Gauge
Posts: 5689
Joined: 6/17/2005 Status: offline
|
First and foremost, I need to credit ThatDizzyChick for the question, although this has been bugging me for some time and I think it needs to be discussed. While I am guilty of chuckling at people within the age group of 18-25 that cluck about being Masters, because it takes years to master anything in daily life, let alone become a 'Master' in BDSM, and I am not talking about honorifics. For myself, being a Master takes time, patience and a whole lot of self discipline. And I will give anyone, at any age, the benefit of the doubt. I was a dominant ever since I can remember, although due to life circumstances and other contributing factors, it didn't always shine the way it should. In school, kids always rallied around my leadership, while I was an introvert at heart, I never realized that I had some kind of power that made people to allow me to lead them. It took me years until I had a name for what was naturally coming from me. Hell... I was in a band, and they were voting on who would be the leader, and to my surprise, they chose me, and that is not something I wanted, but I did it, and I did it well. So, my question to this community is: At what age is it acceptable to claim to be a dominant? While my 'awakening' took years, some may have a firmer grasp on who they are, and regardless of their age, who am I to discount that? It has been said a lot on these boards that you are either a dominant or you are not... so... why must age factor into that definition? The whole point of this is that I am trying to understand why youth could disqualify you from being a dominant personality?
_____________________________
"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.
|