Why is "He's not a Dom" okay????

Why is "He's not a Dom" okay???? (Full Version)

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

Message

mistoferin -> Why is "He's not a Dom" okay???? (6/13/2006 7:03:55 AM)
In reading the PC thread that is on the boards I began pondering over an observation that I have made for some time. It seems that it is rather common to see a response on the boards to a submissive or slave who is asking about an experience or potential mate that is along the lines of "He's not a Dom"....or "He sounds like a wannabe or an HNG"....or "Just because he calls himself a Dom or Master doesn't mean he is one". This seems to be rather accepted and generally doesn't raise a lot of questions or flames from others. So if this is okay....why then is it that if someone even ELUDES to the fact that someone may not be a submissive or slave it generally starts a bashfest? Is it because the criteria for the roles of Dominant/Master is clearer? Is it because we feel that Dominants/Masters have to be more evolved in their roles at the onset and that the positions of sub/slave have more flexibility and can be adapted to with time under the direction of a Dominant or Master? Is it because we feel there are actual qualifications to be met for Dominant/Master but none really for submissive/slave? I am not looking to get into the definitions of the labels or what your own personal criteria is for any of these roles, so PLEASE don't respond that way.

KatyLied -> RE: Why is "He's not a Dom" okay???? (6/13/2006 7:11:55 AM)
I am really fussy about the entire Dom/Master thing. And here's why....I am tired of people who mislabel themselves. So many self-proclaimed Dom/Masters are TOPS. Tops only, nothing else. Before the Tops get angy...there is nothing wrong with being a Top, that is not what I am saying. My problem is with those who call themselves Dom/Master and couldn't master a dog if they tried. They think it's good advertising or perhaps they really think they are Dom/Master. As far the entire sub/slave thing. To me that springs from what the upper identifies as, I think it's fluid and changeable. Master/slave; Dom/sub. I see myself as both. I also feel that slaves should be allowed to have limits. I know that my opinions will be badly taken, but I don't care. I also feel that a sub/slave and their duties and qualfications are every bit as important as the Dom/Master. I think labeling is where the problem lies. Everyone has their own definition and we will never reach agreement and there will always be arguments about it. But it does make for some lively (and silly) discussions.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Why is "He's not a Dom" okay???? (6/13/2006 7:17:39 AM)
Cuz it's ok to bash men. We've set up a lot of those ideals in our modern society. It's also a social thing- women usually put up a front of supporting eachother as a group, which can often entail hanging a man out to dry, and they feel no need or desire to build a solidarity with men, so they are ok with calling men out. As well, we like to make the doms as the active ones with the subs as the passive ones. A lot of times doms are portrayed as wild crazy monsters with only the merits of safe calls and SSC keeping them in check. So it's easier and safer to demonize the "active bad guys" rather than to perhaps examine one's own choices and active participation.

MasterRoissey -> RE: Why is "He's not a Dom" okay???? (6/13/2006 7:19:04 AM)
while I too have been guilty of this statement(often)...perhaps "he's not a dom (or Master)" simply means that the person is not what i want/need in my dom /Master... and while that is probably true for most of the others in this lifestyle ...ain't diversity grand!

CreativeDominant -> RE: Why is "He's not a Dom" okay???? (6/13/2006 7:22:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin In reading the PC thread that is on the boards I began pondering over an observation that I have made for some time. It seems that it is rather common to see a response on the boards to a submissive or slave who is asking about an experience or potential mate that is along the lines of "He's not a Dom"....or "He sounds like a wannabe or an HNG"....or "Just because he calls himself a Dom or Master doesn't mean he is one". This seems to be rather accepted and generally doesn't raise a lot of questions or flames from others. So if this is okay....why then is it that if someone even ELUDES to the fact that someone may not be a submissive or slave it generally starts a bashfest? Is it because the criteria for the roles of Dominant/Master is clearer? Is it because we feel that Dominants/Masters have to be more evolved in their roles at the onset and that the positions of sub/slave have more flexibility and can be adapted to with time under the direction of a Dominant or Master? Is it because we feel there are actual qualifications to be met for Dominant/Master but none really for submissive/slave? I am not looking to get into the definitions of the labels or what your own personal criteria is for any of these roles, so PLEASE don't respond that way. MOO, I think you hit the nail on the head, mist. There seems to be at least a general consensus...though if you asked people to start listing what the criteria for that consensus is, you might start getting some good arguments going...as to what constitutes at least the basic qualities of a dominant-eventual Master/Mistress. I think the reason submissives are allowed a little more fluidity is due to the set-up of the D/s relationship...it is generally looked at as the dominant being the guide/teacher with the submissive being the "trainee"/student, no matter the years of involvement for either. That is paradoxical and a bit, in my opinion only. a bit of a difficult construct...but there it is.

OsideGirl -> RE: Why is "He's not a Dom" okay???? (6/13/2006 7:22:25 AM)
I think Dominance and submission are defined by actions. To determine that takes time. So, for me ,anyone coming to me claiming to be either is taken with a grain of salt. I think the second reason is that after 12 years in this life, I've seen a lot of guys who see D/s as an easy way to get laid. They have the ability to abuse the power that comes with the title. Let's face it, a submissive can't demand that a Dominant get down on their knees and perform oral sex. It's a perfect breeding ground for predators, (not as in rape, but as in "taking advantage of"). My personal view is that taking claims with a grain of salt also adds some protection. (Submissives aren't all lilly white either, but you addressed the subject as Dominant.)

OnyxGoddess -> RE: Why is "He's not a Dom" okay???? (6/13/2006 7:23:39 AM)
Maybe one calls themselves dom/mes -subs/slaves because THEY feel this is their nature and they are trying to learn and grow but instead of anyone showing them the way or assisting it is easier to bash the dom/me -sub/slave for their lack of experience and because they don't mesh someone else's view of what a dom/me-sub/slave is? Interesting point you make. (I'm wondering if what I said made sense tho. LOL)

ownedgirlie -> RE: Why is "He's not a Dom" okay???? (6/13/2006 7:33:42 AM)
Perhaps there is less tolerance for one who has the responsibililty of guiding and managing another human being but does not do so responsibly. There is greater potential for an irresponsible Dom to cause emotional or physical damage to submissive than the other way around.

sabswife -> RE: Why is "He's not a Dom" okay???? (6/13/2006 7:34:03 AM)
maybe people don't flip out because when its said, its not an incorrect assessment of the situation. that said i would be more likely to call out a "master" that isn't than i would a sub or a slave because i guess -- even if i am incorrect in this stereo type, because i know i really shouldn't do so-- they can take it. i will often read a post or a profile and think... they aren't a "insert label" here, but thats to my standards and to my admittedly limited knowledge at this point. all i can speak from is my personal experience and that said i do become more and more openminded every day as i embrace who i am to a fuller extent, as well as attempting to understand all the different aspects of the lifestyles contained within this site.

angelface183 -> RE: Why is "He's not a Dom" okay???? (6/13/2006 7:34:04 AM)
quote: It seems that it is rather common to see a response on the boards to a submissive or slave who is asking about an experience or potential mate that is along the lines of "He's not a Dom"....or "He sounds like a wannabe or an HNG"....or "Just because he calls himself a Dom or Master doesn't mean he is one". This seems to be rather accepted and generally doesn't raise a lot of questions or flames from others. So if this is okay....why then is it that if someone even ELUDES to the fact that someone may not be a submissive or slave it generally starts a bashfest? quote: Cuz it's ok to bash men. You know, until I read LA's response it did not register that I rarely if ever see a Domme labeled wanabe or HNG. Is it because women are more effective in communicating with potential mates? Is it because as LA said that bashing men is acceptable? Why then do other males join in on the critiquing and criticizing of their fellow Doms. Does is make them look better to potential mates? It is an interesting point though Erin, that if the inverse were said about a sub there would indeed be an army of subs/slaves rushing to the defense....

irishbynature -> RE: Why is "He's not a Dom" okay???? (6/13/2006 7:35:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin Is it because the criteria for the roles of Dominant/Master is clearer? Is it because we feel that Dominants/Masters have to be more evolved in their roles at the onset and that the positions of sub/slave have more flexibility and can be adapted to with time under the direction of a Dominant or Master? Is it because we feel there are actual qualifications to be met for Dominant/Master but none really for submissive/slave? Mistoferin, I believe you brought forth an excellent question/post. I've often wondered the same. Perhaps it is that Dom/Masters set forth the protocol more often in D/s relationships than a submissive? Wish I had an answer, but I look forward to reading the replies. Smiles, Irish[:)]

Lordandmaster -> RE: Why is "He's not a Dom" okay???? (6/13/2006 7:35:57 AM)
I agree with most of the other answers, but would add this: there are fewer true doms than true submissives. (Yeah, and insert your own definition of "true.") That means there are going to be a lot more people who claim to be doms and don't come across as true doms than people who claim to be subs and don't come across as true subs. In my experience, this is true regardless of sex. There are more femsubs than fem dommes, and more male subs than male doms. And there's certainly plenty of male-bashing. My only thought is that people tend to assume a male ought to be able to handle bashing; if you bash a female, that's considered ungentlemanly and abusive... Edited to add: Another thought about the "He's not a dom" phenomenon. SO OFTEN I hear (and read on Collarme) relationship post-mortems by female subs who complain that "he wasn't dom enough for me." "He wasn't a real dom." "He was just playing." Every time a relationship fails, it seems to be the dom's fault! I don't hear that kind of thing as much from male doms. Male doms just move on.

Crittersmaster -> RE: Why is "He's not a Dom" okay???? (6/13/2006 7:38:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross Cuz it's ok to bash men. We've set up a lot of those ideals in our modern society. It's also a social thing- women usually put up a front of supporting eachother as a group, which can often entail hanging a man out to dry, and they feel no need or desire to build a solidarity with men, so they are ok with calling men out. As well, we like to make the doms as the active ones with the subs as the passive ones. A lot of times doms are portrayed as wild crazy monsters with only the merits of safe calls and SSC keeping them in check. So it's easier and safer to demonize the "active bad guys" rather than to perhaps examine one's own choices and active participation. Wow, I think you nailed it. So I guess that would also explain why women come on these forums often complaining about their M/D and getting lots of sympathy about "that is just how it is". Seems like half the threads on here are someone complaining about their latest relationship, or fact that they felt lied to, or whatever the case is. Just an observation by someone fairly new here, but it seems that half the content is complaints from a female sub about some guy.

darkinshadows -> RE: Why is "He's not a Dom" okay???? (6/13/2006 7:40:08 AM)
Oh erin - didn't you know - there IS only one true way? That is why. [;)] Peace and Rapture

meatcleaver -> RE: Why is "He's not a Dom" okay???? (6/13/2006 7:42:47 AM)
Nobody really knows anything about anyone on the net so its not worth getting upset about. I've been told I'm not a dom (though I've never called myself one) to being accused of being a misogynist and much in between, its all water off a duck's back. I don't know why women get upset when they have their 'submissiveness' questioned. Though I think many a thread recently has established that the sub & dom tag only really exists when two people connect and it only exists between the two people in a relationship. All the rest is semantics really and quite meaningless in r/l. There just isn't anything to get upset about.

mistoferin -> RE: Why is "He's not a Dom" okay???? (6/13/2006 7:51:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KatyLied So many self-proclaimed Dom/Masters are TOPS. Tops only, nothing else. I agree. AND so many self-proclaimed subs/slaves are bottoms...nothing else. But it seems okay to say it out loud in relation to the TOPS....but the roof comes crashing down if we even imply it about the bottoms. Odd double standard I think.

MasterRoissey -> RE: Why is "He's not a Dom" okay???? (6/13/2006 7:52:38 AM)
Lordandmaster wrote:"there are fewer true doms than true submissives. (Yeah, and insert your own definition of "true.") That means there are going to be a lot more people who claim to be doms and don't come across as true doms than people who claim to be subs and don't come across as true subs. In my experience, this is true regardless of sex. There are more femsubs than fem dommes, and more male subs than male doms. " I used to disagree, and honestly believed that there were many "true Masters"...but My slave, and years of training , have regretably drawn Me to accept this as well. No wonder so many subs/ slaves get taken advatage of or become so disillusioned.

angelface183 -> RE: Why is "He's not a Dom" okay???? (6/13/2006 7:52:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver I don't know why women get upset when they have their 'submissiveness' questioned. Though I think many a thread recently has established that the sub & dom tag only really exists when two people connect and it only exists between the two people in a relationship. All the rest is semantics really and quite meaningless in r/l. There just isn't anything to get upset about. You know, I have never questioned whether or not someone was "Dom" enough for me. I chatted with many and met a few men from CM before I met my Master. I don't think that any of them were not "domly", they just were not the right men for me. However, many of those men (and quite a few others) questioned my submissiveness because I dared to have limits and/or interests of my own. Whatever happened to "You're just not my type"?

mistoferin -> RE: Why is "He's not a Dom" okay???? (6/13/2006 7:56:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl I think the second reason is that after 12 years in this life, I've seen a lot of guys who see D/s as an easy way to get laid. They have the ability to abuse the power that comes with the title. Let's face it, a submissive can't demand that a Dominant get down on their knees and perform oral sex. Nope they can't...but I have seen a fair share of women who self-proclaim as submissives or slaves as a means of getting their kink on....or getting their bills paid. In my opinion that is just as much an abuse of the power of that label. Nope...they are not all lily white...lol....glad you said it.

thetammyjo -> RE: Why is "He's not a Dom" okay???? (6/13/2006 7:58:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross Cuz it's ok to bash men. We've set up a lot of those ideals in our modern society. It's also a social thing- women usually put up a front of supporting eachother as a group, which can often entail hanging a man out to dry, and they feel no need or desire to build a solidarity with men, so they are ok with calling men out. As well, we like to make the doms as the active ones with the subs as the passive ones. A lot of times doms are portrayed as wild crazy monsters with only the merits of safe calls and SSC keeping them in check. So it's easier and safer to demonize the "active bad guys" rather than to perhaps examine one's own choices and active participation. I would also add that is part of us trying to distance ourselves from being associated with those whom we consider dangerous or players or "not real" or whatever. I don't see it as a gender thing though because I've read women called gold-diggers and users instead of doms too. I also have read folks saying "not a submissive" or "not a slave" when folks complain. Have you noticed that its when folks complain about things not going right for them? I can't recall a thread where someone said things were great and wasn't asking for advice where others replied with the "not a" comments.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875