quote:

By this standard, a "classic dom" is a trolling horndog targeting the new meat.

Since I consider myself waaaaay above that (new meat is acceptable but), what's better than "classic"?

Or did you mean typical internet dom?

Focus.

Focus,

Nope I mean the genuine article when I refer to "classic" That is not to imply the internet Dominants cannot meet whatever standard might exist in peoples mind.

CP

(in reply to Focus50)

quote:

I think it's a fallacy to perpetuate the myth that there is such a thing as a look or a particular style of the 'Classic Dominant'. The audience that you are hoping to reach, CP, when they are new to the actual world of BDSM, rather than what they've learned through porn, already comes with a stereotype in their heads that we have to teach them isn't what Dominant women are going to be like. They already have misconceptions about it because those hot fantasy chicks who run around in leather and spiked heals morning, noon, and night playing the bitch goddess continually just really don't exist.

Though, it does need to be mentioned here that submissive males aren't the only folks who fall into this trap. Male Dominants who are just getting started are just as bad. They even come to the boards asking how to make themselves into the classic Dom, thinking they can fool submissive women. They start thread after thread here with different variations of what boils down to the same question. That being, how should they act or what should they do to convince women that they are Dominant. Like getting tips from folks who have been doing this for a while will be enough for them to fake some kind of image. Speaking of images, look for the classic pic of the guy in a black shirt, stern look on his face, with his arms folded across his chest or holding some flogger that looks brand new and never been used.

As most Dominant women will tell you, the first year that we're active in BDSM in any situation other than just privately with a partner, we get flooded with garbage about what we're 'supposed to be'. It takes a bit to shrug that off and just be the type of Domme that we feel reflects us as a person. I'm sure that submissive women hear the same crap as well. Let's not add to that, shall we?

quote:

For me, there is no specific "look" a dominant individual needs to have. There are certain physical characteristics that appeal to me, but they don't indicate dominance per say. A person can dress a certain way and be sexy to me, but does that imply dominance? For me, no.

Again, for me, a dominant individual would behave in the way I described on this thread... http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3512763.
This goes for both men and women.

Honestly, for better or worse, I see dominance and submission as personality traits/roles and not as some 'lifestyle' label. Maybe that's why I don't have one particular image in mind of what a "Classic Dominant" would be that actually coincides with the image so many folks on the profile side of CM come looking for or want to be.

Bones,

"look" is really just a form of adjective; I bet if you made yourself a private list of what you expect in a "D" you might well come up with a "look"

Thanks for you thoughts.

CP

(in reply to BonesFromAsh)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CelticPrince
LP,

Thanks for your input but I do disagree that there does not exist a recognized style of behavior that is appreciated by those ion the path. Indeed there will be variations but on balance there is a behavior that is more expected from observers.

CP

quote:

ORIGINAL: CelticPrince

Bones,

"look" is really just a form of adjective; I bet if you made yourself a private list of what you expect in a "D" you might well come up with a "look"

Thanks for you thoughts.

CP

quote:

Celtic.... what do you mean by "Classic"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance

When I think of a "Classic Dominant," I think of my father.