quote:

ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

quote:

ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV
The BDSM form of dominance sets a lower standard than vanilla dominance. You only need be perceived as a Dominant by a submissive in BDSM, whereas, vanilla life requires superiority in a factual, achievement-related or monetary sense. Agreed?

Disagreed. Dominance is a personality trait, not a measure of status.

Could you elaborate on that, please? I think when people "say" that, they mean aggression or controlling.

Dominance is a personality trait which makes those in possession of this trait either willing or able to dominate others.

quote:


In vanilla life, those with dominant personalities express the "feeling" with action. Call it, ambition or protective nature.

No, let's call it dominance. Otherwise we are not talking about dominance, we are talking about ambition or protectiveness, which are different traits.

quote:


These attitudes and actions bring results. The most dominant rise to the top. It's congruous that the personality trait leads to status.

There is no evidence that having the desire or ability to control others is correlated with ambition or protectiveness to a greater degree than, say, submissiveness. For example, there are a great many successful men who are secretly submissive, and there are a great many submissives who are very protective with others. Likewise, many submissives have high status careers.

You seem to have a misunderstanding that high status careers involve dominance. The reality is that most high status careers involve education (or training) and commitment. A desire to control others is only going to be useful in certain management positions. A surgeon, for example, has no need to dominant, yet it is still a high status career.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV
Perhaps I misunderstand something here but I haven't come to a conclusion... this thread is about differing points of view on how Dominance is defined in BDSM. Everyone seems to disagree. For example: To be Dominant, a person needs to be seen as such by at least one other person. You can't be Dominant without a submissive. Calling yourself a Dominant/Master is verbal masturbation. VERSUS... To be Dominant, a person only need recognize themselves as being dominant, regardless of experience, relationships or any other factors.

The vanilla view of dominance that I offer is my own. That is, in vanilla life, one needs to dominate a field, an area of life, such as: Olympian Gold Winners, The Strongest Person in the World, the founder of scientific Law, the inventor of electricity, the innovator of dance or music styles, the Presidents of the United States, etc... In my view, there are only maybe a thousand people at any given point in history that are truly dominant on a vanilla scale. So, your example of a run of the mill surgeon wouldn't reach my standard, but the person who cures cancer would. None of my vanilla examples are the result of birthright, inheritance or factors outside of self-determination. Notice, I did not include Vice-President of the United States, even though they live each moment just a heartbeat away from the Presidency. In the U.S., this distinction is traditionally handled by joking about the Vice-President, as if he's a buffoon.

So, I connected the idea that "dominance" means achieving top (#1) status in a given area with the understanding that personal responsibility is the foundation of that success. (Otherwise, you end up with a Hitler type, whose other qualities may bring attention and influence, but who are ultimately doomed to failure because the vision doesn't add value to the lives of others.)

While I think that's a bit extreme as an example here, my OP seems to be too subtle, or unclear, to some.

Sorry, I've forgotten who answered, early on, but they said, "Love." and that made sense to me. Meaning, dominance in BDSM isn't about superiority (and conversely, submission isn't about inferiority), in any kind of measurable or factual way, rather, it's an agreement between people about how they choose to relate to each other. That makes sense to me. Others in the thread offer differing views. I wouldn't say anyone is misunderstanding things... answers simply differ.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

quote:

ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

quote:

ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV
The BDSM form of dominance sets a lower standard than vanilla dominance. You only need be perceived as a Dominant by a submissive in BDSM, whereas, vanilla life requires superiority in a factual, achievement-related or monetary sense. Agreed?

Disagreed. Dominance is a personality trait, not a measure of status.

Could you elaborate on that, please? I think when people "say" that, they mean aggression or controlling.

Dominance is a personality trait which makes those in possession of this trait either willing or able to dominate others.

quote:


In vanilla life, those with dominant personalities express the "feeling" with action. Call it, ambition or protective nature.

No, let's call it dominance. Otherwise we are not talking about dominance, we are talking about ambition or protectiveness, which are different traits.

quote:


These attitudes and actions bring results. The most dominant rise to the top. It's congruous that the personality trait leads to status.

There is no evidence that having the desire or ability to control others is correlated with ambition or protectiveness to a greater degree than, say, submissiveness. For example, there are a great many successful men who are secretly submissive, and there are a great many submissives who are very protective with others. Likewise, many submissives have high status careers.

You seem to have a misunderstanding that high status careers involve dominance. The reality is that most high status careers involve education (or training) and commitment. A desire to control others is only going to be useful in certain management positions. A surgeon, for example, has no need to dominant, yet it is still a high status career.

Perhaps I misunderstand something here but I haven't come to a conclusion... this thread is about differing points of view on how Dominance is defined in BDSM. Everyone seems to disagree. For example: To be Dominant, a person needs to be seen as such by at least one other person. You can't be Dominant without a submissive. Calling yourself a Dominant/Master is verbal masturbation. VERSUS... To be Dominant, a person only need recognize themselves as being dominant, regardless of experience, relationships or any other factors.

The vanilla view of dominance that I offer is my own. That is, in vanilla life, one needs to dominate a field, an area of life, such as: Olympian Gold Winners, The Strongest Person in the World, the founder of scientific Law, the inventor of electricity, the innovator of dance or music styles, the Presidents of the United States, etc... In my view, there are only maybe a thousand people at any given point in history that are truly dominant on a vanilla scale. So, your example of a run of the mill surgeon wouldn't reach my standard, but the person who cures cancer would. None of my vanilla examples are the result of birthright, inheritance or factors outside of self-determination. Notice, I did not include Vice-President of the United States, even though they live each moment just a heartbeat away from the Presidency. In the U.S., this distinction is traditionally handled by joking about the Vice-President, as if he's a buffoon.

So, I connected the idea that "dominance" means achieving top (#1) status in a given area with the understanding that personal responsibility is the foundation of that success. (Otherwise, you end up with a Hitler type, whose other qualities may bring attention and influence, but who are ultimately doomed to failure because the vision doesn't add value to the lives of others.)

While I think that's a bit extreme as an example here, my OP seems to be too subtle, or unclear, to some. What I'm asking about is Dominants and submissives who enter into a committed relationship in which the Dominant controls all of the finances and the submissive's time. The submissive may work, or not. The Dominant may work, or not. They can be of any sex. I'm asking how it is considered dominant in that context only, when the financial control does not include an exit strategy for both parties... a nest egg, for the apartment, utilities, phone, car, medical care, food... just the bare basics?

Doesn't "I'll take care of you" mean that? ^^^ Or, "I trust you to take care of us." So, I ask, in the absence of the acceptance of responsibility, where's the dominance? I'm not saying it's not there. I'm saying I don't see it. I'd hoped others who have experience with D/s and financial trust, could share their views.

And, along the thread, I began to question how in a male Dom relationship in which the Dom takes control of the wages of both people, this differs from the much-reviled FinDommes. It would appear to be semantics laced in with some misogyny. But, appearances are often limited, so I ask here.

Sorry, I've forgotten who answered, early on, but they said, "Love." and that made sense to me. Meaning, dominance in BDSM isn't about superiority (and conversely, submission isn't about inferiority), in any kind of measurable or factual way, rather, it's an agreement between people about how they choose to relate to each other. That makes sense to me. Others in the thread offer differing views. I wouldn't say anyone is misunderstanding things... answers simply differ.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

So a gold winner is dominant but a bronze winner isn't? And the gold winner is then dominant over the bronze and silver? Because I sincerely doubt that.

In a world of 6 billion, I think there are more than a handful of people who are dominant.

My oldest was one of the top two hundred in her sport while in high school. It didn't make her dominant over the kids who didn't get the invite to the top show. And the 8 year old who blew away the competition in his class wasn't dominant over the 18 year olds. He had the good luck of having one of the top trainers in the sport for a father and an embarrassment of top quality horses to ride. It didn't make them dominant over the horses, because doing that instead of making them partners causes you to lose.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV


So, I connected the idea that "dominance" means achieving top (#1) status in a given area with the understanding that personal responsibility is the foundation of that success. (Otherwise, you end up with a Hitler type, whose other qualities may bring attention and influence, but who are ultimately doomed to failure because the vision doesn't add value to the lives of others.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

If I got less than a perfect score on a test, not only would it devastate me but my father would also ask why I didn't get 100.

Also I was top of my class until I went away to nerd school at the convent. I did the same for the national competition with my father. Why? Because I knew that I would have won and that I deserved to be chosen. It was a small childhood battle but I still remember the determination in me to prove that I was "the best".

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

If I got less than a perfect score on a test, not only would it devastate me but my father would also ask why I didn't get 100.

Also I was top of my class until I went away to nerd school at the convent. I did the same for the national competition with my father. Why? Because I knew that I would have won and that I deserved to be chosen. It was a small childhood battle but I still remember the determination in me to prove that I was "the best".

It doesn't make you dominant.

I went to the top all girls college prep boarding school in the nation. I got top grades most of the time. I was the first National Merit Scholarship winner they ever had.

It didn't make me dominant.

And I'm sorry for you that your father made it clear you didn't deserve to be loved unless you were perfect. Because that's a really hurtful thing to do to a child.

I called my father up from college to admit I thought I was going to fail physics. He laughed and said he had done the same. He didn't care if I was less than perfect in some things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eliseobeys


To say in my experience that opne can't be considered a able to be dominant in a bdsm sense one must also be dominant in high finance strikes me as very limited thinking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

I agree with Des.
Chasing goals and dreams to their best ability and even to extremes of 'perfection' has nothing whatsoever to do with an ability to be a dominant.

If you are sooo obsessed with being a 100% 'perfect' achiever - that's a type of OCD and not always good.

Not everyone bows at the altar of psych diagnoses. So, I'm calling, Hogwash!

Once you've experienced excellence at the end of a self-stretching, spirit-expanding quest... you will understand the words which can only hint at that power, at that dominant feeling.

Being a dominant, whether natural or learned, is a different type of personality trait entirely.

Perfect achievers can be really submissive.
Half-witted asshats can be excellent and natural dominants.
The two elements are completely separate entities in my book.
So no, I don't comprehend where BV is coming from.
To my mind, BV is mixing the two and attributing one to the other where they don't have any association.

^^^ What on Earth are you arguing against? Which question in the OP? Are you thinking that I wrote that vanilla dominance and BSM dominance are the same thing? Because, I didn't. I make zero claim to knowing one way or the other if that is "True."

In my opinion, for me, and just for me - a Switch, with Domme leanings, I could only see myself submitting to Someone who achieves, or achieved, some sort of #1 status in a field in which they lived with passion. The passionate part is what I need to share with another, so it's not optional. And, it's a passion that is so energetic, so vibrant, that it came out of that person in a way that added value to the lives of others. While that may be felt in varying degrees, I gravitate towards those who do it on a grand scale. That's how I view dominance in vanilla life.

The view of vanilla dominance I presented in the OP is an observation from my life. Commercials and marketing programs, screen content in tv and films and fashion advertising. I try to ignore a lot of that, but I'm in America and can't even fill my gas tank without commercials! Where people put there money and what they pay attention to and what motivates them to take action... the answers to those questions inspired my OP version of vanilla dominance.
Then, I followed that sentence with, "Agreed?" That's an invitation to agree or disagree, but with reasons, hopefully.

Thanks for your opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


Sexual-romantic attraction is not the same as pragmatic partnering. The engineer from MIT simply may not know how to kiss a girl on the neck or when to tie her up in a compromising position.

To me your question compares apples to oranges. Emotional-sexual intelligence does not compare well with sports excellence, superior writing & math abilities, scientific brilliance, or business acumen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

Bhruic - Please see post # 43 on this thread. You posted right after that, so I thought you'd read it...

If I am wrong in thinking it addresses your last post (#68), please post again to let me know how it doesn't. Maybe there is something I still need to clarify? Or, did that do it?

Your posts are often insightful and clear, so your feedback is welcomed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

I agree with Des.
Chasing goals and dreams to their best ability and even to extremes of 'perfection' has nothing whatsoever to do with an ability to be a dominant.

If you are sooo obsessed with being a 100% 'perfect' achiever - that's a type of OCD and not always good.

Not everyone bows at the altar of psych diagnoses. So, I'm calling, Hogwash!

Once you've experienced excellence at the end of a self-stretching, spirit-expanding quest... you will understand the words which can only hint at that power, at that dominant feeling.

Being a dominant, whether natural or learned, is a different type of personality trait entirely.

Perfect achievers can be really submissive.
Half-witted asshats can be excellent and natural dominants.
The two elements are completely separate entities in my book.
So no, I don't comprehend where BV is coming from.
To my mind, BV is mixing the two and attributing one to the other where they don't have any association.

^^^ What on Earth are you arguing against? Which question in the OP? Are you thinking that I wrote that vanilla dominance and BSM dominance are the same thing? Because, I didn't. I make zero claim to knowing one way or the other if that is "True."

In my opinion, for me, and just for me - a Switch, with Domme leanings, I could only see myself submitting to Someone who achieves, or achieved, some sort of #1 status in a field in which they lived with passion. The passionate part is what I need to share with another, so it's not optional. And, it's a passion that is so energetic, so vibrant, that it came out of that person in a way that added value to the lives of others. While that may be felt in varying degrees, I gravitate towards those who do it on a grand scale. That's how I view dominance in vanilla life.

The view of vanilla dominance I presented in the OP is an observation from my life. Commercials and marketing programs, screen content in tv and films and fashion advertising. I try to ignore a lot of that, but I'm in America and can't even fill my gas tank without commercials! Where people put their money and what they pay attention to and what motivates them to take action... the answers to those questions inspired my OP version of vanilla dominance.
Then, I followed that sentence with, "Agreed?" That's an invitation to agree or disagree, but with reasons, hopefully.

Thanks for your opinion.