RE: The Natural Dominant ? (Full Version)

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



Message

slaverachel2Him -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/7/2012 12:38:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

Oh and just in case I have misguided people here. Leather does not make a dominant. The way people dress is up to them but personally I would rather dominate someone in my pj's or some comfortable jeans. Corsets are too restrictive and I don't wear leather apart from shoes and boots.

And to address your preferences- that is of course up to you. YOU are the Dominant.

i know of a Domme that was telling me some friends of Hers was ragging on Her because She absolutely will NEVER get naked. So what's up with THAT? SHE'S the Domme, they aren't in any D/s with Her. i think if the Dom/me, Master/Mistress doesn't get naked-that is THEIR choice- or they wouldn't be dominating if the choice were made for them.

The M/s, D/s gets together because they get together, it is their attractions etc and if the M/D never gets naked, has sex or whatever, well, that is their call. Thier position is such that nudity may or may not enhance what they are doing and they have to be the one in charge. Not the submissive or other Master's or Dom's rules and opinions. We have toc onsider the source. LOL Dominators-what they do.



Casteele -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/7/2012 2:42:00 PM)

FR

MariaB (I think it was? Too lazy to reload previous pages and hit the proper quote/reply button :-P)):

I'm curious here how "leader/leadership" correlates to "dominant/domination"? Correlation is generally considered to be one of three states, -1, 0 or +1. -1, or negative/inverse correlation means that when variable X increases, variable Y decreases. +1, or positive/direct correlation means that when variable X increases, so does variable Y. 0 correlation means there is no correlation, both variables operate independently. Also, remember that when dealing with +1/-1 correlations, the opposite remains true: A change in the Y variable would force an appropriate change in the X variable.

While I do see that the two are often intertwined and closely related, I do not see any kind of correlation between the two (meaning 0 correlation). Just being dominant does not imply being a leader or not, nor does being a leader imply being dominant or not. If hat you really mean to say is that in your view, a dominant should also be a leader, then I can understand, but that is not a correlation, that is a preference. If it were a correlation, then that would mean two things: It would have to be positive since you state that a dominant needs strong leadership skills, and that would mean that a submissive would have low or no leadership skills. Given how many submissives I've known who are natural leaders (whether they like leading or not is another story), I can't see a correlation here. Please clarify?



Casteele -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/7/2012 3:07:51 PM)

This topic is another good one that's given me things to think about. I'm glad it came up, as I also see a lot more talk about just the domination side, without much conversation on the leadership side. Sure, I see things like "love when he takes charge" type comments, but even those, the leadership is more implied, not directly addressed. Some would even argue that taking charge is a domination effect and not at all a leadership effect.

Speaking for myself, I'm neither here nor there, I guess. In terms of dominance, I call myself a dom more because I'm not vanilla, I'm not a sub, and I'm not a switch--more a process of elimination. If you include top/bottom, then maybe I'm more of a top than a dom. I'm not really sure in this case because I'm not always clear on what the differences are between dom and top, sub and bottom.

As far as leadership goes.. I really dislike being a leader--it takes a lot of responsibility and hard work to lead. That isn't to say I'm irresponsible or lazy, either. Even the natural leaders I know will say they'd be happy if those weren't part of the package deal, but it is so they deal with it. In my work life, I have to take the lead all the time, and be very proactive in finding and affecting solutions to every day problems. But in my personal life, I tend not to lead so much--Perhaps I'm also just easy to please because I can find contentment and enjoyment in just sitting at home reading a book, just as easily as going out having a wild night at the clubs.



gungadin09 -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/7/2012 3:34:22 PM)

Okay, I think Casteele meant to ask me about the correlation thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Casteele
While I do see that the two are often intertwined and closely related...


That is exactly what correlation means. Or, if you want it mathematically, there is a positive correlation between dominance and leadership.

I think both words basically mean exerting power over others. "Leadership" sounds softer than "dominance", but the words mean much the same thing.

There are people who attempt dominance or attempt leadership only to do it badly, just as there are people who attempt them and do them well.

The word "dominance" has the connotation of power exerted more by force, and "leadership" has the connotation of power exerted more by persuasion. However, i think people understand that power exerted solely by force is ineffective without having it explained to them on an internet forum.

pam



Ninebelowzero -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/7/2012 3:42:05 PM)

I disagree Gungadin on the basis that I won't dominate unless there is no alternatives left & then tool boxes fly. However I encourage others to make decisions for themselves. I could not be a dominant in this lifestyle if someone held a gun to my head.



BootyBoy -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/7/2012 5:51:29 PM)

I think that most people, in the course of their careers will have to experience both being a learner/follower AND being a teacher/leader. That probably translates to other areas of life as well. As has been said before, nobody can be a leader or be dominant all the time.

People love to look at the idea of the CEO of a large company. But there are VERY few CEOs who haven't spent YEARS in middle management, or answering to one superior or another. Even as CEOS they often must answer to a board of directors. CEOs have typically spent most of their careers not only leading, but also answering to those who were above them, and believe me, if they didn't know how to follow, take direction, and serve someone else's agenda, they would never have made it very far.

The balanced and successful leader needs to know what it's like to follow as well.



Casteele -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/7/2012 10:52:29 PM)

gungadin, I had looked up the dictionary definition while posting just to make sure I wasn't missing a definition of the word. I may still be missing a more common usage of the word, but my understanding is that a correlation is more than just a relationship alone. to correlate, the data from the two variables must also "line up" together. That is, just because there is a close relationship between two variables does not mean that there is a correlation between the two.. It could very well be just coincidence that the data lines up.

Look at it this way, and where my confusion comes from.. Assuming that there is indeed a positive correlation between dominance and leadership, the following must be true:
1. Someone with a high dominance rating must also have a high leadership rating,
2. Someone with a high leadership rating must have a high dominance rating,
3. Someone with a low dominance rating must have a low leadership rating, and
4. Someone with a low leadership rating must have a low dominance rating.

Do you think all four of the above statements are true and correct? A negative correlation would just be switching the words "high/high" and "low/low" with "high/low" and "low/high" respectively. Anything else is no correlation.

ETA: There's also a distinction between correlation and causation as well, which may apply here: Does being a dominant type cause one to become a strong leader, or vise versa? I don't think it does in any way.



MariaB -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/8/2012 1:31:39 AM)

Casteele, Without using the word 'correlate' I took it that gungadine was meaning 'Leadership' and 'dominance' are mutually or reciprocally related. That either of two related things implies the other.
I agree that 'dominance' within the BDSM definition does apply to the above when its spoken about in its purest sense 'The dominant leader' but we don't use 'Dominant Leader' we use 'Dominant' and assume the word also implies 'Leadership'
As you rightly pointed out, one can be a dominant without being a leader. If you don't enjoy leading, why should that stop you being dominant and if you enjoy leading why would you have to be dominant too?
submissives and slaves tend to respond well to leadership, perhaps more so than dominance (which to me could simply imply scene playing) yet many of the dominants I know, scene play without leading but still expect the submissive to follow.
Now I do believe one can be dominant without just being a top but then what does the word 'top' imply? A grey area me thinks!!



gungadin09 -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/8/2012 1:36:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Casteele
Assuming that there is indeed a positive correlation between dominance and leadership, the following must be true:

1. Someone with a high dominance rating must also have a high leadership rating,
2. Someone with a high leadership rating must have a high dominance rating,
3. Someone with a low dominance rating must have a low leadership rating, and
4. Someone with a low leadership rating must have a low dominance rating.

Do you think all four of the above statements are true and correct?


Yes.

pam



MasterSlaveLA -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/8/2012 1:36:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

MasterSlaveLA

I wanted to thank you for such a well written and interesting post.



That writing isn't mine... my post linked to the author. [:)]




gungadin09 -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/8/2012 1:51:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Casteele
Does being a dominant type cause one to become a strong leader, or vise versa?


Being good at dominance means being good at leading. Whether one thing causes the other? I don't know.

pam



gungadin09 -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/8/2012 1:53:24 AM)

Sorry, double post.





LaTigresse -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/8/2012 6:11:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Casteele

gungadin, I had looked up the dictionary definition while posting just to make sure I wasn't missing a definition of the word. I may still be missing a more common usage of the word, but my understanding is that a correlation is more than just a relationship alone. to correlate, the data from the two variables must also "line up" together. That is, just because there is a close relationship between two variables does not mean that there is a correlation between the two.. It could very well be just coincidence that the data lines up.

Look at it this way, and where my confusion comes from.. Assuming that there is indeed a positive correlation between dominance and leadership, the following must be true:
1. Someone with a high dominance rating must also have a high leadership rating,
2. Someone with a high leadership rating must have a high dominance rating,
3. Someone with a low dominance rating must have a low leadership rating, and
4. Someone with a low leadership rating must have a low dominance rating.

Do you think all four of the above statements are true and correct? A negative correlation would just be switching the words "high/high" and "low/low" with "high/low" and "low/high" respectively. Anything else is no correlation.

ETA: There's also a distinction between correlation and causation as well, which may apply here: Does being a dominant type cause one to become a strong leader, or vise versa? I don't think it does in any way.



I would say that none of the statements are correct.

In some people they may be but to make a blanket statement/assumption that they are is going to be, is a very miserable road to take. Any s type that does so, will very likely struggle with relationships and find themselves bemoaning the ones that failed. Unless they are damned lucky and strike it rich by accident.

Most bullies are 'good' at dominating, but I wouldn't say that qualifies them for being a good leader. Although, it may.

My pressman is a very domineering personality but absolutely hates the idea of leading. Will not do it in his personal life and will not do it professionally. He would rather be a follower and let other people make the decisions and take the flack for them if they are wrong. He will be the very first to point fingers when they are wrong. He is the sqeaky wheel and admits it. It was made perfectly clear to me when I interviewed for the job the type of person he is. When I got the shop tour after my interview I walked up to him and said...."So you are the grumpy asshole?" and he just pulled the toothpick out of his mouth and said "Ahhyup". I got the job. It was obvious his domineering personality wasn't going to intimidate me and that was important to the, owner at the time.

I am not as domineering a personality as he is. But he does defer to my leadership. If I hadn't proven myself over time, he wouldn't. I respect his knowledge and often ask for his opinion. At times I even defer to his ideas because they are based on many more years of experience and a different point of view than I have based upon his job skills. But even when I defer to his ideas, I am still the one that takes the heat for the final decision because I am the one that gives the go ahead. Knowing that, he, and toothpick will be the first to say something like "She said so." Even though he rarely gets the chance because, as leader, if I am aware, I've already take responsibility for the problem and am working to solve it.

I also believe that being dominant but not wanting to lead often comes out in passive aggression. It does with my pressman and it is a trait that I've struggled with in my own behaviour. To ME, it is dominance that lacks the confidence to lead.

Regardless of what other have mixed the two up in their own heads...........I still say that one is a personality trait and the other is a skill.



Ninebelowzero -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/8/2012 6:33:28 AM)

Regardless of what other have mixed the two up in their own heads...........I still say that one is a personality trait and the other is a skill.


I go along with this.



whipher1 -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/8/2012 7:24:18 AM)

Leader are made not born ,Dominants are just born that way, its who there are !!



Ninebelowzero -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/8/2012 7:33:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: whipher1

Leader are made not born ,Dominants are just born that way, its who there are !!


Interesting point. Churchill for example made several bad decisions prior to becoming leader at the time when the country needed one. Forged in the furnace of adversity one might say. However if you read his diaries & bio's his wife Clemmy was the ruler at home & always was. Prior to that his mother was an extreme matriarch & had to be owing to her husband fucking around.



MariaB -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/8/2012 10:02:59 AM)

I believe that leadership is genetically influenced and is then encouraged by environmental influences. How we use that leadership is dependent on opportunities. How we channel that leadership is reliant on environment factors.

Dominance, at least for me was enticed by my sexual urges/fantasies. I have always played it rough in the bedroom and the first time I found myself with a wanton submissive I dived in with little regard for doing things safely. I had to learn techniques, to be safe, to understand when enough is enough and so on.
Some would call this topping, I disagree. I can't top people, well I can but I hate it. I have to connect with the submissive, I get very verbal and unleash all of my energy into something that is so hot and so colorful that it blows my mind. I need to feel the submission from the submissive, I need the submissive to feel my dominance. Foreplay may take a day, a week or just a few minutes and a lot of that foreplay may include a leadership type attitude from me, but when its over its over.
I am naturally assertive and somewhat confident. I speak my mind and don't suffer fools and so it would be easy to make the mistake that I am a leader. Where I fail is, I am anything but consistent and I lack patience.
Watching Steve with C is very inspirational and I would love to believe that one day I can lead like he does.



fucktoyprincess -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/8/2012 12:46:12 PM)

I'm not sure if this is what you mean by this, but I find that personality and bdsm role preference are two entirely separate dimensions. In other words, someone can be dominant/alpha/whatever other term you want to use, in their professional lives, or in personality, but what bdsm role they might choose in the bedroom could be entirely different. I know sub/maso men who are 100% alpha in their professional lives (such that no one would ever guess their bedroom proclivities). I consider myself a feminist and a submissive, and I don't think the two are incompatible. My professional life necessitates strong leadership - and I naturally enjoy leading in that professional setting. I'm not one to kowtow to anyone. But in the bedroom, I enjoy power exchange. After all, how can one even talk about power exchange if one doesn't have any power to cede? And I am sure there are men who have little control in their professional lives, and perhaps lack a true leadership drive, but can successfully play a dominant role in someone's bedroom life. None of the combinations strike me as impossible.
So I tend to think of this as a two by two matrix - with personality on one dimension, and bdsm role on the other. And people's bedroom role will either match their personality or not, but one can rationally be in any part of the matrix. Again, one's personality and bdsm role do not have to "match" for one's chosen role to be a correct fit. Just my two cents.



Casteele -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/8/2012 3:45:42 PM)

Thank you for the answer, gungadin, it clears up the confusion I had in my head reading your posts. I do not agree with you, however, because I see many examples where a dominant lacks any leadership skills, and submissives make great leaders, which violates the "must" parts. I can see where many create a link between being dominant and being a leader, just as I see why the general assumption is that a submissive is also a follower; In many cases, it is true, and it's also very much a preference for many. But I do not believe they are correlated, just related. To give an example I've seen cited regarding false correlations, the statement "eating ice cream correlates to death by drowning," based on the fact that when there are more people eating ice cream, there are also more people which die by drowning. They even show the raw numerical data as proof--As the number of people who eat ice cream go up, so does the number of people who die by drowning. You can probably figure out why. :-)

LaT: I partially agree. There are definitely traits that make a person dominant, but there is also skill involved. I've often seen people say such things as "good dom" and "bad dom"--A trait wouldn't be something you're good or bad at, it's something you are (although it can be viewed as a good or bad trait, depending on how society views it). But on the other side of the coin, leadership is largely a skill, although there are traits that make someone good or bad leader, regardless of their skill. In short, I think it would be more accurate to say that dominance and leadership are not atomic; Both can be broken down in to smaller parts, some of which are traits and others which are skills. But it would make for a messy discussion of them if we always had to write out a list of things rather than use a couple of simple words that are commonly understood to mean those various lists of things.

Anyhow, definitely a lot of interesting thoughts and perspectives.



agirl -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/8/2012 6:10:40 PM)

My boys weren't anything other than demanding as babies.They weren't natural dominants just because they demanded, they just didn't yet know that there was a different way.

Anyhowwwwwwww, I don't think about this subject a great deal as such. I am a leader in the areas where I'm confident and the best person for the job. I don't spend much time wanting to be, I just do it when it's necessary.

I am perfectly happy to follow someone who is doing the same. I do see being dominant as slightly different, in the same hockey-field, but not quite the same.

Dominant person manages to be team captain and chooses team....doesn't mean they can lead said team to work together. Many times it's someone else on the team that does that. (be that family or work)

agirl



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625