|
adaddysgirl -> RE: Vanilla/lifestyle Dominants (10/27/2006 4:19:58 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rover
Being "dominant" is not unique to BDSM, and as has been mentioned previously in this thread, submissives/slaves are also dominant in certain aspects of their lives (work, friends, family, etc). Having said that, there is often a difference between the vanilla definition of a term, and the lifestyle definition of a term. In the vanilla usage "dominant" is used to describe someone's position relative to someone else (ie: a heirarchy), whereas the lifestyle usage of "dominant" is used to describe the individual themselves, their state of being, without any comparison to anyone else (ie: one either is or is not a dominant, regardless of their position relative to another).
Though I'm interested in hearing other opinions, I'm wondering how they would not make a "Dominant" into a "submissive" as an employee (ie: their position is relative to another). I am thankfully self-employed.
John
Okay, i had to think about this for a minute. i guess you can say that to dominate means to take control. Yes, some submissives may be required to dominate if they have kids or perhaps in a position at work. Who knows? my boss may have to take control at work but be submissive at home.
But i also see this working the other way around as well. Unless a guy is self employed, he most likely has to 'defer' to some boss at work.
So it would seem that situational dominance or submission is not necessarily indicative of the person's actual personality, disposition, character, or whatever term you want to use.
Using myself as an example, did i prefer to be the one in control over my kids? No. Do i prefer to be the one that has to be in control at work? No. But i do what i have to do (and i do it well too...lol). Does a dom prefer to defer to his boss? i would guess not....but he obviously needs to keep his job.
So to dominate may mean to control another....which might be interpreted as one is a dominant....but that may not necessarily be the case....as we do have to control at times even though we are not dominants. (Wow...did that make any sense? lol)
Many times in the lifestyle, someone will say that they 'have been dominant all their lives'. i won't question that but does that mean that they could not openly express (or act on) that dominance until they got into D/s? So if they were in a vanilla marriage and felt dominant but couldn't act on it....were they vanilla dominants?
i also see a class of 'non dominants' in vanilla. Most of the guys i know are not dominant....yet not submissive....in their relationships (such as my brothers). And they have no inkling to be (that i am aware of, of course).
Hmmm....this is rather interesting [8|]
DG
|
|
|
|
