|
FirmhandKY -> RE: Identifying as a Dominant (4/5/2006 6:05:46 AM)
|
I like starymists response the best, because it most closely mirrors my own beliefs, but I want to respond to some of the concepts by the other posters.
To me, the first, primary, and main part of being a "dominant" is self-knowledge and confidence in your own abilities, desires, and limits. Can you be aggressive and not dominant? Heck yeah. Aggressiveness by itself is - to me - usually a sign that the person is NOT dominant, because aggressiveness often masks insecurity. Conversely, I believe you can be dominant, but not aggressive in the normal sense of the word.
ALWAYS taking charge of people and the situation? Sometimes that seems to be more of a narcissistic problem or a desire for power and control that comes - again - from insecurity.
'True" dominance is often difficult to see in a normal environment, simply because there are enough people with enough insecurities that they will try anything to manipulate the environment to their advantage. Intimidation is one of the most often techniques, and requires a strong dose of "dominance" to achieve.
I'm ex-military, and I can tell you, being "called" something - isn't "being" the thing. Being called a leader, doesn't make you a leader. The military has some great training programs for leaders, and it helps many people. Some people have all the skills the first day they show up. Other's have the basic understanding, but benefit from techniques, knowledge and skills they are taught. Others go through years of training, exposure and experience and couldn't lead a patrol out of a wet paperbag.
And one thing that I've noticed is that sometimes the very people who seek out the most badges, the most qualifications - in other words, the most external reinforcements to their "leadership", are the least comfortable and confident in that role.
Don't take this as any kind of attack on training programs or the abilities of any individual or group in this world, because I am talking in general terms.
The two most accurate measurement of determining how "dominant" someone is can come through one of two methods:
1. Long observation and interaction with the individual.
2. Seeing their reactions in a crisis, or under some sort of pressure.
Anything else - is just an educated guess. Accurate, perhaps, but still a guess.
Another thing that bothers me at times is the seeming confusion between bdsm techniques and "domination". How many subs here top, occasionally? Does that make them "Doms"?
Learning techniques may give a Dom additional avenues of play, and a wider range of sensual control over a sub - but technique (in my opinion) isn't domination. If a sub is looking for a dominant who has a certain skill set, and doesn't wish to go through the learning process with the Dom, she will often say "I want a Dom with x years of experience." In my opinion, this confuses technical skills with what dominantion actually is. Doesn't mean it isn't a valid criteria, but it's a confusion of the issue.
Oh, I've got plenty more, but I'll hold it for another time.
FH
|
|
|
|
