOSE OFF from the ones you love. Loving someone doesn't mean they are a good person or would make for a good relationship. So people should not equate love and vulnerability.

MidMichCowboy -> RE: Vulnerable Dominants (11/30/2008 11:16:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 Means the erstwhile dominant is, of all things, a human being. Most people wish they could not (or would not) get hurt. Most people get hurt anyway. Everyone has their "vulnerabilities". Exactly. We are humans. I, for one, am not a damn superman. I think I have my strengths and weaknesses. I've done some very good things and I've royally fucked up others. I've hurt people by breaking their heart and I've had my heart broken. I AM A HUMAN. If someone needs an uncaring, unflinching DOM, they are making some great strides in robotics. Until we accept this is not a story from some damn fantasy book and realize its humans involved in relationships, we will continue to fail. Of course I'm vulnerable. I want dominance, love, passion, intellectual fulfillment and someone to become a major part of my family. If that doesn't open me to vulnerability, I'm a fake. (I am trying to be tactfully, but I am officially tactfully challenged)

ftmyersartist -> RE: Vulnerable Dominants (11/30/2008 11:29:45 PM)
I think it is not so much that submissives want to see that dominants bleed. It is that if you are not capable of bleeding you can have no empathy or real understanding of someone who is bleeding. So for the submssive to feel safe in being vulnerable, they need to know the dominant will understand that vulnerability from a personal, first person empathy of it. Personally I am only vulnerable when someone has kryptonite. Damn that Lex Luthar.

Lashra -> RE: Vulnerable Dominants (12/1/2008 12:56:00 AM)
I believe that everyone is vulnerable in some way. If a Dominant claims that they are not vulnerable at all, then I would wonder how realistic they were being with themselves. I look at it this way we are all humans, we all have strengths, flaws and things that make us vulnerable. ~Lashra

toddlefeet -> RE: Vulnerable Dominants (12/1/2008 2:06:07 AM)
Every one has a weakness a vulnerability. Everyone haas a price and can be bought..or Rented. No one is immune. Anyone who says they are? Lies.

MsFlutter -> RE: Vulnerable Dominants (12/1/2008 6:11:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Padriag What does the phrase or concept of "vulnerability in a dominant" mean to you? What do you think that is or would be? Do you think its something a dominant should or should not be, and if so why or why not? I'll be watching with interest. A Dominant incapable of or unwilling to show any degree of vulnerability risks functioning as an automaton (automadomme?)

ExSteelAgain -> RE: Vulnerable Dominants (12/1/2008 6:39:53 AM)
Being vulnerable means to me possessing an attractive sensitivity. I have to feel things intensely and open myself up to appreciate beautiful experiences. However, as a wise one said up the thread, in a D/s context it is better if the Dom desires a little less than the submissive. He maintains control and channels her desire in ways he wants. Of course she picks up on that, but it only enhances the D/s experience for both.

leadership527 -> RE: Vulnerable Dominants (12/1/2008 6:57:34 AM)
quote: Padriag Asked: What does the phrase or concept of "vulnerability in a dominant" mean to you? As John pointed out, the definition is quite clear and it doesn't mean anything unusual or specific for a dominant. One is, in general, vulnerable in a relationship because you let another person inside whatever emotional defenses you have. quote: Do you think its something a dominant should or should not be, and if so why or why not? Any partner of mine, dominant or submissive or vanilla, would need to be vulnerable. If they are not vulnerable, then they are are also not actually exposing themselves to me as an authentic partner. Rather, we are shadow boxing in some sort of elaborate game. I'm not much of one for roleplaying.. not in the bedroom and most especially not in my life as a whole.

KnightofMists -> RE: Vulnerable Dominants (12/1/2008 7:21:22 AM)
quote: What does the phrase or concept of "vulnerability in a dominant" mean to you? What do you think that is or would be? Do you think its something a dominant should or should not be, and if so why or why not? As so many stated already.. everyone is vulnerable in one manner or another. However, in the context of a relationship having vulnerability or being vulnerable has much to do with being authentic in your behaviors, thoughts and feelings. In other words, ones feelings and thoughts are consistent with ones behaviors and that we don't filter what we share in order to create some false image. So often I hear Dominant individuals attempt to create that bravado strong image in order to impress the submissive personality. It is one thing when such a person is authentically behaving in a manner consistent with their thoughts and feelings... but it is another when they are supressing them or to put it another way they are wearing clothes that just don't fit. That is not to say that one is authentic with their thoughts and feelings with just anyone. I find it appropriate that such a person is authentic with their intimate partners. The authentic nature of these feelings and thoughts besides being honest and open establishes that vulnerability exists between the individuals. Again.. just because we maybe vulnerable to our intimate partners... doesn't mean that we are demonstrating and admitting that this vulnerability exists. Individuals for whatever reason have barriers and walls that prevent intimacy with their partners. I often find that individuals that find it difficult to deal with anothers openness and authentic thoughts and feelings are themselves theatened to be exposed and would prefer you to stay behind your barriers so they can stay behind theirs. But, regardless of people staying behind the walls and other self-defence mechanisms that individuals develop.. it doesn't prevent their vulnerability with the partner they love. It only prevents the growth of intimacy with their partner. quote: I'll be watching with interest. and what have you been seeing as you watch?

CreativeDominant -> RE: Vulnerable Dominants (12/1/2008 7:34:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Padriag This is about personal perspective, how each of you defines a word and what it means to you in a specific context. The word is "vulnerability" and I have a particular context in mind. Often in various discussions on these forae that word is used regarding dominants, and often with the suggestion that a dominant should be vulnerable or able to be vulnerable. I find this intriguing so here is my question to you, consider it and answer it however your own ideas and thoughts dictate. What does the phrase or concept of "vulnerability in a dominant" mean to you? What do you think that is or would be? Do you think its something a dominant should or should not be, and if so why or why not? I'll be watching with interest. To me, it is simply about being human. Being human...which dominants are...means that, unless we are really damaged psychologically, we can be hurt like any other human. That hurt can come about when a family member forgets to call on a holiday just to say hello or it can come when a fellow dominant, with no intention of anything but play, intrigues a submissive that you are interested in more than you do. That hurt can come when a beloved pet dies and you have to bury them. Being human...which dominants are...means we can make mistakes and those mistakes leave us vulnerable to the people we are dealing with, whether it be a vengeful ex-wife who uses your mistake against you or a friend who sits you down and says "hey Joe, you made a mistake here. First thing you've got to do is admit it, apologize and find out how to make amends" to a submissive that you like who walks away from your first mistake because it was the "wrong" mistake to make to a submissive who knows you made a mistake, comments on it and then waits...in her own vulnerability...for you to be display characteristics of being what you say you are and make up for it.

LaTigresse -> RE: Vulnerable Dominants (12/1/2008 7:53:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists quote: What does the phrase or concept of "vulnerability in a dominant" mean to you? What do you think that is or would be? Do you think its something a dominant should or should not be, and if so why or why not? As so many stated already.. everyone is vulnerable in one manner or another. However, in the context of a relationship having vulnerability or being vulnerable has much to do with being authentic in your behaviors, thoughts and feelings. In other words, ones feelings and thoughts are consistent with ones behaviors and that we don't filter what we share in order to create some false image. So often I hear Dominant individuals attempt to create that bravado strong image in order to impress the submissive personality. It is one thing when such a person is authentically behaving in a manner consistent with their thoughts and feelings... but it is another when they are supressing them or to put it another way they are wearing clothes that just don't fit. That is not to say that one is authentic with their thoughts and feelings with just anyone. I find it appropriate that such a person is authentic with their intimate partners. The authentic nature of these feelings and thoughts besides being honest and open establishes that vulnerability exists between the individuals. Again.. just because we maybe vulnerable to our intimate partners... doesn't mean that we are demonstrating and admitting that this vulnerability exists. Individuals for whatever reason have barriers and walls that prevent intimacy with their partners. I often find that individuals that find it difficult to deal with anothers openness and authentic thoughts and feelings are themselves theatened to be exposed and would prefer you to stay behind your barriers so they can stay behind theirs. But, regardless of people staying behind the walls and other self-defence mechanisms that individuals develop.. it doesn't prevent their vulnerability with the partner they love. It only prevents the growth of intimacy with their partner. quote: I'll be watching with interest. and what have you been seeing as you watch? KoM, you bring up something that I was contemplating this morning. This has been an issue I have been dealing with, with some family members lately. First they were unreasonably angry and went on the attack. When that failed to get the response they expected, the person got so upset they cried and called me "crazy". As I explained to another family member, it is their insecurities and issues. There really isn't anything I can do to change that. At least not quickly.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125