RE: Do dominants have to explain to subs how dominant they are?

RE: Do dominants have to explain to subs how dominant they are? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Submissive

Message

littleone35 -> RE: Do dominants have to explain to subs how dominant they are? (12/18/2015 4:52:47 PM)
My Master is quietly cinfidently Dom(which i find very sexy) He doesent have to say it. He never said he was born that way, but is a natural to im as breathing. Just as being HIS sub it natural to me. Matt's littlene

ReMakeYou -> RE: Do dominants have to explain to subs how dominant they are? (12/19/2015 2:03:28 AM)
I think ti goes a little deeper. There are plenty of subs who include terms like "under consideration" or "under the protection of". I mean, it's awesome that you have friends in the scene and that you bounce ideas off of them. But none of my vanilla friends who I give advice to are under my "protection". I think it all stems from a quasifeudal fantasy where there are different castes of people, special by some innate birthright. It's an attractive fantasy to be sure. (Just look at how often it pops up in fantasy fiction.) It's just that, like many fantasies, it gets in the way if you try them as a guide to real life.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Do dominants have to explain to subs how dominant they are? (12/19/2015 9:25:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ReMakeYou I think ti goes a little deeper. There are plenty of subs who include terms like "under consideration" or "under the protection of". I mean, it's awesome that you have friends in the scene and that you bounce ideas off of them. But none of my vanilla friends who I give advice to are under my "protection". I think it all stems from a quasifeudal fantasy where there are different castes of people, special by some innate birthright. It's an attractive fantasy to be sure. (Just look at how often it pops up in fantasy fiction.) It's just that, like many fantasies, it gets in the way if you try them as a guide to real life. Have you ever met anybody who's new to the scene and has sub-fever? With some people I wouldn't click, but for their own sake I told them "You're under protection, run the guy/gal past me for a chat..." Trust me it wasn't feudal and it wasn't a power trip, they were just so new and so caught up that I could see them getting badly hurt left to their own devices.

OsideGirl -> RE: Do dominants have to explain to subs how dominant they are? (12/19/2015 5:48:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ReMakeYou There are plenty of subs who include terms like "under consideration" or "under the protection of". Those are two entirely different things IMO. "Under protection" means you have a friend or mentor, in a nonsexual role giving advice and helping you to navigate. IMHO, "Under Consideration" is one of the stupidest things that gets said in the BDSM community. And it's usually done by predator style Doms, new submissives and people wrapped up in Castlerealm style fantasy.

StrongSpirit -> RE: Do dominants have to explain to subs how dominant they are? (12/21/2015 6:04:33 PM)
There are several issues here. One of them is the constant request for "real doms". If you see enough of those, you think "I should make it clear I am dominant". But more important than that, BDSM is a a big tent that thinks it's a small tent. Just as certain prejudiced people think straight, vanilla sex is the only real sex, and everything else is wierd/wrong, many people here unfortunately think the same thing. If you read this site a lot of the time you will people complaining about people being 'not real', or fake, in some way. Some people think being dominant means sadism, others think it is role playing, others think it's just being arrogant. You put 20 BDSM people in the same room and you will get 21 definitions of dominant. The honest truth is there there is no such thing as a true dominant. There is no Dominant Standards club that goes around making up rules about who can call themselves dominant and who can't. There is no card for anyone to take away because you fail to be dominant. The solution is to admit the problem is not the 'fake' dominants, but a communication issue. Don't accept the word 'dominant' as the end of a conversation - it is the beginning. If you don't like the people calling themselves dominants, then you need to be more clear about what you want. You can't simply say I am dominant, and you can't simply say you are looking for a dominant. Nor is merely explaining your preferred activities enough. Everyone needs to talk about what they mean when they say dominant/submissive and without words like "real". How do you feel about pain? Humiliation? Control? How do you treat strangers? How do you deal with people that do not accept your domination/submission. These are important things people need to mention in their first contact/profile

ChrchofDrk -> RE: Do dominants have to explain to subs how dominant they are? (12/21/2015 6:18:59 PM)
"under consideration" is just the insecures way of laying claim to the sub. It's their way of saying stay away. It's silly. But they still do it. "under the protection" I also find to be silly. What are they "protecting" them from anyway? Some mean typing?

LadyConstanze -> RE: Do dominants have to explain to subs how dominant they are? (12/22/2015 2:44:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChrchofDrk "under consideration" is just the insecures way of laying claim to the sub. It's their way of saying stay away. It's silly. But they still do it. "under the protection" I also find to be silly. What are they "protecting" them from anyway? Some mean typing? Somebody new to the whole thing, having sub fever and ready and willing to submit to anybody who claims is a D type without checking if they have the skills, if they are remotely responsible, yeah, what bad could possibly happen?

NookieNotes -> RE: Do dominants have to explain to subs how dominant they are? (12/22/2015 5:18:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze quote: ORIGINAL: ChrchofDrk "under consideration" is just the insecures way of laying claim to the sub. It's their way of saying stay away. It's silly. But they still do it. "under the protection" I also find to be silly. What are they "protecting" them from anyway? Some mean typing? Somebody new to the whole thing, having sub fever and ready and willing to submit to anybody who claims is a D type without checking if they have the skills, if they are remotely responsible, yeah, what bad could possibly happen? Ummm. Sounds like ChrchofDrk is focusing on online interactions, while you (and I, in my mind) are thinking of real-time, real-place interactions. In the community. VERY different things.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Do dominants have to explain to subs how dominant they are? (12/22/2015 3:16:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze quote: ORIGINAL: ChrchofDrk "under consideration" is just the insecures way of laying claim to the sub. It's their way of saying stay away. It's silly. But they still do it. "under the protection" I also find to be silly. What are they "protecting" them from anyway? Some mean typing? Somebody new to the whole thing, having sub fever and ready and willing to submit to anybody who claims is a D type without checking if they have the skills, if they are remotely responsible, yeah, what bad could possibly happen? Ummm. Sounds like ChrchofDrk is focusing on online interactions, while you (and I, in my mind) are thinking of real-time, real-place interactions. In the community. VERY different things. Online interactions are a bit unreal, like "living your life in 2nd life" and stuff like that, I have nothing against role playing scenarios but if you are just writing "I am going to whip you" and somebody writes back "Ouch that hurt", that's like looking at the menue of a restaurant instead of having a meal.

ChrchofDrk -> RE: Do dominants have to explain to subs how dominant they are? (12/22/2015 4:24:16 PM)
quote: Ummm. Sounds like ChrchofDrk is focusing on online interactions, while you (and I, in my mind) are thinking of real-time, real-place interactions. In the community. In the community I've never heard of such things. But I hate to let ya'all in on this secret but we're all online right now. So yes, it would have to do with such things as doms insisting such things be put on subs profiles. Gosh, who knew?????

LadyConstanze -> RE: Do dominants have to explain to subs how dominant they are? (12/22/2015 4:35:49 PM)
I shall try to put it in simple terms so you can understand... Some people discover their submissive tendencies and they then go into something that is termed "sub fever" which means they don't see clearly, they don't think about vetting who they play with (in real life, even if they meet that person online), they can encounter a bit more than "bad typing" but serious damages, rape, abuse, stuff they just haven't bargained for and they have no idea how to look for clues, think about randy teenagers just worse. Telling them that they are "under protection" and that they should make the person who wants them to submit to them talk to somebody who knows what might be dangerous, what might be obvious warning signs, just might minimize the danger a little bit, apart from having a bit more information if somebody should "disappear" all of a sudden. You know, like leaving traces. It might not discourage every abuser but if it does discourage some, it's not such a bad thing. Does that make sense now?

ChrchofDrk -> RE: Do dominants have to explain to subs how dominant they are? (12/22/2015 4:46:26 PM)
Oh I understand your point. But a simple reality. If someone's looking to do another harm, all their i's will be dotted and all their t's crossed. If they're smart, and most are, on the surface it will all look so neat. So being under protection likely won't help much and that's why I think it silly. Folks that look to do others harm don't telegraph their true intentions

LadyConstanze -> RE: Do dominants have to explain to subs how dominant they are? (12/22/2015 4:50:29 PM)
They don't but if you have been around for a while, you pick up on stuff a newbie will not even notice, and the fact is that people with bad intentions tend to avoid potential problems, such as talking to somebody who might ask probing questions. I'm not claiming it does keep them safe, it just doesn't put them that much as risk. Think of it as a seat belt or an air bag, or a simple alarm system, none of them offer 100% or take me, I have 3 super friendly Dobies, a burglar would be licked to death (the cats might kill him though) but who is going to risk breaking in hearing 3 big barks?

littleladybug -> RE: Do dominants have to explain to subs how dominant they are? (12/22/2015 5:19:54 PM)
I think that the "protection" thing can be a good tool. I wonder though, how would a newbie, perhaps with a bit of frenzy, find a suitable, trustworthy person to take that role? It seems to me that the same issues would crop up, in terms of "vetting" and such.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Do dominants have to explain to subs how dominant they are? (12/22/2015 5:26:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littleladybug I think that the "protection" thing can be a good tool. I wonder though, how would a newbie, perhaps with a bit of frenzy, find a suitable, trustworthy person to take that role? It seems to me that the same issues would crop up, in terms of "vetting" and such. That's true, to be honest most of them I met at munches and such, some online when they wrote me some weird letter but there was something more there than just wank fodder and we started talking and I told them about the dangers, some were quite shocked, they honestly hardly ever considered a bad outcome, it made them think, we talked some more, and the fact that I wasn't interested in collaring them or making them do stuff kinda told them I'm not trying to fuck them over. Of course in the most extreme cases, somebody could pretend to be a mentor and use a sock puppet... I don't really set out to find people and put them "under protection" as it's a lot of work, but if it happens an I am busy and the person interested in them has a little temper tantrum that they aren't getting an answer within the hour, that's usually also a good warning sign...

ReMakeYou -> RE: Do dominants have to explain to subs how dominant they are? (12/22/2015 5:36:30 PM)
Actually, there are quite a few flaws with protection: -A good protector will help a newbie avoid common newbie mistakes, but newbies with the sense/luck to make sure they find a good protector can count on the same sense/luck to ensure that they find a good dom in the first place. A self-centered protector is just someone trying to leverage the position as a precursor to being a dom. The clueless newbies who most need someone in that spot are the most vulnerable to having that spot filled by someone with ulterior motives. -A protector is almost always one person. One person who has their own psychological blind spots, and who has a finite amount of free time. Multiple people - preferably ones who aren't all part of the same little clique - are more people for more perspectives and more people to get in touch with if one happens to be busy. But that's a matter of having a solid friend network to bounce ideas off of. Not formal protection. -Even if you use "under my protection" to mean "use me as a sounding board", publicly stating that implies that it's a somewhat more formal position. Just one step short of a dom, and oftentimes a stepping stone to that position. Even if it's not a backdoor gambit, it still has a massive quasifeudal vibe. Which feeds back to the "doms must make it clear that they're dom caste, subs must clearly mark themselves as sub caste" that leads to the sort of behavior that started this thread.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Do dominants have to explain to subs how dominant they are? (12/22/2015 5:56:53 PM)
Actually none of that at all, as I stated, people I didn't really click with in a BDSM sense, I had no interest in collaring, I didn't ever want to exclude other ideas in fact I was glad if more people were there as a sounding board. Basically it comes down to that somebody doesn't do stupid shit that will endanger their health, how many people just slap the D label on and have no idea how much damage hitting a kidney can do? For example if there was a self declared D type who proudly stated he will not accept safewords as any dominant will know how far he can go, I told the sub to be extremely careful and explained why. If you kind it offensive that I care about people not getting injured or treated in a way that violates consent, that is your problem, if you find that "quasifeudal" then maybe because you worry about something more. Personally I can make friends with people no matter which side of kneel they are on and without an interest of engaging in a BDSM dynamic, I tend to care for friends and don't like to see them harmed, if that offends you in a way and you see it as feudalistic, again that is your problem and I don't really want to go into why you worry about it. As I said before, it's not something I deliberately seek out to do, but I don't want to turn a blind eye to possible damage, I'd be more than happy if the burden would be shared by several people as a support system because getting calls at weird hours if some so called D type tried to get them to meet at a location that is a bit risky to "show they are truly serious" is not great fun and then spending ages explaining WHY they should not do it, it is something most of us (I assume, just speaking for myself) can do without, but I rather do that than deal with somebody being traumatized by rape and abuse, or read about a casualty in the papers. Yeah, that is so freaking feudal, isn't it...

ReMakeYou -> RE: Do dominants have to explain to subs how dominant they are? (12/22/2015 6:39:52 PM)
Do you publicly state that the person is under your protection and/or expect them to publicly state as much? Possibly even expecting any new partners to have to explicitly be vetted by you first? Because that is pretty feudal. And bottlenecking it by only having one person as the protector leaves a lot of room for things to get screwed up. Being a friend and a sounding board is totally cool and perfectly normal. But those aren't official titles that preclude someone else from doing the same sorts of things.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Do dominants have to explain to subs how dominant they are? (12/22/2015 7:02:59 PM)
Yeah it is all freaking feudal and a typical sign of feudalism is that I do more work than I have to, at least according to you... Last time I checked Dom/Domme or Master/Mistress, sub/slave also weren't official titles, anybody can claim them, an alarm system won't preclude people from breaking into your property but the fact that you have one will possibly discourage some. I said it several times, but I repeat it again, I told some people that I am willing to take them as "under protection" because I worried about them getting into trouble and ending up hurt, injured or dead, if you find fault with that, cool, whatever. As I stated repeatedly, not a 100% way but I think minimizing risks is a good thing, think of it as the equivalent of not letting your teenager hang out with a bunch of guys who drink, take cars for joy rides and indulge in drugs. They can explore, they can talk to tons of people online, get a feel for things, if they go and meet somebody "under protection" means that I have at least spoken to the person and tried to assess that they aren't trying to do stupid shit that is plainly dangerous, that they are going to meet in a public place, sub/slave has a "way out" by claiming I told him/her no play on the first meeting, I also have all the info of when they will meet and an email addy or a phone number. I'm really not their overloard or anything like that, but more like a safety net, and you'd be surprised how many predators just tend to back off if you are having that, and I've been bouncing around on both sides of the pond for a bit, doing demos and helping out with training stuff, I can ask my network if they know anything about somebody who claims to be in a certain scene.... Seriously, do you think it's fun having more work? It really isn't, but at the same time, too much shit happens, if I can contribute to just a little bit less, I think it's a good thing and I am not trying to be mean or nasty, but the worst cases, the ones who need the most protection are women above 30 who discover their inner sub, they really really tend to go a bit nuts and forget everything they learned about meeting strangers from the internet. I honestly don't care if they end up with Hobgobblin as long as that is what they want, I do care about them thinking they meet Prince Domly only to wake up in the ER....

ChrchofDrk -> RE: Do dominants have to explain to subs how dominant they are? (12/22/2015 7:52:42 PM)
quote: the ones who need the most protection are women above 30 who discover their inner sub, they really really tend to go a bit nuts and forget everything they learned about meeting strangers from the internet. That reminds me of a sub that we were together for about 15 months. I was her first dominant. At the end she was texting 5 different doms in sort of a frenzy. Telling me all about what they wanted to do to her. A lot of bondage was on order. She was always safe with me. I certainly had no reason to harm her. I worried that she would end up in a position that she would regret. So the last night we were together. I bound her nude spread eagle and taped her mouth. Took out a knife and proceeded to act as though I was going to slice a nipple off. Then I did the same with her clit. All she could do was look on in wide eyed terror. I did it to scare her and make her aware of just how helpless she truly was when bound and taped. I hoped it was a lesson learned. That was 8 years ago and she long been out of the community. Finding her place in more nilla digs. She's always thanked me for that lesson. It made her truly aware of just how vulnerable she truly was.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875