RE: 'Breaking' a Dominant

RE: 'Breaking' a Dominant (Full Version)

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

Message

Jeffff -> RE: 'Breaking' a Dominant (1/2/2010 11:24:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: osf but jeff, in case you didn't know none of us is here to be questioned i thought it was to exchange ideas Sadly, that is incorrect. We all question. When something that appears silly is posted we question. When sweeping generalizatons are made, we question. Debate is part of the exchange of ideas. If someone chooses to lower the level of discourse, I can play there too. Jeff

osf -> RE: 'Breaking' a Dominant (1/2/2010 11:28:16 AM)
ive never seen you even try to start a discourse you just jump on others under the direction it seems of your mistress and trash them

Jeffff -> RE: 'Breaking' a Dominant (1/2/2010 11:29:25 AM)
Feel better? Jeff

Icarys -> RE: 'Breaking' a Dominant (1/2/2010 11:29:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wisdomtogive quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys The name I chose after I had a relationship fail..partly because of a mistake I made and something else to do with someone. I vowed to not repeat that time in my life and the name reminds me of it. Do you know the story of Icarus? One of my favorites. It reminds me not to fly to high and remain humble as possible. Thank you for explaining why you chose that name. I hope you never have the opportunity to repeat, but I believe we always have that opportunity. Been there and didnt repeat. Been ages since I read the story Icarus. Your welcome.

CalifChick -> RE: 'Breaking' a Dominant (1/2/2010 11:34:12 AM)
Merc, your post brings to mind something you've said often (and I'm probably going to screw this up in a big way)... you don't serve beth and beth doesn't serve you, you both serve the relationship. I didn't read all of both threads, but from other comments, I get the idea. So what solution serves the relationship? Well, for a while on the forums I remember the advice frequently was DTMFA. That's not a philsophy I ascribe to, unless all other ideas have been exhausted. Would it really be a hard limit for a vanilla guy to do something in a dominant manner? Somehow it doesn't seem to have the same... weight (for lack of a better word)... as do many of the hard limits for subs. And I'm talking about the hard limits that we hear of being broken (serving his vanilla friends nude, or group sex, or something like that). And perhaps after all of the communication and trying things out, the only solution is to part ways or be unhappy the rest of their lives together. At least they gave it all they had and know there just wasn't any other logical decision. Maybe this makes no sense at all, and if so, I'll blame it on my lack of caffeine. Cali

osf -> RE: 'Breaking' a Dominant (1/2/2010 11:37:35 AM)
it's a saying that is used by mast, to focus in on the relationship instead of either partner to serve the relationship means both have obligations and expectations

xssve -> RE: 'Breaking' a Dominant (1/2/2010 11:47:22 AM)
Yes, I like it when she focuses on my mast. [sm=banana.gif]

osf -> RE: 'Breaking' a Dominant (1/2/2010 11:48:25 AM)
and each meets the needs of the other through the relationship

CalifChick -> RE: 'Breaking' a Dominant (1/2/2010 11:50:26 AM)
You're focusing on a minute part of what I said. The point was... give it your all, do what is best for the relationship, and don't give up prematurely. Your particular definition of what I said or someone else's particular definition is irrelevant. Cali

sissyshoefetish -> RE: 'Breaking' a Dominant (1/2/2010 11:56:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth My lovely beth came back from getting coffee this morning and said she noted a trend on the CM boards. Most of the time when a person comes to the boards identifying themselves as 'submissive' relaying a tale about being forced to do something they don't want to by a dominant or an occasion when a dominant exceeds the boundaries of the authority the submissive has granted them and 'safe-words' out of a situation; they are given support and suggestions. They are told that overstepping limits abdicates the need to obey their dominant and that a 'good' dominant doesn't 'break' a submissive but instead facilitates their submission. beth noted that the same consideration is rarely, if ever, been given when a person comes in with the same problems from the dominant side of the relationship. A person who says their submissive partner wants them to exceed their abilities or desires (limits?) for lifestyle activities is told anything from "act like you like it", to "you are lazy!". The dominant is told they must change themselves, their physical desires, and maybe most importantly - their philosophy of what a relationship entails. They must break from their beliefs of how they define 'love' and how it's personified. They must break from their attitudes, break from how they define sex, break from their comfortable non D/s persona. To fulfill their partner's expectations for their relationship they must break. Appreciating, from personal observation, that this is a submissive orientated 'lifestyle'; why is it bad to advocate 'breaking' a submissive yet 'breaking' a Dominant - encouraged? It isn't. I supposer this is just about misunderstandings between partners. Ideally if one wants something the other doesn't like, there should some discussion about compromise. Where one breaks the understood rules surely this is a matter for them to discuss. If the situation repeats or ends up being discussed here, perhaps compatibility is the problem?? My expereince of this sort of thing is that it can accentuate or create barriers between people, and it would need true understanding to accomodate the needs of both parties.

Prinsexx -> RE: 'Breaking' a Dominant (1/2/2010 12:08:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth .... the encouragement of 'breaking' a person to be 'dominant' in a relationship when they don't want to, don't need to, don't like to, or have no interest in being the live version character of their spouses 'romance novel' inspired fantasy. Once I feel I have broken the dominant it's actually the entire dynamic that's broktn. It's over. Drama and analysis aside...it's time to move on.

osf -> RE: 'Breaking' a Dominant (1/2/2010 12:11:11 PM)
why would you break him?

xssve -> RE: 'Breaking' a Dominant (1/2/2010 12:13:03 PM)
I have more of a problem historically, with anoetic, unconscious behaviors. For instance, in the other thread, I mentioned who women may tend to be attracted to more masculine, dominant partners during their fertile phase, and more nurturing ones at other times - PMS may be natures way of getting women to provoke their mates into manhandling them, or make it easier to walk out and get the manhandling she needs elsewhere - sort of a temporary insanity. If we're alone, and you start a scene, I can pick the level of escalation I'm comfortable with, and some rough, dirty sex on the living room floor while you call me names might be just what the doctor ordered - I'm not going to do this in front of my kids however, particularly as they enter their individuation phase - they have enough issues with their mother who had no control in this regard and had her own abuse issues, exacerbated to the breaking point when she slipped into alcoholism, and if I can't keep it confined to the bedroom, I'm more likely to tell you not to let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. We can talk about it when and if you're stable again.

Drifa -> RE: 'Breaking' a Dominant (1/2/2010 1:14:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance I have had occaision to be amused (baffled) by how often people are encouraged or advised to be service tops, when the situation is about a submissive wanting or needing something that his or her partner isn't really oriented toward providing. I went and read through the exemplar threads. I actually don't see anything wrong with the vanilla partner providing service topping every so often. If both partners are communicating, and are in Dan Savage's terms GGG, then adopting a compromise wherein both of them get some of what they want is not a bad thing. If you value the relationship more than the kink, you will compromise so that you get some kink and preserve the relationship. Merc and beth (lord, that feels strange typing it lower case, hope that's right y'all) asked why there appears to be a double standard recommending doms "suck it up" and do what the sub needs more than the other way around. I honestly think that in either case the couple should be talking and possibly seeking relationship counseling. I also have to point out that it doesn't usually hurt to swing the whip or paddle at someone, whereas these things do hurt to receive, so that in a case where a couple has a submissive partner wanting the other to top them, that's easier to accommodate than the reverse scenario in which a dominant partner wants to dish out a spanking to a nilla parner who doesn't like funishment. I still think that whenever you get a mis-match like this, the couple needs to talk. They need to discover whether the relationship can or should be saved at all. If they decide to continue it, then the one interested in kink has to either give up kink, or the relationship has to allow them to get their kink somewhere. Consider instead when happens to a heterosexual married couple when one of the partners discovers in mid-life that they really are gay. In rare instances, I've seen these couples stay married and make it work, but that's really, really, perishingly rare. When people have nonstandard sexual urges of any sort, many times we stuff those down and repress the hell out of them until we're finally so miserable we have to either admit the sexuality or explode. And I think sometimes discover their need for kink late. If you are already in a vanilla relationship, what do you do then? Now, back to the exemplar situations, if the kink partner demands the other person "convert" to a full time dominant, then that's unfair of them to ask and really an unrealistic expectation. Everyone in the relationship should get their needs met some of the time, and the nilla partner ISN'T if he or she is having to service top all the time.If the kink partner has to have more domination than their vanilla partner can or is willing to provide, it's time to reevaluate the relationship and either seek a compromise or end it.

leadership527 -> RE: 'Breaking' a Dominant (1/2/2010 1:44:20 PM)
In general, I've noticed a rather large bias towards submissives on these boards. As you noted, when a dominant posts with some issue, they frequently get ridiculed, harassed, etc. I refer to is as the "sub pig pile". Personally, I think this stems from what, to me, is the mistaken notion that the poor, helpless submissive is vulnerable to the evil wiles of the dominant while the dominant shares no such vulnerability. Whether this is a gender bias or an bias between dom and sub is unclear to me. To be fair, the entire concept of "breaking" seems to me to be rooted in a side of BDSM that has nothing to do with my life and so I'm pretty unclear on the entire thing. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why ANYONE, man or woman, dom or sub, would be asked or agree to go beyond what their own sense of internal safety dictates. Carol and I certainly progress forward into new areas, some of which are frightening for one reason or another. But we do not "break" each other to do it. We take such steps carefully, with a great deal of forethought, and together.

osf -> RE: 'Breaking' a Dominant (1/2/2010 1:47:13 PM)
throw in a few dommes and i'll agree

JonnieBoy -> RE: 'Breaking' a Dominant (1/2/2010 3:06:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff quote: ORIGINAL: Phoenixpower quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff men by there nature are problem solvers men are what??? So far in my experience they are more problem creaters [image]http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_3_6.gif[/image] I didn't say we were good at it. I said it's what we do...:) Jeff You see .... .... some of us are HONEST too [;)] Pirate

Mercnbeth -> RE: 'Breaking' a Dominant (1/2/2010 4:03:09 PM)
Sorry to have abandoned the thread. It's a beautiful day in the South Bay and we took a drive to Venice Beach to walk the dogs and enjoy a nice afternoon smoke at a dispensary hash hookah bar using an 'illadelph' ice bong while sitting overlooking the 'Muscle Beach' gym on the promenade. There's something to be said for progressive liberalism in California on a nice Saturday afternoon. thanks, hippies!!! Anyway..... As beth pointed out it was my egocentric nature that deflected the thread's direction. beth was focusing more on the 'vanillas' being broken into dominance being treated as acceptable in comparison to a vanilla coerced to the breaking point of submission. I identified with the pressure I observe being placed on 'budding dominants'. beth compared it to people attempting to break her into dominating them in her prior relationships. she also felt, as many of the vanillas seem to on those threads, that do to so wasn't possible...as someone noted, she didn't break but the relationships did. perhaps the thread title should have been "Breaking a Vanilla"...but since we all know that's just wrong, maybe the discussion wouldn't have made it this far!!! [:)]

subtee -> RE: 'Breaking' a Dominant (1/2/2010 4:57:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: osf now jeff i never said a cross word to you that i remember it's just a few women and their sycophants that wash over the threads like tsunami And yet you don't mind at all when others are being attacked in defense of you. Manly.

subtee -> RE: 'Breaking' a Dominant (1/2/2010 5:03:24 PM)
~FR It doesn't seem to me that in those threads there was any indication that the OP was in danger or worried about being "broken." There was inquisitiveness and questions and they were answered with consideration and thought toward saving the relationship. In that vein, it was rather, "give it a shot," which is far from "breaking" anyone.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875