Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: New dominants?


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

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: New dominants? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: New dominants? - 2/29/2016 7:01:41 AM   
Awareness


Posts: 3918
Joined: 9/8/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SuaveGentleman
On the other hand, I am sure many dominants have been through the phase of "fake it till you make it". While the above logic is perfectly legit, many wonder how they will ever get started in the lifestyle if everyone needs to be experienced.
There's two prevailing philosophies in the sub-culture which is the BDSM community.

The first is that being a Dom is a role. Like a set of clothes you take on or off.

The second is that dominance is an inherent aspect of character. And if you'd go further, it's implicitly tied to the presence of testosterone which makes the idea of female dominants somewhat counter-intuitive.

The former philosophy is the most popular perspective - with it tends to be the accompanying idea that being a Dom is a role you become entitled to after an apprenticeship of learning how to swing a flogger, tie a rope and stab a few needles. It also tends to produce a somewhat boring dick-measuring contest in which 'dominants' try and establish their bona fides by playing "who's the most extreme sadist". Ultimately it posits that the dominant role is one you learn and 'play'. (That is, after all, why they call it 'playing' and why they refer to 'scenes'. It's play-acting.)

The latter philosophy posits that dominance is based on a set of beliefs you have about yourself, the world and your ability to influence it. That dominance cannot be learned, but it can be developed. That while inherent dominance is most often a character trait, that it's possible to develop it through deep level changes in beliefs which change the way in which you react to events.

Having said that, while change is possible, it tends to be rare, extraordinarily difficult and often painful.

The dominance-through-learning approach is basically just role-playing. If your focus is on getting laid while having some kinky fun, that's probably the best approach for you to aim for.

The dominance-through-character approach is about you. Who you are, your capability, strength and the need for constant growth. Under this philosophy, your quest to become a better individual will never end, but your dominance will be a reality, not a game of role play.

Now, if the former is your preferred choice, then you're pretty much at the mercy of the cottage 'teaching' industry which has sprung up in the BDSM community. This is a pyramid scheme in which those who've already paid (mostly literally) their dues to other 'teachers' then consider themselves qualified to begin teaching others. You'll find many people involved in this industry will stress the importance of teaching before you can be considered 'qualified' to have a sub. They'll also tend to advise subs to look for men who've gone through such 'teaching'.

The corollary of course is that subs have no such requirement.

If you prefer dominance-through-character, then you can ignore that. There are, of course, certain safety aspects for which you WILL need an education if you propose to hurt your sub as a part of your interaction. However, beyond that, your bona fides are expressed in your character and your interaction with everyone, including subs. Women can smell strength in a man's character and they ache for such men. In my experience, they're drawn to strength of character whether they like it or not.

And frankly, a woman doesn't have to like a man for her to want him to fuck her - in fact it's often better if she doesn't.

So pick your poison. One way is somewhat facile and is fine for the quick kink but you'll have to invest both time and money for the pleasure. The other way requires you already have strength or can work on yourself to become strong but will result in a more real experience and you'll be able to leverage that strength outside of the kink sub-culture.

_____________________________

Ever notice how fucking annoying most signatures are? - Yes, I do appreciate the irony.

(in reply to SuaveGentleman)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: New dominants? - 2/29/2016 7:09:54 AM   
Greta75


Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline 		FR

I would accept a very new dominant depending on how humble his approach is. If he approaches very honestly like, "I have the desire to dominate sexually but I have no experience, can you guide me to be a good dominant to you?"

I would have no problem with this.

It's usually when new snotty dominant starts being know all, and "You're not submissive enough" when they can't have things go their way. And they think being a dominant is all about just ordering women who call themselves submissive around. That's when it's like, idiots! Whatever!



< Message edited by Greta75 -- 2/29/2016 7:11:33 AM >

(in reply to SuaveGentleman)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: New dominants? - 2/29/2016 8:10:55 AM   
LadyPact


Posts: 32566
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant
Meine Schwester,

I feel that deference is most likely the best clue in finding a D worth their salt. Sans deference, you just have a control freak posing as a D. I manage my life pretty well, I'm quite good at managing others lives as well... obviously, I've been named executor of more estates than I can count the last five years... but I blame deference for most of that. I manage wot I must and defer the rest to wot they can handle.

My ego is huge, but it's healthy and that gives me the luxury of handing over (deferring) job X to the one more capable. I'm not a fan of the railroad, so I'll avoid anyone that strikes me as Casey Jones, and if it looks like I have to micromanage someone, I am out.

All that said, I am not a top. I do wot I like, I will do it at home, I will do it at a club, I will do it in a box, I will do it with a fox, I will do it here or there, I will do it anywhere... but that's the difference, I am not a playing top. I don't need to accumulate a broad array of top skills to get out and play. Wot I do is intense, intimate, and pretty exclusive. That's the reason I often say "D" isn't the golden panty ticket, a well skilled top is the golden panty ticket. D's do wot they like, not necessarily (if ever) do wot you like.

Jus sayin

There are times on these boards I almost feel as though it's unfair to the reader because we've talked about this at length and they aren't privy to those conversations. We're pretty aware of the others philosophies.

This is very much why I try to explain to folks that I see topping and bottoming, as opposed to D/s and/or M/s in an entirely different light. I wouldn't be doing some of the same things to bottoms, sans negotiation, that I absolutely will do in a D/s context. The structure is completely different to me. It may *look* like the same thing to the outside observer because people focus on the act, totally skipping over the mindset.

I think that's what confuses some people. The fact that many Dominants are also tops gets a lot of people to think it's all interchangeable when it's really not.



_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to ExiledTyrant)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: New dominants? - 2/29/2016 9:50:56 PM   
pleasnpetrichor


Posts: 72
Joined: 1/13/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness
The corollary of course is that subs have no such requirement.


Sorry to hear that. Subs sound awfully selfish. And more than a little dishonest.


< Message edited by pleasnpetrichor -- 2/29/2016 9:57:51 PM >

_____________________________

aka gungadin09
aka metamorfosis

(in reply to Awareness)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: New dominants? - 2/29/2016 9:52:46 PM   
shiftyw


Posts: 2837
Joined: 6/6/2013
From: The Shire
Status: offline 		Not directed at anyone in particular and kinda thread jacking but...
See-

Idk- I am dominant in my day to day life. Him and I are on an even playing field, most of the time.
My sexuality is deeply tied to my kink- it's why I'm here- and I find my sexuality a big part of who I am.

Consequently this thread went a bit- over my head?
My guy is naturally dominant, for sure. Not really participating in "D/s" I have to say- I have my moments where I can and will put him in line and assert myself. I'm bisexual- I'm only attracted to Dom men- and with ladies that line is way blurred and confusing.

I feel like all this shit is fluid- and based on energies interconnecting.
I don't see it as a mask or a set role like discussed here.

I have always liked diversity in my partners. Open relationships are a great situation for me. Poly, threesomes, even one night stands and friends with benefits excite me because I like diversity in the energies I'm around.

I realize that shit isn't for everyone- but I don't really understand how others can interpret this in such black and white terms- where do switches fall? Are all "just Tops" really naturally submissive in your view? How about (looking your way LP...) relationships between two D types or s types? Wouldn't logic make those relationships fail by this way of thinking?


(in reply to LadyPact)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: New dominants? - 2/29/2016 10:50:19 PM   
LadyPact


Posts: 32566
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: shiftyw
Not directed at anyone in particular and kinda thread jacking but...
See-

Idk- I am dominant in my day to day life. Him and I are on an even playing field, most of the time.
My sexuality is deeply tied to my kink- it's why I'm here- and I find my sexuality a big part of who I am.

Consequently this thread went a bit- over my head?
My guy is naturally dominant, for sure. Not really participating in "D/s" I have to say- I have my moments where I can and will put him in line and assert myself. I'm bisexual- I'm only attracted to Dom men- and with ladies that line is way blurred and confusing.

I feel like all this shit is fluid- and based on energies interconnecting.
I don't see it as a mask or a set role like discussed here.

I have always liked diversity in my partners. Open relationships are a great situation for me. Poly, threesomes, even one night stands and friends with benefits excite me because I like diversity in the energies I'm around.

I realize that shit isn't for everyone- but I don't really understand how others can interpret this in such black and white terms- where do switches fall? Are all "just Tops" really naturally submissive in your view? How about (looking your way LP...) relationships between two D types or s types? Wouldn't logic make those relationships fail by this way of thinking?

Well, let's see what we can do.

I black and white some of this stuff just based on how I see it for myself. However, you have to remember that I'm straight, have no interest in bottoming, and I'm really not interested in submitting in relationships. I don't see people who have tried bottoming and know they don't like it as being a switch because I look at just about everything kink and/or D/s as what do you enjoy doing.

To me, switches fall wherever they fall. I look at that the same way, too. There are some switches that are top/bottom switches and some switches are interested in the power/dynamic part of it. I know switches who can take either role with the same person in the relationship and some who are only D or s with one person and the other way with another. Dominant leaning switches and submissive leaning switches. Heck, I'm really proud of a couple of the switches that I've dated. They were submissive to me but they are doing more with their Dominant side now and that's fantastic.

Acts don't make a person Dominant or submissive. A person swinging a flogger doesn't automatically make them a Dominant. I can teach anybody to swing a flogger. Bringing your arm around doesn't necessarily mean that a person is in control of the other. If your guy wanted to try bottoming to see what it was like, would that make you his Dominant? When the floggers stopped swinging, what would your relationship be?

I know I fall into the wording trap myself, but the term *just* tops rubs me the wrong way. While anybody can do it, a good top is going to put a good chunk of time and dedication into it. I see it as any other craft. You work at it, you gain proficiency. I can tie people. There are riggers in this town that put me to shame.

As far as D/D and s/s couples go, a lot of people tend to think that if someone's personality goes one way or another, they have to be paired with someone on the other side of the slash. It really doesn't work that way. For the most part, our interactions with each other are like any vanilla couple you know. We just have a really cool toy collection.


_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to shiftyw)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: New dominants? - 3/1/2016 12:54:36 AM   
LadyPact


Posts: 32566
Status: offline 		Sorry for the double post. My apologies.

I know the other side of this, too. Folks who are *just* Dominants. No topping, no engaging in BDSM. Sometimes, they are looked down on the same as folks who are *just* tops.

It's one thing to run the relationship. It's another thing for the parties to enjoy the relationship. Some who are *just* Dominants recognize this. It's kind of like they *know* that most folks want to have all of the factors of a relationship, but they are so big and bad that they won't engage in sex. They are "better than" the frivolities of pleasure or orgasms.

And, when their partner wants to go out and have the good time they seek, the other wonders why the chip on the shoulder became the whole potato. With as complex as people are, why do folks wonder why their D/s partners go out and play with other people?

Every once in a while, we get those threads about "my Dom plays with other people at parties". "My bottom seeks other tops." Why?

A person can puff their chest about being a D or a top all they want. Doesn't mean they are hitting the pay grade.


_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to LadyPact)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: New dominants? - 3/1/2016 1:25:53 AM   
Commonplace


Posts: 12
Joined: 7/11/2014
Status: offline 		I didn't want someone with 'experience'. I got someone who had been doing this for a while and it took so long for me to get him to understand that I needed someone who saw me as the entire me & not a 'submissive' idea.
I knew my body, I knew my mind. I trusted myself completely when asking for what I wanted. I was a whole person, I still am a whole person.

What I needed was someone willing to put the time and effort into building and nurturing our relationship with me. Someone who was confident enough to step forward talk with me, listen to me, work through problems, collaborate together to create solutions and want a functioning healthy mutually satisfying relationship - with me and my body.

What he did before he meet me wasn't important. He had a woman who needed the total opposite of what I need from him. So the experiences with her were irrelevant to me. How he used a flogger on her makes me vomit. The language he used to talk to her made me roll my eyes.

Genuine relationships are built by two people in the here and now bringing their individual strengths into the relationship to facilitate a satisfying healthy space.

Here, there is no him & I just us.

(in reply to ExiledTyrant)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: New dominants? - 3/1/2016 1:34:36 AM   
princessmika


Posts: 50
Joined: 12/10/2012
From: USA
Status: offline 		I think it would really depend on the person. Surely, one should be honest with their history but, from my experience, things are either going to click or not click regardless of history. :)

< Message edited by princessmika -- 3/1/2016 1:36:23 AM >

_____________________________

www.PraisePrincessMika.com

(in reply to Commonplace)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: New dominants? - 3/1/2016 7:47:10 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant
Meine Schwester,

I feel that deference is most likely the best clue in finding a D worth their salt. Sans deference, you just have a control freak posing as a D. I manage my life pretty well, I'm quite good at managing others lives as well... obviously, I've been named executor of more estates than I can count the last five years... but I blame deference for most of that. I manage wot I must and defer the rest to wot they can handle.

My ego is huge, but it's healthy and that gives me the luxury of handing over (deferring) job X to the one more capable. I'm not a fan of the railroad, so I'll avoid anyone that strikes me as Casey Jones, and if it looks like I have to micromanage someone, I am out.

All that said, I am not a top. I do wot I like, I will do it at home, I will do it at a club, I will do it in a box, I will do it with a fox, I will do it here or there, I will do it anywhere... but that's the difference, I am not a playing top. I don't need to accumulate a broad array of top skills to get out and play. Wot I do is intense, intimate, and pretty exclusive. That's the reason I often say "D" isn't the golden panty ticket, a well skilled top is the golden panty ticket. D's do wot they like, not necessarily (if ever) do wot you like.

Jus sayin

There are times on these boards I almost feel as though it's unfair to the reader because we've talked about this at length and they aren't privy to those conversations. We're pretty aware of the others philosophies.

This is very much why I try to explain to folks that I see topping and bottoming, as opposed to D/s and/or M/s in an entirely different light. I wouldn't be doing some of the same things to bottoms, sans negotiation, that I absolutely will do in a D/s context. The structure is completely different to me. It may *look* like the same thing to the outside observer because people focus on the act, totally skipping over the mindset.

I think that's what confuses some people. The fact that many Dominants are also tops gets a lot of people to think it's all interchangeable when it's really not.



I was waiting for just such a reply. I agree and you touch on what I've found since coming to the net. On the Internet and these sites, I've found some terminology very malleable or even interchangeable.

Back in the day and I have described it as such, submission was inspired. Some will call it seduction because that submission was sexual or there wasn't any. No munches no signs or labels on our foreheads proclaiming dominance or submission. No 'tops' no 'bottoms' no toys, pain or rope. BDSM denoted kinky, sexual, fetish pleasures...not a lifestyle.

Plus, there is also the idea that I've been told many times since discovering the meaning to terms...top is a sadist and bottom...is a masochist.

Now being a dominant personality is a completely different so-called dynamic. "to the outside observer because people focus on the act, totally skipping over the mindset." That would also suggest a good measure of success in a person's walk(s) in life. Success around most all people while at times still to some, coming off as an asshole or at least somewhat of a jerk, maybe even a loud mouth or blowhard. So dominance is discovered in time. Like I've seen and agree "Dominance and power are often wielded much more effectively when...not displayed." Anonymous

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to LadyPact)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: New dominants? - 3/1/2016 8:00:04 AM   
LadyPact


Posts: 32566
Status: offline 		If I'm getting this right, it's like the old axiom of being a Lady. If you have to tell people you are one, you're probably not.


_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: New dominants? - 3/1/2016 8:37:37 AM   
SuaveGentleman


Posts: 64
Joined: 2/14/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

FR

I would accept a very new dominant depending on how humble his approach is. If he approaches very honestly like, "I have the desire to dominate sexually but I have no experience, can you guide me to be a good dominant to you?"

I would have no problem with this.

It's usually when new snotty dominant starts being know all, and "You're not submissive enough" when they can't have things go their way. And they think being a dominant is all about just ordering women who call themselves submissive around. That's when it's like, idiots! Whatever!




I cannot emphasize how sweet this is. Thank you for your input, it is truly beautiful.

- asn

(in reply to Greta75)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: New dominants? - 3/1/2016 10:56:26 AM   
theHouseofAvalon


Posts: 87
Joined: 1/9/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: princessmika

I think it would really depend on the person. Surely, one should be honest with their history but, from my experience, things are either going to click or not click regardless of history. :)



http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4886622

Three of us here are being so very honest! If I like him, then me and my butt can (and did!!!) work on his striping skills together! fun fun fun!

Master Quote provided by a girl of Avalon


(in reply to princessmika)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: New dominants? - 3/1/2016 11:43:13 AM   
Bhruic


Posts: 985
Joined: 4/11/2012
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline 		Considering the difficulty many people experience in trying to find a suitable D/s partner at all, I think "new" vs "experienced" seems like an unnecessary criteria to add. So long as you are compatible, why complicate the process?

_____________________________

pronounced "VROOick"

(in reply to ExiledTyrant)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: New dominants? - 3/1/2016 2:39:07 PM   
LadyPact


Posts: 32566
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic
Considering the difficulty many people experience in trying to find a suitable D/s partner at all, I think "new" vs "experienced" seems like an unnecessary criteria to add. So long as you are compatible, why complicate the process?

I think we see this one differently. I lean more towards what criteria is important to an individual. If that is something that a person has decided is one of the qualities that a person wants in a prospective partner, who am I to argue?


_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to Bhruic)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: New dominants? - 3/1/2016 3:06:24 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline
quote:

As a submissive or a slave or a little, would you choose a top (dom / master / daddy) who is new and does not have past experience?

Not only would I, but I did, two of them in fact.

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to SuaveGentleman)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: New dominants? - 3/1/2016 3:11:17 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline 		Regarding taking classes, well who taught the teachers? Somewhere along the line there was somebody who just figured it out on their own.

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: New dominants? - 3/1/2016 3:48:45 PM   
LadyPact


Posts: 32566
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
Regarding taking classes, well who taught the teachers? Somewhere along the line there was somebody who just figured it out on their own.

The BDSM-type topping part? Most of this stuff, we stole from other walks of life. None of it is 'original'. We just ripped off other ideas and made it fun.

Where does fire play (especially cupping) come from? Needles? Shibari? Wax?

All of this stuff had vanilla roots in other things. We just perverted it for our own purposes.



< Message edited by LadyPact -- 3/1/2016 3:49:08 PM >

_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: New dominants? - 3/1/2016 5:55:07 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline 		Yeah, and so classes are needed because....?

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to LadyPact)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: New dominants? - 3/1/2016 6:15:10 PM   
LadyPact


Posts: 32566
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
Yeah, and so classes are needed because....?

Hey, I'll step up to the plate. So I can learn how to do it.

Just because certain acts have been being done out there in the universe doesn't mean **I** know how to do them.

People have been tying their shoes for how long? How did you learn? Somebody taught you.

I'm a tactile learner. Until I put my hands on something, I don't know how to do it. I can grab certain written instructions and understand a concept. I don't consider myself knowing how to do something unless I've accomplished it with my own hands.



_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: New dominants? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   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

0.139