Humble Dominants (Full Version)

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



Message

gardenbluebird -> Humble Dominants (6/30/2006 11:18:22 PM)

One thing that I have found to be consistently true is that the most truly outstanding dominants I have met are quite humble at the core.  It is not immediately obvious, but underneath the charisma and confidence there is a person of quiet fortitude and simple humility.  Have others found this to be true as well?



Driver1961 -> RE: Humble Dominants (6/30/2006 11:35:50 PM)

He enters, dips His lid,

Nice question gardenbluebird...   I can't make ANY comment!


Warm regards Driver1961, Sir to His loving Wildchild



OedipusRexIt -> RE: Humble Dominants (6/30/2006 11:47:29 PM)

I'm a little too humble to reply... almost.


I think if your point is that striking a pose is not so effective as being one's confident self, then I would agree, humbly, of course.




Lordandmaster -> RE: Humble Dominants (6/30/2006 11:48:27 PM)

Sounds like the idea is that "truly outstanding dominants" exemplify fundamental Christian virtues--because otherwise I can't say I understand what "quiet fortitude and simple humility" are supposed to mean.  And if that's the case, I'm going to have to go with "no," because you don't have to be Christian to be a dom.  You just have to be a dom.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gardenbluebird

One thing that I have found to be consistently true is that the most truly outstanding dominants I have met are quite humble at the core.  It is not immediately obvious, but underneath the charisma and confidence there is a person of quiet fortitude and simple humility.  Have others found this to be true as well?



gardenbluebird -> RE: Humble Dominants (7/1/2006 12:06:39 AM)

By humility I mean an unpretentious attitude, a willingness to learn, and an acknowledgement one's own imperfections and limitations.  By quiet fortitude I mean the willingness to carry on and do the right thing in difficult circumstances. These traits are often associated with Christian ethics, but are certainly not exclusive to them. 



slavejali -> RE: Humble Dominants (7/1/2006 12:09:17 AM)

Master is pretty humble and he is outstanding, so I will vote yes [:)]



MasterFireMaam -> RE: Humble Dominants (7/1/2006 12:11:33 AM)

I've found that most truly outstanding PEOPLE are humble by nature. Doesn't really have anything to do with Dominance.

Master Fire



meatcleaver -> RE: Humble Dominants (7/1/2006 12:59:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterFireMaam

I've found that most truly outstanding PEOPLE are humble by nature. Doesn't really have anything to do with Dominance.

Master Fire



I'm rather unconvinced by this. In my field of work, the people who I consider the best are far from humble or at the least the ones I've met aren't and if they were they would be trampled on by other ambitious people long ago. It is true, that once their work has attained a certain reputation they can let it speak for itself and they can posture a certain aloofness but there is always someone new and up and coming wanting to dislodge them so self advertisement is a constant need. Though it is true to say I know several people who work in my field that I admire for their work who are humble but have had no success and are bearly known outside their fellow practitioners.



meatcleaver -> RE: Humble Dominants (7/1/2006 1:05:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gardenbluebird

By humility I mean an unpretentious attitude, a willingness to learn, and an acknowledgement one's own imperfections and limitations.  By quiet fortitude I mean the willingness to carry on and do the right thing in difficult circumstances. These traits are often associated with Christian ethics, but are certainly not exclusive to them. 


I've been trying to think of dominant males throughout history that have these traits and if I'm honest, I can't think of any.



slavejali -> RE: Humble Dominants (7/1/2006 1:31:42 AM)

quote:

I've been trying to think of dominant males throughout history that have these traits and if I'm honest, I can't think of any.


I think you're getting the word dominant confused with tyrant :P hehe



Lordandmaster -> RE: Humble Dominants (7/1/2006 1:32:39 AM)

What dominant males do you know of from history?  We don't know very much about the sexual preferences of historical figures.

As the OP went on to define "humility" and "fortitude," by the way, I'd have to change my mind and say yes.  If "humility" means being aware of your fallibility, and "fortitude" means cleaving to your path even in difficult circumstances, then I don't think you can be a dom without either of those characteristics.



becca333 -> RE: Humble Dominants (7/1/2006 1:42:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gardenbluebird

One thing that I have found to be consistently true is that the most truly outstanding dominants I have met are quite humble at the core.  It is not immediately obvious, but underneath the charisma and confidence there is a person of quiet fortitude and simple humility.  Have others found this to be true as well?


I totally agree.  A great Dom has a calmness about him, he's at peace with himself, and completely assured.

And, of course, wonderful.  *sigh*.....

Sorry, lost in happy thoughts for a moment.



meatcleaver -> RE: Humble Dominants (7/1/2006 1:55:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slavejali

quote:

I've been trying to think of dominant males throughout history that have these traits and if I'm honest, I can't think of any.


I think you're getting the word dominant confused with tyrant :P hehe


I was trying to think of none military men. People like Isaac Newton or Michelangelo, who were quite happy to laud their achievements.

EDITED - OK Michelangelo was gay but he could have been a gay dominant! 

Hell, I'm going to regret this line of thought.



becca333 -> RE: Humble Dominants (7/1/2006 1:58:35 AM)

Maybe all the truly great men in history were too humble and modest to make a fuss about their achievements.



Padriag -> RE: Humble Dominants (7/1/2006 3:34:50 AM)

Bollocks!

This is one of those things that sounds nice and warm and fuzzy... but doesn't stand up to scrutiny.  Most dominants I've known were a tad on the arrogant side.  The best of them kept that in check.  But humble is not a word I would associate with them.  Self-aware, self-controlled, self-contained... those are all descriptions I would associate with a good dominant.

And history is full of great men (and women) who were anything but humble.  Leonardo da Vinci was hardly humble.  Benjamin Franklin wasn't humble either, though he did a wonderful job of tempering it with humor (one of the things I love about the old rascal).  Sir Francis Drake and Queen Elizabeth I were both anything but humble... and both made amazing accomplishments.  Napoleon... humble... hardly (arrogant lil runt).  Edison, nope, not humble either.  All these people knew damn well they were talented, gifted, skilled, and a cut above the rest.  None of them were humble.  But most of them had the good grace not to use that to humiliate others. 



ExistentialSteel -> RE: Humble Dominants (7/1/2006 4:09:16 AM)

Gardenblue, I tend to agree with you. You guys should read Crappy’s thread for a humorous look at this subject. Dominants, submissives or whatever are respected more if they have the social leadership that is accomplished without having to push themselves. It is a fine line, but I tend to think quiet confidence trumps a self-promoting individual.

Do we all self-promote to some degree? Yes, but it is done in quiet, unobtrusive ways by those who seem to have the most friends and respect.. Intellect alone tends to steer one towards modesty. The most effective leaders I’ve known are those who got along well with others, had a sense of humor and did not take themselves too seriously.

Historical examples of leaders who were braggarts may be very accurate, but I’ll bet those types also had screwed up relationships with wives who found comfort with more amenable types. To keep it in context, we are on a CM board that deals with relationships and those historical figures who may have not done well at all in D/s relationships or on the CM board where they would be seen as having delusions of grandeur.



bandit25 -> RE: Humble Dominants (7/1/2006 4:20:04 AM)

The problem with so many words is that they carry subjective connotations; however, I think gardenblue explained what she meant quite nicely.  I agree also.  My Dom has the quiet self confidence ES refers to above and a great sense of humor, as well as the unpretentious attitude gardenblue talks about.  Of course, I think he's outstanding.



zenofeller -> RE: Humble Dominants (7/1/2006 4:47:35 AM)

the humble epidemy is amuzing.
as far as i'm concerned, "humble" dominants are just competent, much like an engineer could be. he knows what to do, when. but it's not him,it's not his person, just his craft. humble and superior don't mix.



meatcleaver -> RE: Humble Dominants (7/1/2006 5:08:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

What dominant males do you know of from history?  We don't know very much about the sexual preferences of historical figures.



I've indicated in another thread that I think in BDSM we mistake roles in BDSM with roles in everyday life and I don't think the two correlate.

I got the impression from the OP thread that the poster was discussing more than sexual roles.



MstrssPassion -> RE: Humble Dominants (7/1/2006 5:39:00 AM)

(I found this a few years ago on Dr Gloria Brame's site but could not find it today so that I could provide a link.)
 
 
<deleted, just click the above link>



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.320313E-02