quote:

iven my personal beliefs on D/s, I feel this article mirrors many of my personal thoughts regarding the difference between a "natural" vs. "created" Dom.

I've routinely forward this to the bottoms I chat with and believe this should be "required reading" for ALL subs/slaves alike.

quote:

ORIGINAL: darkslife

Interesting article.

Although I do find it somewhat interesting as to some of her criteria. Since when did financial and social dominance enter the picture? Some people are happy with the job they do - and are content to remain there.

quote:

But, there are some useful observations we can make. One of the main ones is to watch the general behavior of said CEO, manager, etc. One indicator that they might actually be submissive is if they look to others for approval for things. This might be approval from their peers (golfing buddies, board members, their family, etc.) That is a form of submissive behavior. By looking for someone elses approval you are giving them authority over you... you're essentially asking them to validate that what you've done was good, which puts you in a subordinate position to that person. I once knew a very successful business woman, she owned her own company and outwardly most would have thought she was a dominant, over achieving person. But in getting to know her, not only was she submissive she had fantasies about being a slave. She also was very much her daddies lil girl and had spent her whole life trying to make her father happy, trying to win his approval. Her business, she'd done it entirely because it was his suggestion... she'd built an entire company just trying to make daddy happy. So when you are wondering if a CEO might be submissive or not, look at why they became a CEO, what motivated them to do so. If they were pursuing their own goals for their own reasons, they're probably dominant... if they were doing it to make dad or their friends or their golfing buddies or whoever approve of them, they're more likely submissive. But that just indicates a dominant or submissive personality, it doesn't mean they would be interested in or active in the lifestyle.

So in other words, submissives and dominants can be found in all walks of life... from CEO's to teachers to law enforcement to artists. But if you want to try to spot them in a crowd you have to watch their behavior, how they interact with other people, and what motivates their behavior. Which is what I meant in my earlier post about the role of perceptiveness... the intuitive ability to guess at someones motivations for their behavior by just observing that behavior. When I watch peoples behavior things that indicate a submissive personality to me is seeing someone who looks for approval for others, seems particularly concerned with others being pleased with them, or tends to want to be useful to others. "Others" could be one individual in particular (indicating the submissive may be particularly interested in that person), it might be a specific group (a peer group, a group of friends, etc.) or it might be anyone at all. Its not uncommon for submissive to only express that towards a specific group, a peer group for example, and yet be indifferent to anyone outside that group. What that indicates is that while they are submissive they seek the approval, etc. of a specific group or person, and thus only exhibit their submissive behavior to that "other." Submissives are not necessarily submissive to just anyone... and I believe there is a reason why.

quote:

Its interesting to note how things shift the higher you go. At the basic level a dominant's authority comes from others, a group. Above that it comes from the individual submissive (permission). But when a dominant grows beyond that it (influence, dominance, authority, power, etc.) truly begins to flow from within, because it becomes based on the nature of the individual dominant, first on achievements and later on how they affect others. Can a submissive still choose not to follow in these later cases? Sure, but not without giving up something that is either not easily replaced or is irreplaceable because it was unique to that dominant. At this point the submissive cannot walk away without losing something themselves.

Something else I've noticed. When I see others wanting their "power" or "authority" recognized by others, I often find the case to be that person is actually seeking positional authority... they are looking for or trying to create a group to give them that positional authority by "recognizing" them. The higher you go in the above hierarchy of influence, the less you see that sort of seeking. At Personhood just the opposite occurs, they no longer seek recognition, rather recognition seeks them.

quote:

Its funny the things you think about sometimes. Before I left for the holidays there had been a discussion in the forums about whether or not it was possible to spot a dominant, and if so how to do it. Some who joined the discussion believed it wasn't possible at all, but I very much disagree. I think not only is it possible sometimes its hard to miss. At least it is with dominant personalities, which isn't exactly the same as someone who calls themself a Dom/me (and not everyone who calls themself a Dom/me actually has a dominant personality, I've met some who's personalities were distinctly submissive).

Take for example my family having a Christmas dinner together. If you'd been watching you might have noticed something. Of all the family members present, two people stood out as being particularly "dominant", a couple of alpha males. That would have been myself and one of my cousins (coincedentally the one I get along with best but have also had the biggest fights with in the past, perhaps not so surprisingly). If you'd watched you would have noticed other members of the family asking one of us for our opinion about things here an there. I was asked how the punch tasted and if it was right (its my grandmother's cranberry bog, I don't know the first thing about making it, but I'm asked if it tastes right... ah the trials and tribulations of being an alpha male, heh). Who is it that sneaks off with the red velvet cake every year... yup, me an my cousin. Though they fooled us this year, they baked two cakes... so we only got one of them! LOL When it came time to eat, who didn't wait to be asked to come eat... my cousin with me close on his heels. Who decides when its time to open gifts... not grandma, the family matriach, not any of my uncles... yours truly. And when we were cleaning up afterwards and my grandmother started getting fussy... who took the situation in hand, turned a tense moment into something funny and settled things down... again me and my cousin. You watch for that kind of assertiveness in people, especially when they're in a group, and you start seeing who the leaders are, who's on top of the pecking order. Just sit back and watch and you'll see who the dominant personalities are, sometimes they're hard to miss. Now as for who's in the lifestyle, that's another story. I am, obviously... but my cousin, he never has been and I don't see it ever happening (he's also happily married with two kids that I spoil rotten). None-the-less, we both have very dominant personalities and it shows in our behavior and the way others react to us.

quote:

Dylan manages his life better because he's in control of himself. Its a literal example of the addage "To master somone else you must first master yourself." Dylan has mastered himself, Colby hasn't. There's a good lesson in that for submissives when they're considering potential dominants for a long term relationship... take a good hard look at how they live their life outside of kink and BDSM... it'll tell you a lot about who they are as a person.

quote:

ORIGINAL: windchymes

I believe the financial point is brought up mostly for those who want to "own" a slave 24/7, meaning she will stay home and not work. Merc brought this point up really well in a recent thread. You, as a Dom, must be able to AFFORD to own a slave. Assuming she will leave the house at some point, she will need clothing & shoes. Also, medical care, food, tampons, toothpaste, toothbrush, cosmetics, and with a female in the house, the toilet paper consumption will more than double. If you go out to dinner and a movie, you're paying for two. And then, if unmentionables are in the equation, well, any of us with them know how much those cost!

So, if you want a 24/7 slave, you have to be making enough money to do so. You might have to pick up a second $8/hour job, or release the slave to work outside the home and bring in an income.

chymes

quote:

ORIGINAL: windchymes

I believe the financial point is brought up mostly for those who want to "own" a slave 24/7, meaning she will stay home and not work. Merc brought this point up really well in a recent thread. You, as a Dom, must be able to AFFORD to own a slave. Assuming she will leave the house at some point, she will need clothing & shoes. Also, medical care, food, tampons, toothpaste, toothbrush, cosmetics, and with a female in the house, the toilet paper consumption will more than double. If you go out to dinner and a movie, you're paying for two. And then, if unmentionables are in the equation, well, any of us with them know how much those cost!

So, if you want a 24/7 slave, you have to be making enough money to do so. You might have to pick up a second $8/hour job, or release the slave to work outside the home and bring in an income.

chymes

quote:

I think there is a big difference between someone who is "naturally" dominant and who choses to explore BDSM. Its a difficult diference to explain but its like Sadie says in her article, just being versus needing the right clothes, words, actions, etc because the kink community (or more likely movies and books) say "do it like this".

quote:

Plus I think the idea that to be naturally dominant equals being completely stable would then leave out every dominant person I've ever known. Regardless of the role or the orientation, human beings are human beings first and foremost.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

quote:

ORIGINAL: windchymes

I believe the financial point is brought up mostly for those who want to "own" a slave 24/7, meaning she will stay home and not work. Merc brought this point up really well in a recent thread. You, as a Dom, must be able to AFFORD to own a slave. Assuming she will leave the house at some point, she will need clothing & shoes. Also, medical care, food, tampons, toothpaste, toothbrush, cosmetics, and with a female in the house, the toilet paper consumption will more than double. If you go out to dinner and a movie, you're paying for two. And then, if unmentionables are in the equation, well, any of us with them know how much those cost!

So, if you want a 24/7 slave, you have to be making enough money to do so. You might have to pick up a second $8/hour job, or release the slave to work outside the home and bring in an income.

chymes

Why is it assumed that 24/7 equals the dominant pays for everything?

Isn't it as valid to say both must work or the slave works to support the owner?

Who is actually being "served" if the owner makes all the money while the slave stays at home? Hello! I'm the owner. I'll work if I like, the slave will work when I tell him to do so is as valid as this other scenario.

Plus how realistic is this today when many people wish to live at a level where every adult in the family needs to work and make some income.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag

quote:

ORIGINAL: darkslife

Interesting article.

Although I do find it somewhat interesting as to some of her criteria. Since when did financial and social dominance enter the picture? Some people are happy with the job they do - and are content to remain there.

Probably about the same time people started looking at domination and submission as a relationship dynamic and not just Tops and Bottoms at a play party. I'm not sure what you mean by your comment regarding being happy with your job. I suspect you took the article to mean that dominants must be social climbers in pursuit of financial wealth. I didn't see it that way at all. What the article did suggest is that someone who genuinely is dominant, what I've called a "dominant personality" elsewhere, maintains that approach through all aspects of their lives. That dominant might be a blue collar guy working in a factory for $8/hr... but the key point is he's responsible with that income. He gets his bills paid, keeps a roof over his head, avoid credit card debt, and isn't out splurging on a $300 whip for his "dungeon" when he's got a $300 electric bill that needs to be paid. That financial stability (not wealth) comes from being in control of themself, of their spending habits, and being able to live within their means.

Its an interesting article and echoes a number of things I've been saying for years. For example, I wrote this in another thread recently.

quote:

But, there are some useful observations we can make. One of the main ones is to watch the general behavior of said CEO, manager, etc. One indicator that they might actually be submissive is if they look to others for approval for things. This might be approval from their peers (golfing buddies, board members, their family, etc.) That is a form of submissive behavior. By looking for someone elses approval you are giving them authority over you... you're essentially asking them to validate that what you've done was good, which puts you in a subordinate position to that person. I once knew a very successful business woman, she owned her own company and outwardly most would have thought she was a dominant, over achieving person. But in getting to know her, not only was she submissive she had fantasies about being a slave. She also was very much her daddies lil girl and had spent her whole life trying to make her father happy, trying to win his approval. Her business, she'd done it entirely because it was his suggestion... she'd built an entire company just trying to make daddy happy. So when you are wondering if a CEO might be submissive or not, look at why they became a CEO, what motivated them to do so. If they were pursuing their own goals for their own reasons, they're probably dominant... if they were doing it to make dad or their friends or their golfing buddies or whoever approve of them, they're more likely submissive. But that just indicates a dominant or submissive personality, it doesn't mean they would be interested in or active in the lifestyle.

So in other words, submissives and dominants can be found in all walks of life... from CEO's to teachers to law enforcement to artists. But if you want to try to spot them in a crowd you have to watch their behavior, how they interact with other people, and what motivates their behavior. Which is what I meant in my earlier post about the role of perceptiveness... the intuitive ability to guess at someones motivations for their behavior by just observing that behavior. When I watch peoples behavior things that indicate a submissive personality to me is seeing someone who looks for approval for others, seems particularly concerned with others being pleased with them, or tends to want to be useful to others. "Others" could be one individual in particular (indicating the submissive may be particularly interested in that person), it might be a specific group (a peer group, a group of friends, etc.) or it might be anyone at all. Its not uncommon for submissive to only express that towards a specific group, a peer group for example, and yet be indifferent to anyone outside that group. What that indicates is that while they are submissive they seek the approval, etc. of a specific group or person, and thus only exhibit their submissive behavior to that "other." Submissives are not necessarily submissive to just anyone... and I believe there is a reason why.

Which can be found in this thread How do you spot a Dominant or submissive?

And these remarks...

quote:

Its interesting to note how things shift the higher you go. At the basic level a dominant's authority comes from others, a group. Above that it comes from the individual submissive (permission). But when a dominant grows beyond that it (influence, dominance, authority, power, etc.) truly begins to flow from within, because it becomes based on the nature of the individual dominant, first on achievements and later on how they affect others. Can a submissive still choose not to follow in these later cases? Sure, but not without giving up something that is either not easily replaced or is irreplaceable because it was unique to that dominant. At this point the submissive cannot walk away without losing something themselves.

Something else I've noticed. When I see others wanting their "power" or "authority" recognized by others, I often find the case to be that person is actually seeking positional authority... they are looking for or trying to create a group to give them that positional authority by "recognizing" them. The higher you go in the above hierarchy of influence, the less you see that sort of seeking. At Personhood just the opposite occurs, they no longer seek recognition, rather recognition seeks them.

Which came from this thread Power

And finally this taken from my journal here at CM...

quote:

Its funny the things you think about sometimes. Before I left for the holidays there had been a discussion in the forums about whether or not it was possible to spot a dominant, and if so how to do it. Some who joined the discussion believed it wasn't possible at all, but I very much disagree. I think not only is it possible sometimes its hard to miss. At least it is with dominant personalities, which isn't exactly the same as someone who calls themself a Dom/me (and not everyone who calls themself a Dom/me actually has a dominant personality, I've met some who's personalities were distinctly submissive).

Take for example my family having a Christmas dinner together. If you'd been watching you might have noticed something. Of all the family members present, two people stood out as being particularly "dominant", a couple of alpha males. That would have been myself and one of my cousins (coincedentally the one I get along with best but have also had the biggest fights with in the past, perhaps not so surprisingly). If you'd watched you would have noticed other members of the family asking one of us for our opinion about things here an there. I was asked how the punch tasted and if it was right (its my grandmother's cranberry bog, I don't know the first thing about making it, but I'm asked if it tastes right... ah the trials and tribulations of being an alpha male, heh). Who is it that sneaks off with the red velvet cake every year... yup, me an my cousin. Though they fooled us this year, they baked two cakes... so we only got one of them! LOL When it came time to eat, who didn't wait to be asked to come eat... my cousin with me close on his heels. Who decides when its time to open gifts... not grandma, the family matriach, not any of my uncles... yours truly. And when we were cleaning up afterwards and my grandmother started getting fussy... who took the situation in hand, turned a tense moment into something funny and settled things down... again me and my cousin. You watch for that kind of assertiveness in people, especially when they're in a group, and you start seeing who the leaders are, who's on top of the pecking order. Just sit back and watch and you'll see who the dominant personalities are, sometimes they're hard to miss. Now as for who's in the lifestyle, that's another story. I am, obviously... but my cousin, he never has been and I don't see it ever happening (he's also happily married with two kids that I spoil rotten). None-the-less, we both have very dominant personalities and it shows in our behavior and the way others react to us.

I think there is a huge difference between someone who has a dominant personality and someone taking on a dominant role. The article deals with this as well. In the article Dylan has a dominant personality. Colby is trying to take on a dominant role and seeking positional authority... but he lacks the quality of having that dominant personaltiy. Examining the personal lives of each and the difference shows up in various aspects. Dylan manages his life better because he's in control of himself. Its a literal example of the addage "To master somone else you must first master yourself." Dylan has mastered himself, Colby hasn't. There's a good lesson in that for submissives when they're considering potential dominants for a long term relationship... take a good hard look at how they live their life outside of kink and BDSM... it'll tell you a lot about who they are as a person.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaleds

I think that link is pretty dumb.

quote:

ORIGINAL: la90066


Given my personal beliefs on D/s, I feel this article mirrors many of my personal thoughts regarding the difference between a "natural" vs. "created" Dom.

I've routinely forward this to the bottoms I chat with and believe this should be "required reading" for ALL subs/slaves alike.

He Looks Like a Dom & Quacks Like a Dom, but is he Really a Dom?
http://domsubfriends.com/voye/articles/105/


What are YOUR thoughts on the article?!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: krikket

"Does their ability to control their own lives relate directly to their ability to actually submit, versus only appearing to submit? Submissives are rarely measured by their ability to control their own lives, but a submissive whose career, financial life, and social network are in shambles is clearly not someone who is prepared to engage in any exchange of power. Giving someone control of a messed up existence is not a gift, but a burden. "

This was the touchstone of the entire article for me. Over the years I've worked hard to be where I am now (mentally, emotionally, and yes, even financially). I want and need for that to be acknowledged by my partner and incorporated into our partnership. While i don't look at things from a dominant view, my own thought process is this: someone who "lets" me do anything i want is going to hamper our growth as individuals and as a couple. A partner who is strong, capable and secure in who she is, and willingly submits it all to me enhances the entire process, and makes us stronger."

quote:

He Looks Like a Dom & Quacks Like a Dom, but is he Really a Dom?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs

I read the article and I cannot point to a single thing that makes either Colby or Dylan be dominant. Being financially responsible has very little to do with being dominant. Its a good trait to have (though frankly in america if you look at the numbers for people who actively save versus credit card debts, very few people actually have that trait these days), but it has nothing to do with being dominant or submissive.

Except for a submissive that's looking for someone to financially take care of them which seems to be becoming increasingly popular.

C~