Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/7/2014 5:42:28 PM   
BecomingV


Posts: 916
Joined: 11/11/2013
Status: offline 		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?

In vanilla culture, the most educated, the richest, the most powerful, the most creative or the most philanthropic, sit at the top of the heap, dominating their respective areas.

In BDSM, there are some Dominants who don't provide financially for their submissives, who end the relationship without ensuring the submissive has housing, health care/therapy and transportation. I don't mean providing a penthouse, plastic surgery or a BMW, just the lowest forms of providing. And, there are submissives who don't make this a part of their criteria for identifying a person as a Dominant.

I know submissives and Dominants who have discussed whether anal figging is okay, but never discussed money any deeper than, "I'll handle all of the financial decisions."

I'm not talking about love or how special a person is... let's presume that's in place.
I'm not talking about topping skills between community players who are not in a committed, D/s relationship.

I'm asking about giving over your power (D/s relationships) to someone who outside of the BDSM community, is just...average. I'm asking about taking someone's power when outside of the BDSM community, you are just... average.

The questions are:

What kinds of thoughts support the shift from a vanilla view of dominance to the BDSM form of dominance?

What are your thoughts on providing financial security as a Dominant trait?

ETA - Please note, I intentionally did not assign a sex to the words "Dominant" or "submissive."



< Message edited by BecomingV -- 6/7/2014 5:46:07 PM >
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/7/2014 6:53:55 PM   
FieryOpal


Posts: 2821
Joined: 12/8/2013
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV
<snip>
The questions are:

What kinds of thoughts support the shift from a vanilla view of dominance to the BDSM form of dominance?

What are your thoughts on providing financial security as a Dominant trait?

ETA - Please note, I intentionally did not assign a sex to the words "Dominant" or "submissive."


If you've ever had a grown child or known a couple who was just not good for one another, they aren't going to listen to one sensible word of advice re their errant bf/gf or new relationship.
So in that sense, the way I've seen some submissives go about "settling" for less than they should in accepting a[n unworthy] Dominant (or it could be the other way around), is a no-win situation for the concerned party, who will later have to fight the impulse to say "I told you so."
This happens in vanilla relationships frequently enough, but more so with BDSM, where cloaking is more readily acceptable than would otherwise be, whereas ordinarily such secrecy or evasiveness would be considered unacceptable.

Consequently, a person can certainly get away with being a poser and/or fly-by-night Dominant, conceal his/her marital status (when not in a bona fide open marriage), perpetrate acts of infidelity and engage in unethical conduct far too easily as a Dominant than as a submissive, all under the aegis of it's the "Master's Right."
Having said that, though, while there are more opportunities for abusing trust as a Dominant, I have witnessed Dominants gets taken advantage of by their s-type and get played for a fool, so this can work both ways.

As for your second question, in an F/m or F/f dynamic, it is incumbent upon the F to not jeopardize her sub's financial security or cause him/her financial ruin (regardless of whether that's their kink, you don't pour gasoline onto an open flame).
This is why in an M/f or M/m dynamic, I believe that the M must be financially solvent and self-sufficient without having to rely on his sub partner. If he can't handle his own finances and make ends meet, then he has no business bringing anyone else into his messed-up world and taking charge of another's finances. You can't very well expect a Dominant to be an investment professional or to make wise investment decisions by virtue of his or her dominance, however. Ultimately, we are each responsible for ensuring and safeguarding our own financial futures.

I do want to add that any modifications or enhancements desired by the Dominant which is not a special-occasion personalized gift should be the financial responsibility of the Dominant, or else he should provide the means to implement such change(s). This would apply to on-line Domination particularly and can also serve as a litmus test of the Dominant's sincerity and true intentions.

_____________________________

Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage. - Lao Tzu
There is no remedy for love but to love more. - Thoreau

(in reply to BecomingV)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/8/2014 2:16:07 AM   
theunlisteddark


Posts: 8
Joined: 5/30/2014
Status: offline 		In practicality, the Dominances aren't separate. The world is a hierarchy and short of being world overlord there are people more Dominant than I. Likewise short of being... Actually I can't even imagine what the most submissive thing on earth is. Regardless, if I'm not that, there's people less Dominant than I. A D/s relationship is just a (usually) consensual acknowledgement that one person is above the other in the hierarchy. You can call yourself and even be a Dominant if you find somebody submissive enough. You just won't look Dominant next to somebody more Dominant.

Fiscal competence is a life skill, something everybody should be capable of. People not capable must submit to somebody who is. If you're Dominant enough, you can force somebody to earn a living on your behalf and spend it as you will - again, you have to find somebody submissive enough. Personally, my income is one of my tools for domination. If my partner asks for me to purchase something, she must convince me of its value. She's submitting to me. If I decide to buy it after that, I am rewarding her submission. If I don't buy it, she must accept that. If she threatens to leave, deny me herself (not necessarily sexually) or otherwise hurt me if I don't I buy the thing, she is attempting to dominate me. If I buy the thing after that, I'm submitting to her. If I still don't buy the thing, she must again submit to me, by wordlessly acknowledging that she needs what I provide (or in other cases, fears the consequences), thing or no thing being bought for her. The other option for her is she must do whatever it is she said she would do, leaving our different places in the hierarchy unclear. Again, I think the only difference between a D/s and a "vanilla" couple in this scenario is that the D/s couple is more likely to be aware of the power dynamic.

< Message edited by theunlisteddark -- 6/8/2014 2:18:30 AM >

(in reply to FieryOpal)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/8/2014 4:10:33 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline 		I feel there is an erroneous confluence of aspects of civil society (vanilla) and interests in fetish pleasure.

To me, BDSM is merely one or more fetish pleasure where the participants need not exhibit either dominance or submission. For many, that activity or activities are merely a unique stimulation. In fact...I refer you to DeSade.

That various forms of D/s exist in vanilla life, such as say on the dance floor, I lead...she follows, has no consequence.

(in reply to theunlisteddark)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/8/2014 4:11:05 AM   
catize


Posts: 3020
Joined: 3/7/2006
Status: offline 		One does not need to be dominant in the world to be worthy of submission at home.

A man's/woman's home is their castle whether it is a mansion or a trailer.

Whether one is dominant or submissive it is important they are both honest, have integrity and are willing to fill their roles within their relationship.

_____________________________

"Power is real. But it's a lot less real if it's not perceived as power."
Robert Parker, Stranger in Paradise

(in reply to theunlisteddark)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/8/2014 5:01:52 AM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
Years ago, on this site, I wrote a response that turned into a "mission statement" where I never mentioned finances. However, personally, I think "Integrity" covers fiscal responsibility.

In a perfect world, I would lay "financial security" at the dominant's doorstep (maybe). But, we don't live in a perfect world.

We are experiencing the worst economic upheaval in 70 years. Unless one has a really good career, even two paychecks don't make it, anymore. In the last 50 years, some ladies have insisted that they can only be productive or respected if they're out there, breaking their backs as badly as men have always done.

So, no I don't think that providing financial security is a dominant's responsibility. I certainly don't think it's a "trait". I do think that personal integrity (meeting all of one's financial responsibilities) is a dominant trait.

quote:


What kinds of thoughts support the shift from a vanilla view of dominance to the BDSM form of dominance?


I think dominance is dominance. That people are able to "pass" in this lifestyle speaks more to the shortcomings in the individual people that are willing to "settle" for someone who doesn't pass muster in the 'nilla world.

So, to directly answer the question above: none.







Screen captures still RULE! Ya feel me?

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to catize)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/8/2014 7:09:00 AM   
slaveoubliette


Posts: 74
Joined: 5/22/2014
Status: offline
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?

no slave respectfully disagrees.... in the vanilla expression of BDSM it is slaves experience that both the Dominant and slave are on equal footing as to fiancés.... simply stating that to submit to a Master or Domme in the Vanilla world usually means that while submitting you the slave is actually living independent of your Master or Domme.

In vanilla culture, the most educated, the richest, the most powerful, the most creative or the most philanthropic, sit at the top of the heap, dominating their respective areas.

slave disagrees power and success are measured equally in both worlds

In BDSM, there are some Dominants who don't provide financially for their submissives, who end the relationship without ensuring the submissive has housing, health care/therapy and transportation. I don't mean providing a penthouse, plastic surgery or a BMW, just the lowest forms of providing. And, there are submissives who don't make this a part of their criteria for identifying a person as a Dominant.

slave suggests the Dominants your discussing are simply users, who misrepresent BDSM for their myopic advantage and in so doing often cause damage to the BDSM scene as a whole

I know submissives and Dominants who have discussed whether anal figging is okay, but never discussed money any deeper than, "I'll handle all of the financial decisions."

I'm not talking about love or how special a person is... let's presume that's in place.
I'm not talking about topping skills between community players who are not in a committed, D/s relationship.

I'm asking about giving over your power (D/s relationships) to someone who outside of the BDSM community, is just...average. I'm asking about taking someone's power when outside of the BDSM community, you are just... average.

we all fail in some measure. it is ones morality and humanity that acts to bridge these failings for both the Dominant and the slave

The questions are:

What kinds of thoughts support the shift from a vanilla view of dominance to the BDSM form of dominance? respectfully offered there is none

What are your thoughts on providing financial security as a Dominant trait? slave has no issue with accepting financial assistance from a Dominant in the area of training and gear associated with that Dominants specific perve. True slavery is not allowed and contractual slavery is still unattainable, given the inability to file contracts in county registrar's ( umm marriage licences...lol). When and if this happens than financial support by the Dominant can and should take a deeper level of commitment. girl is an owned slave, but supports herself totally in its household and business interests.

girl is not a week needful slave, girl is financially as strong or stronger financially as many supposed Dominants offer they are. So maybe the issue is not financial support but understanding that a Dominant / s relationship is only as strong as the commitment to the needs of the relationship by the Dominant and slave. No amount of money can fix stupid.

ETA - Please note, I intentionally did not assign a sex to the words "Dominant" or "submissive."




(in reply to BecomingV)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/8/2014 8:19:16 AM   
eliseobeys


Posts: 68
Joined: 5/5/2014
From: Born in Lebanon but raised all over.
Status: offline 		This slave respectfully disagrees as well though it may not sound like it lol.

I believe it is unwise to draw spurious analogies between an individual personality trait inherent in our physiology and the various factors that contribute in part or whole (including luck and guile) to financial affluence.

Sounds akin to saying that the only true masters are those who are somehow wealthy.

So if you fall on hard times you must retire your leathers?

Could not one say the same thing about body weight and health? Like only fit dominants deserve to have submissives?

Now I have been on my knees before many dominants of varying financial viability and I can tell you one thing for sure was always true.

It wasn't their pocket book that ever put me there.

The premise suggested is not a new one.

Ive directly experienced that kind of snobbery from a dominant before and I count myself more than fortunate that I refused his collar.







_____________________________

"The pride of a free woman is the pride of a woman who feels herself to be the equal of a man.
The pride of the slave girl is the pride of the girl who knows that no other woman is the equal of herself.' "

(in reply to slaveoubliette)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/8/2014 10:57:44 AM   
Calandra


Posts: 725
Joined: 11/22/2004
Status: offline 		While I agree that a Dominant should make sound financial decisions that benefit themselves and any who are under their wing, I do NOT agree that a Dominant must make the financial lion's share of the household income.

I was in an automobile accident in 2003. Until that time I was self employed with a business that provided for Myself and My family adequately, but not extravagantly. I went to work every day, proudly and with satisfaction that comes with knowing I paid My way in the world. One member of My family worked with Me, the other worked at a career that easily brought in triple what I did. The entire time, I managed the family finances. I made sure all of our needs were provided for, and many of our wants. Life was good.

Since 2003, I've been disabled. I still oversee our home, do the cooking, the shopping, the paying of bills, and basically make sure that everyone is happy and provided for. Just because I can no longer work outside our home, it doesn't mean I am less Dominant. It doesn't mean I deserve a "demotion" - LOL

In fact, making our life work in the face of adversity has sometimes required that I be MORE Dominant. That I stand up and say "No, we cannot afford this right now", or that I lie awake sleepless when the income doesn't equal the outgo. My family sleeps fine, because they know that whatever struggles we face, I'm working on a solution. (Thats when I make them aware there IS a struggle).

It's dangerous to assign "traits" to Dominance. Many people who are naturally Dominant, nurturing, and gifted at organizing others could easily be overlooked just because they are not 100% financially secure on their own. Sometimes people use "Dominance" to take advantage of others, but those people also show their poor character in other ways if a submissive is looking. Is that person lazy? Do they shift blame for their adversities, or do they work hard to overcome and find solutions to their problems? Do they know how to take resources and make something work?

I will never forget the time I was on the phone with a submissive who was determined to serve Me... he asked, "What do I hear in the background?" I answered, "I'm washing a few dishes before time to start making dinner." He flatly stated: "Dommes don't wash dishes!"... I laughed and asked if Dommes eat off of dirty dishes? and he hung up.

Be careful as you go along, that the ideas you develop about what Dominance (and submission) truly is, make sense and will lead you to find the right human being that YOU match with.

<edited to add that My response was to the thread at large, not to a particular poster, sorry if there was any confusion>

< Message edited by Calandra -- 6/8/2014 11:00:17 AM >

_____________________________

Lady Kathryn
Athens, Ga.
House of Phoenix

"Nothing is ever final until you're dead - and even then I'm sure God negotiates" Anjelica Huston in Everafter

(in reply to eliseobeys)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/8/2014 3:45:07 PM   
DesFIP


Posts: 25191
Joined: 11/25/2007
From: Apple County NY
Status: offline 		Disagree.

I've known several tops in their fields; heads of states, ambassadors, CEOs and so on.

Only one of them was also dominant in his relationship.

The rest of them did not want to come home and do for free what they did all day long for work. Because that way you burn out quickly.

Dominant at work does not equal dominant in relationship.

_____________________________

Slave to laundry

Cynical and proud of it!


(in reply to Calandra)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/8/2014 4:11:40 PM   
GoddessManko


Posts: 2257
Joined: 3/6/2013
From: Dante's Inferno
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

Disagree.

I've known several tops in their fields; heads of states, ambassadors, CEOs and so on.

Only one of them was also dominant in his relationship.

The rest of them did not want to come home and do for free what they did all day long for work. Because that way you burn out quickly.

Dominant at work does not equal dominant in relationship.


YUP! Though I'm always D at work and at play, I'm an exception to the rule.

quote:


In fact, making our life work in the face of adversity has sometimes required that I be MORE Dominant. That I stand up and say "No, we cannot afford this right now", or that I lie awake sleepless when the income doesn't equal the outgo. My family sleeps fine, because they know that whatever struggles we face, I'm working on a solution. (Thats when I make them aware there IS a struggle).


This is something often taken for granted, thank you for pointing it out.

Edited to add: I thought about it and thought I should add this. I have seen many traits in submissive men. Some great subs never commit to lifestyle because they have a hard time "letting go" of their alpha nature in vanilla land. They are often wonderful patriarchs and hide behind their children and channel their need for service into their kids. Or they of course go to pros so they can detach at any time. They are the most conflicted of subs I have encountered but they are the great ones if they ever allow themselves to trust their D. The more powerful ones in the vanilla world. :)

< Message edited by GoddessManko -- 6/8/2014 4:30:56 PM >

_____________________________

Happy consent is the name of the game. You are my perfect Mistress. - my collared.

http://submissivemale.blogspot.com/

The Bird of Hermes is my name, eating my wings to make me tame.

(in reply to DesFIP)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/8/2014 7:39:12 PM   
Gauge


Posts: 5689
Joined: 6/17/2005
Status: offline
quote:

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?


Nope, totally disagree. BDSM requires integrity, and to be a trustworthy individual, one who can maintain a reasonable level of control in their own life while dealing with the chaos that life can offer. Financial success or personal achievements are not dominance nor should they even be compared to BDSM, they are nowhere near similar.

quote:

In vanilla culture, the most educated, the richest, the most powerful, the most creative or the most philanthropic, sit at the top of the heap, dominating their respective areas.


Or they cheated, lied, stole, defrauded, inherited or otherwise were born into wealth, power, a creative environment or such thing and were fortunate enough by luck of birth or just luck to be able to pursue those things. I do not view wealth, power, creativity or such things as being dominant, I see them as people who made a name for themselves, whether earned or handed to them.

quote:

In BDSM, there are some Dominants who don't provide financially for their submissives, who end the relationship without ensuring the submissive has housing, health care/therapy and transportation. I don't mean providing a penthouse, plastic surgery or a BMW, just the lowest forms of providing. And, there are submissives who don't make this a part of their criteria for identifying a person as a Dominant.


Ridiculous. Why is your statement directed at BDSM? I know people that think kinky is leaving the lights on while they fuck, that throw out their spouse or partner and do not provide for them, what makes BDSM any different? As far as providing financially or providing fucking health care for someone that I am no longer in a relationship with, are you out of your mind?

quote:


I know submissives and Dominants who have discussed whether anal figging is okay, but never discussed money any deeper than, "I'll handle all of the financial decisions."


This applies to vanilla people too. It is called communication, some people do, some don't.

quote:

I'm not talking about love or how special a person is... let's presume that's in place.
I'm not talking about topping skills between community players who are not in a committed, D/s relationship.

I'm asking about giving over your power (D/s relationships) to someone who outside of the BDSM community, is just...average. I'm asking about taking someone's power when outside of the BDSM community, you are just... average.


I am not even sure what you are talking about. I am an average guy. My submissive knows I am average, my bank account says loud and clear that I am average... horribly financially challenged average, but I have a relationship with my submissive that is rich and beautiful beyond words... this makes me everything to her and her to me. I couldn't care less what anyone thinks of me, if I am confident that I am doing my best, and I am being the very best human being that I can be and I treat others with respect and dignity, then I am OK with who I am.

quote:

What kinds of thoughts support the shift from a vanilla view of dominance to the BDSM form of dominance?


Whips, chains, hoods, handcuffs and shackles, rope being essential items when having fun.

quote:

What are your thoughts on providing financial security as a Dominant trait?


I think that if you are looking for financial security as a dominant trait, then you are seeking something that a very significant majority of people do not have. I also believe if that is what you are looking for then you are not looking for a dominant, but a payday. I pay my bills, have a roof over my head and food on the table... the rest is just window dressing. I lost everything in my life once and was homeless, not knowing where my next meal was coming from... financial security is an illusion. I can meet my physical and financial needs, and after experiencing losing that ability, my needs are damn few... my wants are completely different and I know where to draw that line.



< Message edited by Gauge -- 6/8/2014 7:56:11 PM >

_____________________________

"For there is no folly of the beast of the earth which is not infinitely outdone by the madness of men." Herman Melville - Moby Dick

I'm wearing my chicken suit and humming La Marseillaise.

(in reply to BecomingV)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/8/2014 11:13:15 PM   
theunlisteddark


Posts: 8
Joined: 5/30/2014
Status: offline 		It's interesting to see different perspectives, but ultimately my point of "finding somebody the appropriate amount of submissive for you" is still correct. A family is willing to submit to the superior financial decision making of Calandra. (I assume) they outclass her physically, so they could threaten to punish her physically if she did not do such tasks. She could still exert her Dominance by continuing not to take care of the finances. Hell they could kill her in their attempts to overpower her, she'd die with the power in this instance. On the flipside, if she's dependant on their income, and they know it, they have power in return.

In Gauge's case, somebody could attempt to overpower him financially. They could buyout his job, cut him off from his needs, etc. He could get a new job, manipulate the media into discrediting the attempted Dominator, call on favours from interpersonal relationships, etc. One person would eventually have to relent - whether the person ran out of money in their attempt to control, or Gauge would be forced to submit because he simply didn't have the physical means to resist this persons influence.

My point is finance is just as important an aspect as any if your predisposition is to be Dominant. Lack of finance can be compensated by greater knowledge, compassion, experience, influence, strength, even sexual prowess, or any unlisted factor here. Though I am sure there are those who submit to people inferior to themselves in every way - I just can't fathom why. Probably love, seems to be the go to reason for anything otherwise unexplainable.

(in reply to Gauge)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/8/2014 11:47:28 PM   
Gauge


Posts: 5689
Joined: 6/17/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: theunlisteddark

In Gauge's case, somebody could attempt to overpower him financially. They could buyout his job, cut him off from his needs, etc. He could get a new job, manipulate the media into discrediting the attempted Dominator, call on favours from interpersonal relationships, etc. One person would eventually have to relent - whether the person ran out of money in their attempt to control, or Gauge would be forced to submit because he simply didn't have the physical means to resist this persons influence.


And monkeys could fly out of my ass and sing the Canadian National Anthem... what the hell does this even mean?

quote:

My point is finance is just as important an aspect as any if your predisposition is to be Dominant. Lack of finance can be compensated by greater knowledge, compassion, experience, influence, strength, even sexual prowess, or any unlisted factor here. Though I am sure there are those who submit to people inferior to themselves in every way - I just can't fathom why. Probably love, seems to be the go to reason for anything otherwise unexplainable.


I have yet to decide if you are earnest in your statements or if you just say things to get a rise out of someone. In fact, I struggle with whether or not you make any sense whatsoever. That fact that you even utter the phrase "submit to people inferior to themselves" means to me that you are either an egomaniac or clueless. No one is "inferior" to someone else. That is a made up status borne from an illusion based on overcompensation in order to validate ones self over someone else. While it may go a long way in convincing yourself that you are a dominant, the reality is that if you need convincing that you are dominant, then you are not.

Finance has nothing to do with if someone is a dominant or not, nor does it speak to anything but the contents of someones wallet.

_____________________________

"For there is no folly of the beast of the earth which is not infinitely outdone by the madness of men." Herman Melville - Moby Dick

I'm wearing my chicken suit and humming La Marseillaise.

(in reply to theunlisteddark)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/9/2014 3:43:59 AM   
Bhruic


Posts: 985
Joined: 4/11/2012
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline
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?

In vanilla culture, the most educated, the richest, the most powerful, the most creative or the most philanthropic, sit at the top of the heap, dominating their respective areas.

In BDSM, there are some Dominants who don't provide financially for their submissives, who end the relationship without ensuring the submissive has housing, health care/therapy and transportation. I don't mean providing a penthouse, plastic surgery or a BMW, just the lowest forms of providing. And, there are submissives who don't make this a part of their criteria for identifying a person as a Dominant.

I know submissives and Dominants who have discussed whether anal figging is okay, but never discussed money any deeper than, "I'll handle all of the financial decisions."

I'm not talking about love or how special a person is... let's presume that's in place.
I'm not talking about topping skills between community players who are not in a committed, D/s relationship.

I'm asking about giving over your power (D/s relationships) to someone who outside of the BDSM community, is just...average. I'm asking about taking someone's power when outside of the BDSM community, you are just... average.

The questions are:

What kinds of thoughts support the shift from a vanilla view of dominance to the BDSM form of dominance?

What are your thoughts on providing financial security as a Dominant trait?

ETA - Please note, I intentionally did not assign a sex to the words "Dominant" or "submissive."




Frankly, I think you are comparing apples to oranges here, if I understand what you are saying. A fortune 500 CEO may well be lousy in bed and hopeless at any kind of relationship (not uncommon in the "Live to work" crowd). While a skilled Dominant who is a loving partner may well be more than happy "working to live" in a run of the mill 9 to 5 job with a middling salary.

A frivolous example maybe... but watch "The wolf of Wall Street" and tell me if you think DeCaprio's character was a dominant in his relationship?

< Message edited by Bhruic -- 6/9/2014 3:47:22 AM >

_____________________________

pronounced "VROOick"

(in reply to BecomingV)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/9/2014 3:54:02 AM   
FightingChains


Posts: 293
Joined: 3/18/2014
Status: offline 		Completely agree that this is apples and oranges.

Dominance in the 'real world' relates to power, and how one acquires it. Be that money, by vote, working your way to that position, whatever that may be. Dominance in a relationship is an agreement between two people that they would like one to take the lead.

Dominance as a word only refers to power. But power could be in anything and in any way. There's no context to the word.

'Dominance' in a sporting match.
'Dominance' in your work.
'Dominance' in a relationship.

Different senses, completely irrelevant without the context.

< Message edited by FightingChains -- 6/9/2014 4:05:10 AM >

_____________________________

"Get comfortable in your skin; you're going to be in it for a while."

(in reply to Bhruic)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/9/2014 8:32:16 AM   
Gauge


Posts: 5689
Joined: 6/17/2005
Status: offline 		For my way of thinking, it is not apples and oranges, it is more like apples and tractors. The two are not only not in the same ballpark, they are in different stadiums.

_____________________________

"For there is no folly of the beast of the earth which is not infinitely outdone by the madness of men." Herman Melville - Moby Dick

I'm wearing my chicken suit and humming La Marseillaise.

(in reply to FightingChains)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/9/2014 3:05:24 PM   
BecomingV


Posts: 916
Joined: 11/11/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal


quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV
<snip>
The questions are:

What kinds of thoughts support the shift from a vanilla view of dominance to the BDSM form of dominance?

What are your thoughts on providing financial security as a Dominant trait?

ETA - Please note, I intentionally did not assign a sex to the words "Dominant" or "submissive."



As for your second question, in an F/m or F/f dynamic, it is incumbent upon the F to not jeopardize her sub's financial security or cause him/her financial ruin (regardless of whether that's their kink, you don't pour gasoline onto an open flame).
This is why in an M/f or M/m dynamic, I believe that the M must be financially solvent and self-sufficient without having to rely on his sub partner. If he can't handle his own finances and make ends meet, then he has no business bringing anyone else into his messed-up world and taking charge of another's finances.


If I understand your POV, you are asserting that:
1) there is a difference in the responsibility of the Dominant, according to the sex of the Dominant
2) the difference reflects a vanilla, patriarchal (male superiority) foundation.

The part of your quote that I put in bold... why is that, in your opinion, a responsibility for female Dominants and not for all Dominants?

(in reply to FieryOpal)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/9/2014 3:20:29 PM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal

As for your second question, in an F/m or F/f dynamic, it is incumbent upon the F to not jeopardize her sub's financial security or cause him/her financial ruin (regardless of whether that's their kink, you don't pour gasoline onto an open flame).
This is why in an M/f or M/m dynamic, I believe that the M must be financially solvent and self-sufficient without having to rely on his sub partner. If he can't handle his own finances and make ends meet, then he has no business bringing anyone else into his messed-up world and taking charge of another's finances.



I find this a little troubling because (if I read it right); if I'm rolling along, paying my bills, living life, going to school, when I bring a lady into my house, I should incur all the extra costs (food, clothing, cigarettes, gasoline, car insurance, health insurance, etc.).

I may be reading this wrong but because I'm the proud owner of a penis, I have to take on financial responsibility for another adult?







Screen captures still RULE! Ya feel me?

< Message edited by DaddySatyr -- 6/9/2014 3:21:25 PM >

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to BecomingV)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla - 6/9/2014 4:24:32 PM   
BecomingV


Posts: 916
Joined: 11/11/2013
Status: offline 		theunlisteddark - I agree and disagree. I do think that vanilla dominance is different from BDSM dominance and I don't agree that the world is a hierarchy (except to those who perceive it as such.) I'm really not splitting hairs when I say there's a difference between the existence of hierarchies and the totality of hierarchy as a state of being.
quote:

ORIGINAL: theunlisteddark

In practicality, the Dominances aren't separate. The world is a hierarchy and short of being world overlord there are people more Dominant than I. Likewise short of being... Actually I can't even imagine what the most submissive thing on earth is. Regardless, if I'm not that, there's people less Dominant than I. A D/s relationship is just a (usually) consensual acknowledgement that one person is above the other in the hierarchy. You can call yourself and even be a Dominant if you find somebody submissive enough. You just won't look Dominant next to somebody more Dominant.


When you state that "one person is above the other in the hierarchy," I think you are saying that two people create a hierarchy for two. Right, D/s. My question is about the differing criteria for making those determinations. While I feel clear about the vanilla, commercialized hierarchy of power, I do seek to understand more about the variances in how people CREATE hierarchies in BDSM.

For example, if someone is a female supremacist/male supremacist, then they make claim to a natural order of superiority, or inferiority, based on sex. For them, the determination of who is dominant is already done, without further examination or comparison.

Some Dominants and submissives state that they feel superior, or inferior, to their D/s partner.
Others state that D/s involves people of equal value, respectability and trustworthiness.

If anyone is familiar with the Leather community and the Pillars of Dominance, this is a part of BDSM culture steeped in respect earned through the attainment of character management and mostly, taking responsibility for self before taking responsibility for others. (which is why "Humility" is the foundational pillar)

Which brings me back to the financial part of my OP, and how it relates to Dominance in the BDSM community. Your thoughts?

(in reply to theunlisteddark)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> Dominance: BDSM vs. Vanilla Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.105