The Natural Dominant ? (Full Version)

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



Message

MariaB -> The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 4:00:58 AM)

I think too many people believe that leadership is the same as being dominant. I will go as far as to say, I don’t believe you can be a leader if all you can give is dominance. Dominance is play time within this lifestyle, leadership is constant. we so often here about dominant submissives. I believe any submissive has the potential to become dominant if she isn't lead.

A baby can be dominant. Any of us who have had the good fortune to have children know all about the ‘highchair tyrant, the tin pot dictator'!
I keep hearing the words, 'natural dominance' and I can't help but think of my sons when they demanded they be fed or played with NOW!! They were natural dominants. What they both had to learn was, the key decisions were not theirs, because they were not the leader.

Your thoughts please




LaTigresse -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 4:17:36 AM)

It comes as no surprise that I agree with you Maria. To me, dominance is nothing more than a personality trait. We all know people that are.

Leadership is a learned skill and doing it well, often flies in the face of dominance. Quite often, a good leader has to make decisions, lead down a path, where they are in fact serving the relationship as a whole. Being domineering just to prove you can, will often destroy relationships.

I think that all too often, people create relationships based upon personality traits rather than the learned skills, or lack thereof, and then end up confused when it doesn't work out. The domineering partner ends up being the one submitting to the submissive partners manipulating. On the surface it looks like the domineering person is leading the submissive person but in fact, it is the opposite. It's just in a very passive aggressive fucked up way.

OR, no one will be leading. They are just fumbling along. Which is the case in most relationships and work environments. No one really wants the responsibility of being leader. A few seriously want the title, others covet the title, but few really want all that comes with it. It's work. It's not always fun. Sometimes it is very NOT fun. It involves taking responsibility, not only for yourself but others. Responsibility for the good stuff but more importantly, the less than good. Not making excuses and shoveling the shit onto someone else's head but accepting it as their load, their responsibility. If they are a good leader, they will have people willing to accept part of that shit load. If they suck at being a leader, they will find themselves standing alone in a pile of shit.

One thing I have discovered.....the more a dominant person tries to convince others that they are SUPER dom, the shittier a leader they really are. The only thing leading is their fragile, but massive, ego.



MariaB -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 4:32:33 AM)

Yep we think along the same lines LaTigresse. Great post btw!

There are very few people who make a distinct separation of the two.
When you say that few people want the title of leader, I totally agree. Comfortable leadership amongst men is a rare quality and when we see it in a person it tends to make us sit up and take notice.



gungadin09 -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 4:38:56 AM)

quote:

A baby can be dominant. Any of us... know all about the ‘highchair tyrant, the tin pot dictator'!


If dominance simply means receiving what you demand then yes, babies are dominant.

quote:

Dominance is play time within this lifestyle, leadership is constant.


Leadership is NOT constant. Nobody leads all the time. Self-mastery is pretty constant, though. Out of curiosity, do you believe that "dominance" ends with "play time"? Because I would have called that "topping", not "dominance".

quote:

I think too many people believe that leadership is the same as being dominant. I will go as far as to say, I don't believe you can be a leader if all you can give is dominance.


I think your definition of the word "dominance" is daft. ETA: Leadership and dominance are correlated precisely because the word dominance means more than what you say it does.

pam



MariaB -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 5:53:49 AM)

gungadin09, Leadership is someone who always has the ability to make key decisions. Its not about always showing they are in charge, in fact quite often a good leader has to make decisions’ that serve the relationship as a whole and if that means stepping back and allowing someone else's strengths to shine, then that is what he will do.
Dominance is based on short-term rewards and results, mostly for the benefit of the dominant, and so yes, it is role-play as far as I see it. When a man tells his submissive to ask permission to go to the toilet, to walk three steps behind him or to jump when he says jump, he is playing with her in a dominant fashion. If that is all there is, then I do see it as topping.
Entwined with leadership, I believe it can lead to something pretty amazing but lets face it, its often not correlated is it? I mean in a perfect world we see the dominant leader but because leadership doesn’t come easy to the majority and because most people tend to be passive in nature, we tend to see a person making lots of demands and expecting it to be done now, without question and without subtle seduction.

Yes, dominance does mean so much more than what I say, well as far as I am concerned it does, so why is it that I see so many dominant natures within this lifestyle but so few leaders?
I for example am a great game player. I love topping and believe role-play can be great fun. I thought I was a good all round dominant up until meeting Steve. My leadership skills are improving but that is only because I have a good teacher who I greatly admire. Steve on the other hand wasn’t at all proficient as a dominant but he leads with smooth precision. His topping skills are getting better because he picks things up from me.
We both come under the word ‘dominant’ but until more recently dominance meant very different things to both of us. My relationships up until meeting Steve were fun and frivolous. His relationships were deeper and more meaningful.



Clickofheels -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 6:31:53 AM)

I agree with some comments and disagree with others. But I find ALL posts to be very thought-provoking! Thank you for that! (Smiles)



Epytropos -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 7:05:04 AM)

Oh good, another meaningless semantic circlejerk.

At the risk of repeating myself (again and again and again for all eternity), sitting here beating yourselves over the head with minute distinctions between words which are only loosely tied to actual meaning in the first place is not inquiry. It's not. Even if you manage to bludgeon the definitions of things like "dominance" "natural" "true" "leadership" "respect" and so forth into line and make a nice chalk outline around them, which I promise you you won't because the last 300 people to go through this process didn't, do you know what you'll have? You'll have a way to express something everyone who cares already knows using extremely precise definitions which are going to be understood only by those present. It is the meaningless semantic argument which is to meaningless semantic arguments what meaningless semantic arguments are to things that matter.

I'm begging you, please just let the definitions be. Save yourselves some time and effort which you can apply to watching a movie or cooking a meal or falling in love or going on a workplace killing spree or just jerking off until things start to chafe. Literally anything but making hair's-breadth distinctions between words which are already diluted to the point of meaninglessness.



OsideGirl -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 7:09:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

It comes as no surprise that I agree with you Maria. To me, dominance is nothing more than a personality trait. We all know people that are.

Leadership is a learned skill and doing it well, often flies in the face of dominance.


I absolutely agree with this. I'll also add that being A Dominant is learned. No one came into WIIWD knowing all the answers.



Ninebelowzero -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 7:14:47 AM)

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.



LadyHibiscus -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 7:16:13 AM)

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 well most have the management skills to succeed in the workplace that I frequent. Not one male 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.



I love you hard, Niney.

eta: Yeah. With and without pun.



Ninebelowzero -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 7:17:31 AM)

Me so horney me love you loooooooooooooooooooooooooong time!



crazyml -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 7:18:42 AM)

The discussion may seem meaningless to you - but it plainly isn't without meaning to some.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Epytropos
At the risk of repeating myself (again and again and again for all eternity), sitting here beating yourselves over the head with minute distinctions between words which are only loosely tied to actual meaning in the first place is not inquiry. It's not.


Well, put that way - sure it isn't "inquiry", however put another way - "Discussing the difference in meanings between words, in order to learn more about a broader topic" certainly is.


quote:


I'm begging you, please just let the definitions be.


I'm begging you to let people have a natter about shit!



crazyml -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 7:24:27 AM)

I sort of agree with you.

I think that leadership and dominance are orthogonal to each other.

And I kind of agree with the idea that leadership is a set of skills, and dominance a trait.

But I would say that I make a lot of use of my leadership skills when I dominate.

But I'm not your classic bone-headed "Alpha Dawg" dominant.



Kana -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 7:29:19 AM)

crazyml taught me a word!-orthogonal

Grins
And those who think domination automatically equates to leadership need to look at the concept of Servant leadership
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_leadership



LaTigresse -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 7:38:40 AM)

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. They are sometimes less worried about the status of position and more concerned with the 'team' and serving the goal.



LadyHibiscus -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 7:41:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

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 make excellent leaders.




That's a very big limb, with a strong foundation. Take a look at most of the female submissives on the boards.



LaTigresse -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 7:43:19 AM)

Indeed. And I look at G.D.. While not kinky submissive, he is most certainly submissive. However, in his military career, his leadership skills shone in the dedication and loyalty of his soldiers and the kudos they gave him.



Ninebelowzero -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 7:50:35 AM)

Apologies are maybe in order Mel. The male D types I have met couldn't be trusted to lead there own selves up the garden path let alone serious corporate shizzle. It was not intended as a generalisation or a snark at male d's.



Ninebelowzero -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 7:54:33 AM)

GD?



LaTigresse -> RE: The Natural Dominant ? (1/6/2012 7:56:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ninebelowzero

GD?


Generic Dude......da dude that has been putting up with me and my craziness for over 20 god damned years now. Poor fella.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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