quote:

ORIGINAL: Jaybeee

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

I guess that I have an issue with the word "willing".  That implies that he's being led to be a Dom, and that he's okay with it.

If you expose a man to D/s and he realizes that he IS that way, excellent.  But if it's a case of "Gee, I guess I could do that", he's not a Dom.

A Dom WANTS to be a Dom and once exposed to it, will take the initiative to learn.  Someone who is "willing" and no more, would be at best a service Top, someone who will take the initiative in scenes only, because it pleases his partner.

Fair enough, but it's not the willingness of the Dom to learn (which is a given), but rather the willingness of Subbies to teach, that I'm interested in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twoshoes

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff
I see a difference between leadership and dominance,
It is almost cliché how many "people who are "powerful" in their jobs wish to be dominated in their personal/sexual lives.

I absolutely agree with this. I have leadership skills aplenty, but I am not a dominant.

Opposite.

But when people talk of leadership, they are generally referring to only specific types of leadership of a beaurocratic nature.

When I have to lead for example, I do it by keeping people happy and inspired.

I've read that I only make a good leader if you need a revolutionary or a politician. Luckily, I'm quite handy at delivering emotional speeches.

quote:

All good advice, but again you seem to be under the impression I didn't know all of this. Let me see if I can clarify; I have to DESERVE to be her Dom/Master/whatever: that means she'd serve me happily because I've made her feel loved, cherished, protected, provided for etc. If anything Laurell, my difficulties with being a Dom would stem from me being TOO soft-hearted with her. I know me, though I'd be the one giving the orders she'd know damn well I needed her as much, or likely MORE than she needed me, and she'd know that from shedloads of intimate conversations, heart-to-hearts, and a lot of tears, both the sad and the happy kinds - and not all of them are gonna be hers.

Shit...I just read that twice, I can't believe I just wrote such a personal bunch of stuff to strangers, but I'll stick with it in that 'Publish and be damned' ethos.

quote:

Ok, so we're kind of missing the boat here huh? Your concern is that you won't be "dominant enough"? That you have to employ certain domly actions and words or you are too soft-hearted? That's what I'm reading from this quote below and by the way, I wouldn't be worried about THAT being sharing too much, believe me, people post MUCH more revealing personal things here and you're still talking about theory, I don't see that as overly personal.

If that is your concern, I do think it's realistic to an extent. I know that you want to separate the dom from the man in your other posts/threads, but you really can't. This isn't that much unlike vanilla dating. I don't feel submissive because of certain actions, protocols or words. That feeling comes from trust, security and safety. Actually KNOWING who the man is without a bunch of "method" bullshit is much more conducive to true intimacy and trust for me.

Your relationship can have as much or as little structure and protocol as you want. There's no set formula. I think your earlier post about taking an inventory of sorts with a conversation about where you are and what the expectations are is a great idea. Honestly, I wouldn't worry much about not being this illusive "dominant" concept. Be what you are. That guy in that paragraph above is someone that I think many people would be comfortable following because he allows himself to be vulnerable and real instead of some cookie cutter stereotype.

quote:

ORIGINAL: laurell3

We ALL train each other on how to proceed every single time we enter into a new relationship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

So to sum it up, you can't really be "soft" and be a "good leader" at the same time. But there's no need to be "dark", "sadistic", "harsh", etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: laurell3

quote:

All good advice, but again you seem to be under the impression I didn't know all of this. Let me see if I can clarify; I have to DESERVE to be her Dom/Master/whatever: that means she'd serve me happily because I've made her feel loved, cherished, protected, provided for etc. If anything Laurell, my difficulties with being a Dom would stem from me being TOO soft-hearted with her. I know me, though I'd be the one giving the orders she'd know damn well I needed her as much, or likely MORE than she needed me, and she'd know that from shedloads of intimate conversations, heart-to-hearts, and a lot of tears, both the sad and the happy kinds - and not all of them are gonna be hers.

Shit...I just read that twice, I can't believe I just wrote such a personal bunch of stuff to strangers, but I'll stick with it in that 'Publish and be damned' ethos.

Ok, so we're kind of missing the boat here huh? Your concern is that you won't be "dominant enough"? That you have to employ certain domly actions and words or you are too soft-hearted? That's what I'm reading from this quote below and by the way, I wouldn't be worried about THAT being sharing too much, believe me, people post MUCH more revealing personal things here and you're still talking about theory, I don't see that as overly personal.

If that is your concern, I do think it's realistic to an extent. I know that you want to separate the dom from the man in your other posts/threads, but you really can't. This isn't that much unlike vanilla dating. I don't feel submissive because of certain actions, protocols or words. That feeling comes from trust, security and safety. Actually KNOWING who the man is without a bunch of "method" bullshit is much more conducive to true intimacy and trust for me.

Your relationship can have as much or as little structure and protocol as you want. There's no set formula. I think your earlier post about taking an inventory of sorts with a conversation about where you are and what the expectations are is a great idea. Honestly, I wouldn't worry much about not being the mysterious "dominant" concept. Be what you are. That guy in that paragraph above is someone that I think many people would be comfortable following because he allows himself to be vulnerable and real instead of some cookie cutter stereotype. At the end of the day the majority of relationships are about real life and supporting each other, not fun and games.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

How could you see the cards when the table is so high?

quote:

But if, say, you fell in love with a vanilla feller, and he was willing to become a Dom, do you think you would you be a good teacher? Or even a willing one?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jaybeee

Hi all,

As I mentioned in another question, I imagine there's a minimum standard of 'Masterfulness' that a potential partner must meet in advance. I also imagine there are times, with some of you, where you test your Master, he let's it slide and then you say, "You don't ever have to take that from me, you know. It's ok to put me in my place, hard". Furthermore, there are proaably those amongst you who feel that it is absolutlely none of your business, as a subbie/slave, to give your Master any form of guidance.

But if, say, you fell in love with a vanilla feller, and he was willing to become a Dom, do you think you would you be a good teacher? Or even a willing one?

I should add, by way of background, I am NOT asking for myself; I've got the Dom spirit to the brim.

:)

Your comments and thoughts welcome, ladies.