RE: The Natural Dominant ? (Full Version)

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



Message


Ninebelowzero -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 7:57:25 AM)

Aww bless. xxx




littlewonder -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 8:05:59 AM)

I believe you're right. It's why when I was still single I looked for leaders...not "doms". Thankfully I got both with Master [:)].

I remember when I would put in my profile that I was seeking a man who could lead and the men always seemed to be puzzled by that which right there meant they could not do it since they couldn't understand it.

I wanted a constant, part of their personality...not a role that they played or just was simply demanding.

As for submissives being leaders, I can also see that and while people say that I am one of those, I absolutely abhor it. I hate to lead. I do it when no one else will because I'm impatient and can't stand to have a situation where there is chaos...I hate chaos even more. But given the choice, I'm always the one who sits in the back and hopes and prays that someone else steps up to the plate. When no one else does then I feel like I'm left without a choice. I  have to begrudgingly do so. Even though I hate it the entire time, I do a pretty damn good job of it without any spite. The moment the job is done though, yeah you won't find me around for awhile because I'm now exhausted and need to get away from everyone and just wind down.





Moonhead -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 8:20:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder
I do it when no one else will because I'm impatient and can't stand to have a situation where there is chaos...I hate chaos even more.

I've seen that cited as an example of leadership qualities more than once. You shouldn't underestimate that whole "hating chaos" thing...




Kana -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 8:32:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder
I do it when no one else will because I'm impatient and can't stand to have a situation where there is chaos...I hate chaos even more.

I've seen that cited as an example of leadership qualities more than once. You shouldn't underestimate that whole "hating chaos" thing...


This is a huge reason I take control of situations...I'm way to impatient to sit around and wait will things degenerate...well that and the fact that my ego says that I'm the best equipped guy in the room to handle the problem.
Funny thing is I tend to be right about this, or at least right enough to pull off the response.
Funnier thing-do this once or twice and all of a sudden, when shit goes sideways everyone automatically starts looking at me for a solution...




Ninebelowzero -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 8:33:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder
I do it when no one else will because I'm impatient and can't stand to have a situation where there is chaos...I hate chaos even more.

I've seen that cited as an example of leadership qualities more than once. You shouldn't underestimate that whole "hating chaos" thing...


You obviously never worked in Weld Shop at Toyota then. Total carnage.




MariaB -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 10:12:27 AM)

I wanted to quote some things that have been said so far that I can connect with.

Ninebelowzero said, “A good leader will take you over the top of the trenches into a wall of lead. A bad leader gets the first shot fired in anger through the back of the head”.

crazyml said, “Discussing the difference in meanings between words, in order to learn more about a broader topic”

LaTigress said “I am even going to go out on a limb and say that, in my life experience, people that are often submissive in their personal relationships can make excellent leaders”.

littlewonder said, “I remember when I would put in my profile that I was seeking a man who could lead and the men always seemed to be puzzled by that which right there meant they could not do it since they couldn't understand it”.

And then littlewonder said this, “As for submissives being leaders, I can also see that and while people say that I am one of those, I absolutely abhor it. I hate to lead. I do it when no one else will because I'm impatient and can't stand to have a situation where there is chaos...I hate chaos even more. But given the choice, I'm always the one who sits in the back and hopes and prays that someone else steps up to the plate. When no one else does then I feel like I'm left without a choice. I have to begrudgingly do so. Even though I hate it the entire time, I do a pretty damn good job of it without any spite. The moment the job is done though, yeah you won't find me around for awhile because I'm now exhausted and need to get away from everyone and just wind down”.
And I’m suddenly thinking, whoa this may take the topic in a new direction.
I always believe that it takes one to know one and for that reason I would of thought that you, littlewonder, are hugely fussy about who you step into a relationship with, and so you should be.
Having the ability to lead is one thing, wanting to lead is another. Being able to step up and take over in an emergency is imo a crucial thing in any relationship and I for one would always look out for a submissive who had the capacity to do that.
I also believe that strength promotes strength and so every submissive who has leadership attributes will enhance the dominant leader who stands besides her. He will enjoy her strengths and embrace them, but the chest beating dominant with poor leadership qualities will not last five minutes with such a submissive.




LadyHibiscus -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 10:17:57 AM)

One of my local pals has a statement on her profile to the effect that only the strong shall serve the strong. Which makes a tremendous amount of sense to me. I like to know that I am on top of the situation, ready for the emergencies, able to deal, but there are times when I cannot do it all, or just plain need to be propped up. Those times, a submissive who's sitting on their hands awaiting further orders isn't going to be of much use. I need to feed off someone else's sense of purpose, not just create it for both of us.




DesFIP -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 10:18:04 AM)

I'm still shaking my head at babies being dominant. Infants don't know where they end and where the rest of the world begins. They aren't seeking to control their parents, only expressing needs they do not yet have any language skills to articulate. And I shudder at the thought of anyone being brought up by someone who considers them a dictator for being hungry or tired.

I have risen to the occasion when forced into it, but it takes a huge toll on me.

The Man is naturally the sort of person other people flock to and take directions from. He has a client whose husband is just now recovering from a long illness. At some point, the husband, finally beginning to take an interest in property maintenance turned to his wife who had been handling things while he was unable to, pointed at The Man and told her "Stop arguing, do whatever he says you have to do". The dogs and kids love me openly, but they obey him. They turn to him when in trouble, instead of me usually.

I'm not really seeing any difference here between him inspiring others to follow him and inspiring others to submit to him. It appears more semantic than anything else. The fact that when he's ill, I dictate to him for his own good doesn't make me the leader or the dominant. It means I'm following the direction I have to take care of him.




LaTigresse -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 10:52:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus

One of my local pals has a statement on her profile to the effect that only the strong shall serve the strong. Which makes a tremendous amount of sense to me. I like to know that I am on top of the situation, ready for the emergencies, able to deal, but there are times when I cannot do it all, or just plain need to be propped up. Those times, a submissive who's sitting on their hands awaiting further orders isn't going to be of much use. I need to feed off someone else's sense of purpose, not just create it for both of us.


Exactly.

Also, I was thinking about this when I was at lunch.

Submissive types being drawn to a dominant personality with the wrong assumption that will gain them the leader they are looking for.

On here, I've been known, on occasion......to write that there are a lot more bottoms that believe themselves to be s-types, but are in fact kinky bottoms. Certainly there is nothing wrong with that, as long as they are able to be self aware enough to know that it is the kinky fun they want and not the 24/7 power exchange.

But rarely is the flip side of that coin mentioned, or even the more subtle variations.

In my mind, to be a leader, or as we see written on occasion, a person that 'inspires' submission, takes a pretty rare bird. Certainly they exist and certainly we've all seen examples........in varying degrees. I even consider thoughts that I've seen some goreans write about it taking a rare man to inspire a woman to slavery. While the gender based propaganda that tends to exist in those philosophies makes me feel pukey, I do get the concept, sans gender. Specifically the ideals attributed to that sort of leader.




Buzzman -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 12:47:08 PM)

I knew a girl who ran her own company, led many people in this company, was good at what she did and very successful. But when she left the office all the wanted was someone to control her. She was just really good with handling responsibility, her responsibility was leading her employees and getting the best out of them.

I also think people mix Dominance up with other traites. I see people who are just spoiled or arrogant that people who don't know any better think is Dominance. What you describe about your kid are spoiled kids, not natural Dominants.




LaTigresse -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 12:48:44 PM)

So you are saying that a child cannot have a dominant personality?




Buzzman -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 1:00:10 PM)

Jusr read my post again and nowhere does it say that a child cannot have a Dominant personality, if it does, please point it out, because I cannot see it.

Telling a parent or anyone I want something "NOW" has absolutely nothing to do with Dominance. If a parent has to go about talking like that to a kid, I'd say the parent isn't being Dominant. To have to raise your level in such a way means you are trying to gain control of a situation you previously didn't have control of. Now a naturally Dominant person could get someone to wash the floor, cook some food and get some play time "NOW"with normal tone and words. It's the confidence and security others feel towards the Dom and what he / she had to say.




LaTigresse -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 2:06:19 PM)

I actually believe you are over simplifying. A person/child can have a dominant personality and be a spoilt brat, asshole, person that NO self confident person will follow. I think that you are mixing leadership with dominance when then are not necessarily one in the same. Quite often not, actually.




MasterSlaveLA -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 3:11:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

I think too many people believe that leadership is the same as being dominant.



I think too many people believe a self-proclaimed "Dom/me" or "Master/Mistress" is ACTUALLY dominant?!!  Put me in the camp that feels the one that can ACTUALLY LEAD (in everything in life, not just kink) over the one that merely checks the Dominant box on a BDSM site any day!!!


quote:



I keep hearing the words, 'natural dominance'...



I believe the below might help explain what some are referring to with regard to a "Natural Dominant"...


He Looks Like a Dom & Quacks Like a Dom, but is He Really a Dom?
By Sensuous Sadie ( Source:
http://domsubfriends.com/voye/articles/105/ )

In the vanilla world there is a very active game of dominance and submission, one that is largely unspoken and unacknowledged, but in some ways more grounded in reality. Vanilla 'dominants' are dominant by virtue of both the circumstances of their lives as well as by their basic natures. They don't 'act' dominant, they simply are dominant. On the other hand, BDSM Dominants are bound by a loose set of traditions and customs that have little to do with whether they are really in control, but rather with whether they appear to be in control." ~ Jonathan

One of the reasons I love visiting my friend Dylan is because while I'm at his house, I am enclosed in his circle. Although he isn't involved in BDSM, he's what we might call a "Vanilla Dominant", in that he creates an environment where I am free to submit. I get to enjoy the comfort and security of the control he provides without ever feeling as though my own independence was compromised. In Dylan's world, consent is not overt, but rather implied, although by being there, I am in a sense giving consent. This is a different scenario than the checklist-exchanging consent of the BDSM scene.

What is Control then?
Dylan's control over his environment, and of me, is a very particular kind of control. My awareness of his gift comes out of my feelings about love; that to be able to love, we must love ourselves first. Similarly, to control another person, we must be able to control our own lives. This does not mean never having fun or being spontaneous, but rather that each of us creates our lives and takes responsibility for what we have created. If I wish to be a Dominant, I need to be able to demonstrate that my life is what I have chosen, rather than a bit of flotsam and jetsam tossed about in the storm.

Dominants in the BDSM Scene
Our community puts forth a model of what a Dominant is, and provides lots of instructions about how to speak, act, dress and conduct a scene (also known as quacking like a Dominant). The good part about this is that these models offer a way for community members to interact with a clear line of communication. The downside is that if a new Dominant doesn't have a grounded sense of self, these trappings create an artificial construct, a persona that unfortunately can fool novices and even experienced players. My friend Stacey says that "For people who are truly Dominant, they use whatever protocol, clothes, etc. that they want. That's what it means to be the Dominant, they get to do things the way they want. The community does have a structure, but when it's used by people who aren't intrinsically dominant, it just looks silly." One example of this silliness is a local Dominant named Colby who dresses to the nines, is highly articulate, and has a collection of expensive accoutrements in his basement dungeon. In this very dungeon, I watched as an experienced player developed a crush on him, or at least the him that she could see on the surface. Unfortunately, what Colby doesn't have is emotional, financial, or personal stability, the things that in my opinion establish a foundation for someone to control another person. My friend Julia might be thinking of Colby when she says, "Most of the dominance I've observed in the BDSM worlds looks like a cartoon to me."

You could say that Colby is "acting" like he is in control, while my vanilla friend Dylan is simply "being" in control. Of course not all Dominants in the BDSM scene are like Colby, and many of them are indeed stable on all fronts. What I want to look at here is how Vanilla Dominants do what they do, and how to identify Dominants in the BDSM scene who are also simply "being" dominant.

Vanilla Dominants
One distinction between the dominance you see between the scene and the vanilla world is the role of sexuality. Stacey describes it this way, "Dominance is something inherent in a person and it doesn't matter whether they define themselves as a scene Dominant or not. A vanilla dominant is simply a strong dominant person who revels in that dominance, but doesn't necessarily use floggers, bondage or any of the other accoutrements. They just don't identify with the 'rackem and whackem' scene." Julia adds that, "In the BDSM world, sex is the sine qua non (the prerequisite) of dominance and submission. In the vanilla world, sex is just one part of a much more complex set of relationships." The key messages here are that dominance, sexuality, and BDSM can be combined in a number of ways irregardless of the labels we in the scene often use.

When I look at Dylan's life, I observe that he is stable on a number of fundamental levels: career, financial, family, and personal. While Dylan has changed jobs a few times, he has consistently moved up in his career. He may not be rich, but he lives within his means and can afford the things he cares about. He has a number of long term friends and is active in his community. Julia adds that, "Vanilla Dominants don't take pride in the fact that they own eleven different floggers and they are skilled at wax play. They take pride in how much money they raised for their church or how they coached their daughter for the debating team."

In contrast, when I'm at Colby's house, I'm expected to scrape up my own lunch, which likely as not will require me to wash the dishes piled up in the sink. While waiting for him to finish e-mailing his friends, I might enjoy checking out his collection of single tails, but then I also know that he makes excuses for not having enough money to visit his kids. Here at home with his armor set aside, Colby is in control of nothing. He's simply a guy looking for another temp job, eating peanut butter sandwiches just before payday, and finding a new gal pal submissive who won't see through the masquerade for a few months. Julia is hard on guys like this, but there may be a kernel of truth in what she asks, "Do you know a single BDSM dominant who donates his dominance to anything of social value outside of the scene? People who are into the lifestyle are often selfishly focused on their own sexual pleasure, and little else." If Colby really was a Dominant, his gifts would not only provide him with better than a rundown lifestyle, but he'd be contributing something to the larger world.

How Do We Know Which is Which?
Colby of course is just one person in the BDSM scene, and there are certainly plenty of Dominants who have more balanced lives. The challenge then is to identify Dominants who are actually in control, not just acting. My approach is to ignore the visual and sexual trappings, what the person says, wears, and acts – even whether or not they have a submissive. Instead, I look at how they are managing their lives. Are they passionate about their work? Are they responsible parents? Have they been able to sustain a long-term relationship? Are they living in a comfortable home? Are they emotionally stable?

Is He or She in Control, or Controlling?
Being "in control" is a bit of a loaded term, so let's look at some related issues. One is the distinction is between being "in control" and being "controlling." Being in control is about being certain and sure-footed about who you are and what you are doing. When you are dominant with those around you, you are allowing others the benefit of this control. Being controlling is about being insecure and demanding that others assure you that you are okay. It is the antithesis of, and yet is often mistaken for, real dominance. The control of a Dominant is also different than the control we talk about in relation to twelve step programs. There, we seek to turn over control of our lives to a higher power, a quest which I work on every day. However, this doesn't mean that we're sitting back and expecting God to do all the work. God has the big picture in hand, but it is still up to me to roast up the shish kabobs and scrub the grill.

Can We Judge Submissives by the Same Yardstick?
Another interesting side issue is whether we can apply these same ideas to submissives. Does their ability to control their own lives relate directly to their ability to actually submit, versus only appearing to submit? Submissives are rarely measured by their ability to control their own lives, but a submissive whose career, financial life, and social network are in shambles is clearly not someone who is prepared to engage in any exchange of power. Giving someone control of a messed up existence is not a gift, but a burden. Stacey agrees with me, saying, "Many submissives are strong individuals and their submission is to a strong partner, not to the world at large. There has to be a tension (in a good sense) between two people who are equal in strength and completeness, a push and pull between worthy opponents. What thrill is there for a Dominant in having someone weak surrender their teeny bit of weakness?"

What I find really fascinating about Vanilla Dominants is that they model a substantive approach to control. It's not that we in the community don't have this already, but that it can get obscured in the bells and whistles of BDSM. We may think we have it all figured out, but in some ways this organic approach to dominance has a step up on the gee gaws and costumes of the scene. Dylan's way of dominating me may not have the explicit consent step I'm used to, but I'm pretty sure that if he ever wants to move that dominance into the bedroom, I'll be the first in line.





fragilepieces -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 5:01:28 PM)

Maria I see your point but I think there is more to it than leadership. Dom X can have leadership skills falling out of his 'a' hole and if no one follows him he leads no one.


My partner and I click---I adore the man, I trust his judgement, with him I feel secure, I want to obey him--his being a leader has little to do with it.




MSubEdinburgh29 -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 6:20:10 PM)

This reminds me of something my Dad used to say when I had a pet budgie - "don't let him dominate you" [:D]

I always said don't be ridiculous, but in actual fact, it's not as far fetched as it sounds. He used to peck at you at certain times, if he wasn't getting his way, so to allow him to do that would be in some ways submitting to him. You can see the same sort of thing in the behaviour of cats, and even dogs, who know how to manipulate their owners to get what they want.

Anyway, as for the dominant vs leader discussion, well of course the two don't always go together.

I am sexually submissive to women only, but outside of that, I'm not submissive to women at all. I don't get intimidated by women at work, in fact my line manager is a woman and the thought doesn't even enter my mind.

I don't see myself going into management, not at this time anyway, but I do know that I have management qualities. I am rational, calm, think logically, and know how to speak to people to earn their respect

So, I'd say you can definitely be any combination of dominant/submissive/leader/follower.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ninebelowzero

IMO. Leadership & dominance are separate skillsets.

A good leader will take you over the top of the trenches into a wall of lead. A bad leader gets the first shot fired in anger through the back of the head. There is nothing more dangerous in time of battle than an officer with a map.

The same rules apply in the workplace.

I am a great man manager, I don't dominate. I ask the person to give me the solution. If they can't then I do.It isn't dominance it's about owning the problem in my narrow field of experience. Some of the female dommes I have met, well most have the management skills to succeed in the workplace that I frequent. Not one male that I've met has. The ego driven shouty bollocks doesn't work with engineering because steel is deaf & you can kick the crap out of it all day & it won't budge. Women are more solution driven. That's just my opinion.
What a great post, nail on the head IMO! [;)]




MariaB -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/7/2012 3:04:40 AM)

MasterSlaveLA
I wanted to thank you for such a well written and interesting post. I am going to respond but we are moving tomorrow and I still have an enormous amount of packing to do.
Hopefully later I will have a little more time.

Thanks everyone for contributing with your thoughts.

Back later
Maria




MariaB -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/7/2012 6:45:27 AM)

A few people here have said that dominance and leadership means the same thing when used under this umbrella. With those people I agree.
We see thread after thread about ritualistic dominance. We see very few threads on leadership and how leadership comes from a deep understanding of oneself, life and everything around us. It took me years to understand what true leadership meant. It is the hidden, un-talked about and yet often crucial part of dominance.
I have met and talked to many dominant men and women who are unable to grow and evolve into their real feminine or masculine selves. Aggression, superiority, hostility towards other dominants seems to be fairly rife. This sort of person fears showing his true self. That the gentle or romantic side of him will be judged amongst his rivals as passive and weak. Its patriarchy and patriarchy stunts both masculine and feminine people.
Dominant rituals are conscious choices. Initiations into consensual slavery or becoming a master are just rituals we enjoy amongst like minded people. They actually play a very small part in most D/s relationships and yet they are the most talked about thing on here. Bring up the word 'leadership' and some people patronize and say, don't be silly, we all know about this so why talk about it? I say, why the hell not? If its part of dominance then surely we should recognize it.
The submissive and slave often talk about ‘their rituals’ within their household. They clearly enjoy these rituals and want us all to know what is going on. Unfortunately, for the immature or inexperienced dominant, all these posts give him the impression that so long as he puts a load of rituals together and perhaps beats her for fun or punishes her for her misdeeds, all will fall into place. What he has in fact put together is a type of pseudo dominance but he doesn't think its pseudo dominance because he's been left in the dark about the important bits.
What he/she doesn't get is, none of those things show masculinity, or in the case of a Domme, femininity. Whilst rituals and scening may be a way of proving ‘WE’ are dominant to those looking in or for those submissives in the early stages of a relationship, if not entwined in leadership its merely role-play that is driven by ego.
If a man doesn’t realize that showing dominance (in the way that most of us understand it) is not showing masculinity then sooner or later he will drop by the wayside. Just being dominant isn’t enough; it just leads to anxiousness and frustration. Without leadership qualities complimenting his dominance, he is out of control and all of his creativity will eventually be attacked by the submissive who subconsciously believed he could lead her.
How often do we see a dominant person bemoan about his subs misbehavior? How often do we see dominants asking for advice on how to punish?
If he was leading her as well as dominating her he likely wouldn’t have misbehavior and if he did then he, as a mature adult would know how to handle the situation. Instead he doesn’t believe he’s doing anything wrong and turns to others for some more ritualistic advice.
Until he learns dominance is just something that enhances his leadership, then he will continue to make the same mistakes.




gungadin09 -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/7/2012 7:42:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB
We see thread after thread about ritualistic dominance.

We do?

We see very few threads on leadership and how leadership comes from a deep understanding of oneself, life and everything around us. It took me years to understand what true leadership meant. It is the hidden, un-talked about and yet often crucial part of dominance.

On the contrary, it's a truism, to master another, first master yourself. That statement applies equally well to leadership as to dominance. They are closely correlated.

What he/she doesn't get is, none of those things show masculinity, or in the case of a Domme, femininity.

No, what they do or don't show is true power.

Whilst rituals and scening may be a way of proving ‘WE’ are dominant to those looking in or for those submissives in the early stages of a relationship...,

Where are you getting these ideas from? Who thinks that?

...if not entwined in leadership its merely role-play that is driven by ego.

But there is such a thing as bad leadership as well as bad dominance. I still think your definition of those words is really odd. If you're trying to say that not all dominance is good dominance, then I agree. But the rest, no


pam




Buzzman -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/7/2012 9:12:28 AM)

If that's what you beleive, so be it.

Personally I think you are overcomplicating it.

As I said, with Dominance comes cotrol, how can a spoiled person / brat etc control someone if they are unable to keep themselves under control? I agree that person could be Dominant, but to be sure get rid of the spoiled brat in the person and you'll know for sure or you'll always be guessing.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875