|
FirmhandKY -> RE: What dominants here think they are not a switch...? (7/29/2006 12:56:44 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Satyr6406
(clipped)
It is my firm belief that dominants and submissives should each try and "spend time on the other side of the fence". The question is: to what extent?
I know that I could never submit to a person. However, I believe that a "dominant" that doesn't serve something - be it a higher power or a set of principles - is not, actually a dominant.
I spent 11 years in the Army and, while I never submitted to a person, I submitted to their authority, which was granted them by the Army (and by my system of beliefs and values).
There are many in this lifestyle who are in it primarily for sexual gratification. That's fine but, that makes everything we do geared to a one dimensional plane.
(I KNOW this is going to start trouble) Those that are only interested in the sexual aspect, to me, are "Tops" or "bedroom dominants". Again, that's fine but, that is NOT "lifestyle". Lifestyle is how you live; not just how you play.
Now, to tie it all in: What I mean by serving "something" is ...
If a submissive gives herself to me, in my mind, it's not just so I can cum (I do enjoy that part) but, it is because she is showing the deepest form (I believe) of trust and faith that I will care for and guide her better even than she could do for herself (in her mind). It's a tremendous responsibility, which REQUIRES that I feel a sense of duty and obligation to a set of principles (or God).
The converse is that if a lady submits to me and I only want to use her for a cum ashtray, I am negating the whole of her offering.
Let me reiterate: I am not putting down "Tops" or "Bedroom dominants". I am saying that there are "dominants" that serve only their sexual wants and desires. That's their choice. There is no one way. No one has written the book on this. In my mind, however, a submissive that finds a dominant that "serves something outside him/herself is a lucky submissive, indeed.
As far as this dominant submitting: when I was married, I "walked on eggshells" and "acquiesced" to try and keep peace in the house. So, while I would never claim to be "submissive" (God bless them all because they have a rough go), I know what it is to put another persons needs/wants/desires in front of mine (and I don't much like it. Hence; the divorce LOL!)
Michael
Interesting take on "gotta be a submissive sometime in your life to be a good dominant".
I've thought about this issue a fair amount, because I'm neither a "bed room only" dominant, nor do I believe someone must experience submissiveness in the bdsm context in order to be a good dominant.
I also believe that (other than in some peoples' fantasies) no one can be the ur-dominant in all aspects of their life, at all times. Life just doesn't go along with that.
But I don't think that someone is "submissive" just because they can hold their emotions and ego in check in order to function smoothly in a structured environment, be it social, business or militarily.
I also served in the Army. I was an infantry officer (among other skills) and also spent time at Ft Bragg and other points worldwide with some of the worlds "special" people. I have had black hats "dominate" me. I've had RI's "dominate" me. I've followed orders that made me nauseous.
In the civilian world I've worked in businesses, and ran businesses. I've had to "be submissive" with clients who wanted stupid things, made stupid and inane demands.
I've been in situations with law enforcement where any "dominant" showing on my part could have gotten me into major trouble, and "being submissive" was the smartest course of action.
I've been in family and social situations where coming on like gang-busters in charge and dominant could destroy lives or hurt people, so I've restrained the demon of my ego in order to accomplish the social goal I thought best. I've apologized when I felt I wasn't at fault, and I've let others think they were right about something when I knew it would go bad for them, because in the long run, it was the best way to "teach" them.
But never, in any of those situations or times did I ever have an epiphany of "oh, yeah ... I like not being in charge" or wanted to "be submissive". To anyone. Ever.
The thought of being tied up and such? *shakes head* Ever gone through SERE training?
Does this mean I wouldn't "let" someone tie me up as an experiment such as CreativeDom did? No, I could do that. No skin off my teeth. But I know now that my reaction wouldn't be one of pleasure for the lack of control. It would be a watchful sense of the social dynamic, and a waiting for something else, whatever the reason I acquiesced to such a scenario.
All that being said, I think I'm not in the middle of the Bell curve when it comes to dominance (or submission). I do think that many dominant people could and do benefit from experiences of submission, just as mentoring and roleplay help to teach other social skills unrelated to WIITWD.
But not all leaders need the experience of being a follower in order to be good leaders. Many, yes. All? No.
Your take on the situation I see more as a comment about why a person even lives life. Are they inner directed or outer directed? You seem to be saying (and I agree) that the "best" or "most healthy" dominant (or individual human being, for that matter) is one who has a focus outside of themselves, rather than pure ego.
With this I agree. It's the difference, I think, between an ego driven (in the bad sense) person who is greedy, selfish and petty versus the strong minded confident individual who understands that the world doesn't really revolve around them, but who makes rational and reasoned efforts to be a motivating and decisive factor in their own lives and the lives of the people that they choose to be involved with.
I could be wrong, though. (not [:)] )
FHky
PS. For a really good discussion thread, ask about the difference between leadership and dominance.
|
|
|
|
