You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That

You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (Full Version)

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

Message

CatdeMedici -> You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 5:50:02 AM)
Over the last few days, I have read with much interest Steel's post about being responsibly single. Through that I have seen posts like Mine that say, " I am happily single"--and I was recently challenged with: " How can you be a Dominant, when You don't have a sub, don't play and aren't seeking?"--I have My response, but I wonder if My response is a need to defend versus validate versus simply state: we are what we believe, irregardless... what say you?

chamberqueen -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 5:55:55 AM)
I say you can still be oriented toward a role whether you have a partner or not. Being single doesn't turn you into a neutral entity. Of course, being in that role and being fulfilled by it are two completely different things.

DarkSteven -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 5:56:52 AM)
I am a Dominant, and I don't need anyone else's permission to call myself that. Being a Dom is a state of mind and a behavior pattern. OTOH, I could not call myself a Master unless others thought of me that way.

subtlebutterfly -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 5:59:22 AM)
I disagree. I think DarkStevenis a big cuddly teddybear![;)] I think most people would agree that a dominant person is dominant because their character is dominant. You can be dominant even though you've never been in the lifestyle, heck you can be dominant without knowing that the lifestyle exists. Same goes for submissives. .............. I think that if you say 'I'm dominant because I was born that way I don't need a sub to prove it' (or whateva) then you are stating both. I don't think you can answer the question without the answer having a dual meaning. Even though it may have one meaning to you, that is explaining for the person that a person can be dominant without the bdsm dynamic, then it will always be able to have a dual meaning to the inquirer.

BKSir -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 6:02:49 AM)
To me it's not much different than, for example, having a slice of carrot cake. Yes, I love caramel rolls, but I don't have one, I have carrot cake, and I'm plenty happy. Well, okay, I don't actually have either right at this exact moment, but you get the idea.

InTonguesslut -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 6:03:03 AM)
This is all semantics. Can a teacher be a teacher without a class to teach? Can a sub be a sub without someone to submit to? If you want to call yourself something feel free, if ya don't don't. Simple.

sambamanslilgirl -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 6:06:05 AM)
i'm an collared submissive who owns a male submissive. i've received messages from other fem submissives who were confused that a submissive could do that. i don't like labeling myself as a switch however i do have dominant tendencies but only with the right person.

cpK69 -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 6:09:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CatdeMedici " How can you be a Dominant, when You don't have a sub, don't play and aren't seeking?"--I have My response, but I wonder if My response is a need to defend versus validate versus simply state: we are what we believe, irregardless... what say you? I used to wonder similarly, until I realized I could be a slave, without being involved with another human; I chose a concept as Master. To me, Sir would still be a Dom, even if he were without sub, it is in his demeanor, and the ‘code’ in which he lives by. Kim

wisdomofgiving -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 6:25:46 AM)
Hi CatdeMedici I too have taken a special interest in Steel's thread. Many people feel it is unnatural to want to remain single. Being single is a task that one does, until the right person comes along. When that happens then you can be normal again. Coupling, pairing up is a norm and those outside that norm are considered abnormal. I am a submissive and a wonderful one. I do not need to be owned, wear a collar, be branded or have a Dom active in my everyday life. I do not need someone to lead me and direct me daily so I can feel submissive. If this is abnormal so be it. BDSM is in the norm right? Even when married, late hubby understood my need for privacy and being left alone. He often mentioned if he could afford it he would buy me my own place. We were married and happy for 29 yrs. though many looked at us as odd, as they went through there 1st, 2nd etc. marriages. Not many can permit me the freedom of being single and be secure in themselves. At this time in my life, marriage is not needed, nor is living with someone. In many ways I have the best of both worlds, at least suited for me. People might call me many things, or say I am not this or that, and it is okay. Their lack of understanding gets in the way. I plan on staying single. I will continue being submissive without play mates, and i plan on living life to its' fullest. wisdomofgiving

catize -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 6:31:38 AM)
I see it much the same as sexual orientation. I am straight, gay, or bi-sexual whether or not I have a partner at the moment.

SassySarijane -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 6:53:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CatdeMedici and I was recently challenged with: " How can you be a Dominant, when You don't have a sub, don't play and aren't seeking?"--I have My response, but I wonder if My response is a need to defend versus validate versus simply state: we are what we believe, irregardless... what say you? Isn't that kind of like saying you can't be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual unless you are actually having sex at that point in time?

Bearandfox -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 7:10:56 AM)
" How can you be a Dominant, when You don't have a sub, don't play and aren't seeking?"-- By not subscribing to be the definition of an adjective when being used as a noun according to that individuals criteria. I think some things that get used here often are more an idea, than a complete descriptor.. Taking this adjective and using it as a noun is going to leave it wider open for personal interpretation when the sentence is left incomplete. How can you be a Dominant__________, when you don’t have a sub, don’t play and aren’t seeking?” Bear

NihilusZero -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 7:16:18 AM)
The words "dominant" and "submissive" are adjectives in addition to being titles and, as adjectives, they describe character traits that are going to be stuck there regardless of whether someone is in a relationship or not.

NihilusZero -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 7:17:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bearandfox " How can you be a Dominant, when You don't have a sub, don't play and aren't seeking?"-- By not subscribing to be the definition of an adjective when being used as a noun according to that individuals criteria. I think some things that get used here often are more an idea, than a complete descriptor.. Taking this adjective and using it as a noun is going to leave it wider open for personal interpretation when the sentence is left incomplete. How can you be a Dominant__________, when you don’t have a sub, don’t play and aren’t seeking?” Bear sigh I should read through responses more often before replying in order to avoid creating an echo chamber. [:D]

IronBear -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 7:43:17 AM)
If the prerequisite for being a Dominant let alone a Master was ownership of a slave, I know a good many Masters in similar Lifestyles to my own, including a large number of Gorean Free Men who may as well just walk away from the scene. The same applies for public play. The Lifestyles I refer to and especially the Victorian and Gorean lifestyles are not truly part of the core BDSM Scene simply as BDSM is not a part of those lifestyles and not is ownership of a slave. Owning a slave is one of the delicious perks and those of us who also enjoy BDSM, have it not as the mainstay of our Lifestyle but rather as our quirky form of personal entertainment. Agreed that for some this may seem a matter of semantics but it is true never the less. Including others in a D/s relationship many of us choose not to play publicly and some even (as I do at this time), void mingling or attending with those in the public face of BDSM other than personal friends. For some of us the bitchiness and back stabbing found in the local groups leave a bad taste in our mouths and thus we prefer to avoid such juvenile activities and the arenas where such activities occur.

IrishMist -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 8:30:09 AM)
Since it is my own personal belief that being Dominant or submissive is a personality trait and something that you ARE ( versus something that you do ), it matters little whether or not a person has a submissive to serve them or a Dominant to serve. You would still be either Dominant or submissive in my eyes.

CarrieO -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 8:37:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CatdeMedici " How can you be a Dominant, when You don't have a sub, don't play and aren't seeking In my opinion, it's really quite simple. Dominant/submissive are just words, labels we give ourselves. They're also personality traits. If you are dominant by nature then you will remain that whether you have a sub, play or not and are seeking or not.

Lockit -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 8:47:03 AM)
Wow, I didn't know I needed another person to validate me and make me something I cannot be without another person! [8\|] Somebody doesn't understand far too much to bother explaining it all to them. Where is that fly swatter?

cpK69 -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 9:00:04 AM)
~fr~ Felt a need to note; I do not see being dominant, the same as being a Dominant. I would not refer to one of my ex-boyfriends, whom is dominant, as a Dom. Sir, however, will always be a Dom, as long as he chooses to continue to be. Kim

subtlebutterfly -> RE: You Can't Be This, If You Don't Have That (4/20/2009 9:02:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cpK69 ~fr~ Felt a need to note; I do not see being dominant, the same as being a Dominant. I would not refer to one of my ex-boyfriends, whom is dominant, as a Dom. Sir, however, will always be a Dom, as long as he chooses to continue to be. Kim How do you define that difference?

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875