RE: Vanishing Dominance (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

LotusSong -> RE: Vanishing Dominance (10/5/2006 6:41:02 AM)

Tangent question:
 
Do you find this phenomenon more prevalent in Dommes or Doms?


edited to correct ONE lousy letter!!!!



Celeste43 -> RE: Vanishing Dominance (10/5/2006 6:50:59 AM)

I've thought about this before, not specifically in relationship to marriage but just as what happens in a long term relationship. Obviously things change a great deal from the beginning. In the beginning he had to train me in every area. These days I don't need to be told "too much sugar in the tea" or whatever, I've already learned it and do it right. I don't need attention paid to the rules because I know them now and only break one if it's important.

Sometimes it does feel that I'm doing all the submitting and he isn't doing the dominance until I look and pay attention. Do I still have these rules to follow? Yes. Does he ask me why I broke one if I do? Certainly. The truth is that we are now like a well oiled machine, he doesn't need to break in the new engine.

However what I do need is what I have come to call "random acts of dominance". If we're standing in the kitchen desperately waiting for the kettle to come to a boil, that's a good time to put his forearm around my throat and drag me back against him. Am I getting too riled up over a discussion? Good time to put his hand over my mouth, quieting me and calming me.

I'm getting as much dominance, just in very different ways.



CelticPrince -> RE: Vanishing Dominance (10/5/2006 10:14:58 AM)

Greetings,

There have been many good observations made and I would tend to ditto many, but the core of the matter is with rare exceptions, marriage will always foul up the D/s dynamic.

Yes there may be lots of but, buts, but having been in the life for a couple of decades and having mentored many, in only one instance did I see the D/s dynamic survive.

CP



RiotGirl -> RE: Vanishing Dominance (10/5/2006 10:17:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


I thank god that no matter which direction everything goes, at least I got that bag of chips out of it.


nu uh they're mine!  Hands off cloud boy. 



Iskander -> RE: Vanishing Dominance (10/5/2006 10:42:47 AM)

Blame Sigfried and Roy... [8|]

Iskander...



MistressMelissa -> RE: Vanishing Dominance (10/5/2006 9:11:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong
Say you found someone, and they are all that and a bag of chips.. you collar.. then you decide to  make it permanent and legal (marriage) going for the coveted 24/7 D/s lifestyle, then the Dominant (male and/or female) begins to be not so dominant anymore.. in fact- it all but disappears... why do you think that is?
 
CAN you base a complete marriage solely on D/s as it's foundation.. or do you need a conventional base and have the D/s be the icing on the cake?


Much depends upon the original relationship. Since everyone appears to have their own definition about what Ds and the other terms mean, there is little way of knowing what effect it will have upon the marriage. Often people view marriage as the finish line and once they have their slip of paper, they feel they are done. In reality, it is just the beginning.

If the relationship views Ds as a way to spice up their lives and it's a little role play every now and then, then the marriage will probably have little effect upon the Ds. If the Ds relationship is based around a power exchange, there is a large chance that marriage will mess it up.

When a dominant falls in love with their little one, they are more likely to start over looking little mistakes. They start making excuses for the slips in service. Yes, you know they have had a bad day at the office or with the kids where rotten today, so you start making excuses for them. The little one's themselves, lets their level of service suffer cause they have had an bad day. Yes, we are all human... But "love" takes away the dominants edge. Likewise it's much harder to be the disciplinarian when half your house hangs in the balance. When divorce bankrupts must couples, would you risk "putting your foot down" if it meant the next call might be from a divorce attorney?

In the end, the little one is not happy cause their dominant is not dominant any more and the dominant is not happy cause the little some isn't submissive anymore.

Romantic love which is the base of marriage and the care and concern an owner has for their property are two different things. It all depends upon what those involved seek from their relationship. The many benefits that marriage offers, can also undo the power exchange which you tried to create.

This is a concept that few understand until it is too late. Each too their own, but marriage will not be on my plate.



Amaros -> RE: Vanishing Dominance (10/6/2006 5:40:51 AM)

You know, males will do just about anything to attract a mate, and if being good doesn't work, they'll be bad.

I've pretty much been dominant since I was a child, but I did go theorugh a very liberal "girly man" phase, It just didn't pull the chicks.

Otherwise, I dunno - if somebody challenges my donminance, I usually say "fine, you lead, I'll follow" - usually they flounder around for a while and then hand me back the sceptre.

There is a difference between dominance and leadership you see, leadership is not just being able to bully or coerce people into bending people to your will, leadership is about self dicipline and vision, including being able to both instill dicipline and show mercy.

To follow is to acknowledge when somebody has more dicipline and vision than you do, and that it's a vision that's in your best interests to facilitate - and a good follower is not a just a passive tail, wagging along behind.

In the military for instance, when the shit hits the fan, it generally not rank that counts, it's experience and leadership ability - a buck private can be in de facto charge of a given unit under a stressfull situation, and nobody stops to sort out ranks, but everybody works together to facilitate the vision - whether that's getting a bird back in action, or securing an objective without getting everybodies ass shot off.

As an aside, this in fact, is an explicit tactical protocall: the first person on the scene is the designated "scene leader", or scene commander, and automatically outranks everybody until relieved by someone with more experience, even if it's the dishwasher. And the reason is that stopping to play "who's in charge", is probobly going to get somebody killed, but it often even applies in non-emergency situations - airmen, seamen, or privates are often found in charge of shops, leaving the ranking NCO to handle paperwork, and otherwise facilitate smooth operation.

Anyway, I'd say it's time to assess the relationship, who has the vision? Who has the dicipline? It's possible that he has the vision, while you have the dicipline, in which case you might have to train him to dominate you.



Amaros -> RE: Vanishing Dominance (10/6/2006 6:01:58 AM)

In short, sometimes to follow, you have to lead - and sometimes to be a good leader, you have to follow.



Mavis -> RE: Vanishing Dominance (10/6/2006 8:34:15 AM)

This is turning into a really great thread. 
Amaros, Your illustration about military leadership is so true, and things should work that way, but i can easily see the private running a shop while NCO covers paperwork could end up with an attitude of "Hey.. YOU're getting paid to run this joint, how about I do some paperwork for a while and YOU run the place?"  Course, the response to that is, "Because I said told you to run the shop while I do paperwork." lol  Maybe the issue in "vanishing dominance" isn't that the Top-side isn't making less decisions, it's that we're not liking the decisions made?

MistressMelissa, well said.  so maybe if the Person in Charge starts behaving like they're "keeping the peace", rather than exercising authority,   the person under should start looking for what behavior/ resistance is triggering the reluctance of the Dom/me to do so. we do have to take responsibility to be easy to lead.

i like what Celeste said about getting as much dominance, but in different ways.  i can see how not recognising that would be akin to holding a Dom/me to a behavior rut, "do it in the old familiar ways or i won't recognise it" is pretty unfair!  we ask for growth, then don't accept the changes that come with it.. hmmm. thank you.



MistressMelissa -> RE: Vanishing Dominance (10/6/2006 9:20:18 AM)

Greetings,

Amatos, as one who as spent 6 years or so of my life in the Navy I understand what you are saying about the difference between leadership and being domineering, but to me leadership is part of being a dominant. I can also appreciate the chain of command and the structure of the military. To this day I can still remember the peace that I would feel returning to base from the chaos of the civilian world. To return to a world where I understood the rules and what was expected of me. I did not always agree with the rules but I knew what they were.

Different relationship require different levels of authority. Marriage is about compromise. That is what I often hear. There are many types of relationships. In a owner/property relationship it's about the rules and structure being firmly set. When I decided to add another to my relationship, my girl was given the choice of accepting the new conditions or being granted her release. I would not hold her in a relationship she no longer wished to be in. After a three hour "discussion" I flatly told her I was not going to back down. Her response was "good, if you did I would leave." In other words she spent three hours testing me to see if I would back down. Once I had show her that I was going to stand firm in my decision, order was once again established in her world and we moved on. Is she totally comfortable with my choice? Nope, but she has chosen to accept it and is working very hard at accepting it. It's my job to find ways to help her on her journey of acceptance. I created this issue it is my responsibility to deal with the ramifications of it.

In a marriage would most "dominants" risk their marriage to make such a choice? Even now, some of you are probably thinking I'm an ass and others of you are nodding your heads in agreement. Every relationship is different and thus there is no clear cut answer. As I stated before, my relationships are based around the power dynamic and not a romantic relationship. Phoenix and my relationship began when her last master and I had a disagreement. He said "if you think you can do so much better, you take her". I replied OK, he told her he was giving her to me and to go with me. That was four years ago. Over that time I have learned to care for her and she has become very important to me. In the beginning she taught me how to be the dominant she need me to be. The other day she informed me that somewhere along the way I had ceased being her dominant and had become her owner.

No, I don't think others should live as I do, but I do understand why some claim that marriage messed up their Ds relationship.

Marvis,
Yes, if you are in peacekeeper mode you are not being a dominant. Maybe that is an easier way for some to see my point.

Thank you for the discussion,



Nimkii -> RE: Vanishing Dominance (10/6/2006 9:27:51 AM)

weither your are married or not it should not change the person you are. If it does, you were never really that person in the first place.



LadyRope -> RE: Vanishing Dominance (10/6/2006 9:36:38 AM)

very well said spanklette..



bignipples2share -> RE: Vanishing Dominance (10/6/2006 9:40:26 AM)


Amaros, I always enjoy your postings and find them facinating. Thank you.
To address the subject. I have to ditto what deltadawn has said. I also have to say my last long term partner, who I was married to, presented himself a lot like Bita does.
It was based on love and the dynamic was usually relaxed, but in place all of the time. Highly sexual, often playful, serious, everything rolled into one.
I look back with fond memories of the times he'd appear naked bringing me hot tea, sometimes my just drinking it and holding him, other times..well...I digress <heavy sigh> I think you can have it all throughout the whole relationship.
I believe any relationship changes when it progresses from dating, to moving in together, then into marriage. They say the 1st year is the hardest and I think even if you live together for 5 years, then marry, you relive that hardest 1st year all over again.  I think each partner relaxes more at each stage and not always is that good. Just an example: One starts coming over and brings their toothbrush, they put the cap back on the toothpaste every time, then they move in together, now they're leaving the cap off sometimes, then they get married and now they're squeezing from the top of the tube, leaving the cap off and not rinsing out the sink. First it was because they were in a hurry, then it becomes habit. I think it's just in how we deal with/react to each stage. The whole relationship requires daily attention and care, so it never gets to the stage that you're now being driven crazy by dried out toothpaste and a dirty sink wondering what the hell happened.

~Big



juliaoceania -> RE: Vanishing Dominance (10/6/2006 9:58:57 AM)

Aramos,

Thanks for this contribution to the discussion. I have often been selected a reluctant leader for many things... I think that part of the reason is because I have not sought it. In my experience people who base their ego on the amount of control they are given over others in vanilla circumstances can have that Napoleon Complex, they are feeding their ego and that makes them terrible domineering bullies... I have had these sorts in power over me in different circumstances.

Many submissives are more than adequate to the task of leadership, which is a character trait in many ways. Being fair, compassionate, logical, and having a good sense of priorities does not make one a dominant or a submissive in my mind. There are many submissives that are in control in their vanilla existence.

In my opinion the desire for dominance and submission are not external to people, they are internal motivations. Marriage licenses, children, and high powered careers do not define submission or dominance in intimate relationships... the desire to cede power or to accept that which is ceded does.

Marriage has been accused of ruining not only D/s, but sex period, for many couples. It is the individuals and their expectations from the relationship and their desire to be involved in a power exchange that are determining factors in my mind... not a piece of paper that gives legal definition to the responsibilites of a relationship... in traditional marriage vows the wife swears to obey the husband... I see this as the essense of D/s. Many vanillas live D/s without even labelling it as such.

I agree with bignipplestoshare your posts are usually very thought provoking




testlimit -> RE: Vanishing Dominance (10/6/2006 12:56:20 PM)

Can you base a relationship on D/s alone? No. Sorry. If that's all there is positive about the relationship, then it's not going to work out. D/s is just a means of describing the way we interact with one another. You do it in the vanilla world and in every relationship you have, parent/child, employer/employee, boyfriend/girlfriend, husband/wife (or double either), friends, assocates, that girl you just met at the bar last night.

And it doesn't remain static. It changes with how well you know someone, how you're feeling, how their feeling, what outside influence are going on.

I just recently ended a relationship....badly; but throughout I was constantly having to adjust to various "crisis." Part of this was backing off on how "Dominant" I was acting at one point or steping it up a notch on several issues. It wasn't a deeply comitted relationship, but I was trying to ease toward that.

To get to what the OP was discussing: If said Dom/slave/sub/Whatever was "all that and a bag of chips" then I'm assuming that you mean by that, there was more to them than just that they were Dom/sub. There would be a similar outlook on life, a compatable sense of humor/idea of entertainment, something else to recommend them as a life partner.

(I'm just poping these out as I think about them they aren't in a coherent order) The D/s dynamic is just kind of THERE in how you interact with others. In the Lifestyle we're just a lot more aware of it and as a result we sometimes fixate on it a little too much. It is not something you need to base a relationship SOLELY on. It can be a cause of attraction, but should not be the ONLY reason for the relationship. Even if you both mesh perfectly on what your ideas of what a Dom and a sub should be, that does NOT mean that everything else can be ignored. It might be that you share other outlooks on life, a similar frame of reference on enough things that THAT might be a good foundation for a relationship. That s/he is the "perfect submissive/Dominant" is not the only criteria that should be considered in a budding relationship.

And really...things change. That is the one constant in life. Even if you think you don't, you change...or you're dead. The only thing you can really do is establish communication. Talk to each other, ask questions about how they feel about this or that; if you find that they're slacking off on something and it's bothering you TELL THEM. If that's a problem then the relationship isn't what it needs to be. MOST relationships aren't, that's why we have a 50% divorce rate in this country...and honestly it should be much higher given the number of disfunctional marriages there are that stay together for one reason or another.

This is just my opinion here, but, I think we need to open ourselves to the idea of letting people go. Not at just any sign of trouble but if there is a problem and they don't want to work on it or you don't want to work on it then we should be open to at least discussing amicably splitting  up. I realize there are complications and that severing emotional ties can be traumatic, but is it any less traumatic to hang on tooth and nail to a relationship one or both (or more if it's poly) of the parties aren't willing to do what it takes to fix? And even if YOU'RE willing to work on it, if they aren't then clinging on isn't going to help matters. Either learn to live with the problem, work on fixing the problem, or leave. Harsh, I know, but Life isn't easy. It could be, but we love complicating it.



Mavis -> RE: Vanishing Dominance (10/6/2006 3:13:16 PM)

akin to the "peacekeeper mode"   is "puss-keeper mode" 

Once the subs company is more important than the power dynamic,  it's all downhill.   This isn't just a marriage phenomenon.  i experienced it a lot when i was just in the talking/ getting to know you phase when i was seeking.  That's what prompted me to make my one hard limit "Romantic love or expectations or demonstrations of anything like it."  If i want a candle-lit dinner with my partner, i'll have it with my partner/Dominant, not a Master, thanks.  <shudders>



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.1875