|
Padriag -> RE: Humble Dominants (7/2/2006 12:19:25 AM)
|
Thanks for jumping in with that Bearlee, you did a wonderful job of better explaining the point I was trying to make.
I would add that in my experience both humility and arrogance tend to get in the way of effective dominance. To exercise dominance is literally to exercise authority, and doing that effectively means being able to communicate and give the impression of that authority effectively. The kind of humbleness as defined by the dictionary and in Bearlee's post (modest, unassuming, retiring, meek, self-effacing, poor, lowly) is a contradiction to dominance, the two just don't mix. For example, to be dominant you must assume authority, therefore you literally cannot be unassuming. To be dominant you must actively engage another, therefore you cannot be retiring. To be dominant you must be willing to take charge and take action, the very opposite of meekness. To be dominant is to put yourself in a place of authority over another, thus you cannot be lowly. Despite the reaction by many to associate themselves with being humble (and I'll touch on that more below), you simply cannot be humble and dominant at the same time, these two qualities are in opposition to each other.
Arrogance can also inhibit effective dominance, because arrogance tends to focus inwardly at the expense of outward awareness. That is, someone who is arrogant tends to only consider their own needs, desired, feelings, etc. but not those of others. Yet to be an effective dominant you must know these things about the person you wish to dominant. It is through being able to manipulate their desires, needs and feelings that you can control them (and in this I'm going way beyond set piece "scenes" and bondage folks).
What's interesting is that over the years I've observed that between these two "sins" arrogance is sometimes forgiveable (and in fact sometimes sought out by submissives), but being humble is not. Simply put, nobody wants a meek, self-effacing, lowly, poor dominant.
Submissives want lions, not lambs.
Something else I've observed in this thread and in others like it is a kind of trap people fall into in their thinking. I call it the "either/or" trap and it simply means people get caught up in thinking things must be either this, or that... two options, only two choices. The trap is that often there are other options and choices, but this kind of thinking blinds people to that. In this thread I've seen some examples of people thinking a dominant must be either humble or arrogant, and forgetting there are other choices. What if a dominant should be neither of those? What if an effective dominant should be confident, self-reliant and assured instead?
Bearlee asked why humility is so attractive to some. I think I know at least part of that answer. Its simply a facet of western culture and beliefs. Keep in mind most of us posting here are from either western cultures or cultures heavily influenced by western thought. Keep also in mind that the values of western cultures are largely based on or have been heavily influenced by Christianity, which has already been referenced in this thread. Christianity highly values humility, humbleness, meekness (ie, "the meek shall inherit the earth"), etc. So its not really surprising these same values and regard for humility are part of western values. Its also not surprising that many, having grown up being taught these values, also hold them in regard without questioning why. Simply put, most of us were taught its a good thing to be humble... and we believe that without ever asking, is it really?
BTW, Bearlee, we aren't arguing symantics. In this case the OP used the word humble, but later gave a definition that at least partially contradicts that. In fact what the OP describes sounds more like Stoicism, and stoics were not generally a humble group (they were quite proud of themselves actually). So you are right, its an incorrect use of the word. But at least its been examined enough to figure out what was meant and that's what counts.
Personally I think Ownedgirlie's post hit pretty close to the mark of what I was trying to describe a dominant should be, if they want to be effective. That is, there is a time to be cocky, a time to admit mistakes, a time to be rightfully proud of what you have accomplished, and a time to let others have credit where it is due. The path an effective dominant takes is not one of humbleness or arrogance, its the road in between, holding all these qualities in balance.
An effective dominant is balanced.
|
|
|
|
