Definition of a Dom and a Sub (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master



Message

AlexAussieSub -> Definition of a Dom and a Sub (11/2/2006 9:03:10 PM)

Even though feminism has changed a lot in areas like the workplace, to me it still seems that when it comes to sex and relationships in the vanilla world, even in Western society men are still dominant and women are still submissive. The people that are different are probably like this for very similar reasons that people become gay or lesbian. This necessitates a scene for, and provides definitions for, Dommes and male Subs.

What makes a Dom different from a boyfriend/husband, and a female Sub different from a girlfriend/wife? Is it just that you are explicit about what vanilla chemistry seems to be about? Do you have a theory like mine that provides for a difference? Do you disagree with what I said about the vanilla world?

Female Subs will probably also have interesting ideas on this subject, and anyone else should feel free to comment too. [sm=smile.gif]



Focus50 -> RE: Definition of a Dom and a Sub (11/3/2006 1:53:38 AM)

The majority of vanilla relationships aren't as equal as they're portrayed (in Western society); one partner often does defer to the other in the daily operations.  And nor is it always or even often the male predominantly in ascendancy....  True, in abusive realtionships, the normally physically superior male means they're usually the abusers.  But ignoring abusive relationships here, one vanilla deferring to the other seems more about a melding  of individual convenience than any formally agreed control dynamic, such as D/s or M/s.
 
While a submissive does agree to forgo many rights within a D/s relationship, he/she does so out of personal need and desire, just as Dom/mes have a complimenting need to take control of the submissive.  So yes, a D/s or M/s relationship is specifically founded on an unequal control dynamic whereas a similar vanilla relationship has evolved more out of convenience.
 
The main difference to me is that I found vanilla partners exasperating because having the physical capability to take charge in my own right is at odds with my own principles and conscience of not being formally empowered by the other to do so - I'm NOT an abuser.  And while many women do appreciate a take-charge man in their life, it'a rarely appreciated all the time....  And I can't function like that; of often having to "walk on egg-shells" because I'm not formally empowered to take charge all the time....  But I function quite naturally within D/s where I can simply choose the times I wanna share with my girl as equal adults.
 
And the physical kink is a different level altogether.  I could tie up a vanilla as part of sex, for eg, but not just as a primal means of exerting control.  And then there were those women who thought it natural to wanna take their turn tying the ropes - NO chance!  Seems individual needs were always clashing and that level of uncertainty meant frustration was inevitable.
 
I can spot a dominant partner in many vanilla relationships, indeed, gay relationships too, but that doesn't define them as Dominant (or submissive) anymore than riding a motorcycle defines you as a "full-on" bikie....  The differences are usually obvious to intelligent adults though (curiously) not always easy to accurately define.
 
Focus.



Lashra -> RE: Definition of a Dom and a Sub (11/3/2006 2:10:53 AM)

I have never been submissive in any of my personal relationships it just is not something that is natural for me. Hence I look for submissive males or those with submale tendancies. For me that is what I find appealing and a turnon. However I have dated a few vanilla men who thought due to their gender alone that automatically made them the dominant half, of course those only lasted a few dates and I was done with them.

I've noticed that in alot of vanilla relationships that some women are prepared to allow a man to lead as long as he does it with her as a equal decision making partner. If that makes sense. I think some females allow a male to believe that he is the dominant partner for ego sake and as long as things are done pretty much her way they are happy. But if they aren't done her way, she will drop the ego stroking and put her foot down. I have seen a lot of that in vanilla relationships.I know growing up I always heard about the fragile male ego and that women should stroke it to keep the man happy. Personally I do not believe in ego stroking anyone just for the sake of doing it.

I personally do not know many women who allow a man to have total power. That could be because I tend to be friends with females who are of the more dominant variety.

In the work place most people find their submissive side because they want to keep a paycheck coming in. Almost everyone has a boss that they have to relate too if you know what I mean. This is one of the reasons I started my own company. I do not take orders well at all and as my own boss, it is not a problem.[:)]

~Lashra





Kalira -> RE: Definition of a Dom and a Sub (11/3/2006 2:29:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlexAussieSub

Even though feminism has changed a lot in areas like the workplace, to me it still seems that when it comes to sex and relationships in the vanilla world, even in Western society men are still dominant and women are still submissive. The people that are different are probably like this for very similar reasons that people become gay or lesbian. This necessitates a scene for, and provides definitions for, Dommes and male Subs.

What makes a Dom different from a boyfriend/husband, and a female Sub different from a girlfriend/wife? Is it just that you are explicit about what vanilla chemistry seems to be about? Do you have a theory like mine that provides for a difference? Do you disagree with what I said about the vanilla world?

Female Subs will probably also have interesting ideas on this subject, and anyone else should feel free to comment too. [sm=smile.gif]

Up till I was 22, I never even knew what a D/s, M/s relationship was. However, I was raised to defer to the 'men' in the family. The women were expected to cook, clean, wait on, etc to the men. It was just something that I was raised with, and accepted as normal and ok with myself; I took it with me into my relationship with my first Master. It was not until I had met him that I was shown that it could be taken to a different level.

According to him, the one time I asked him why he decided to get involved with me, according to him it was because he saw the potential for a M/s relationship with me ( yes, I was vanilla as they come in regards to definitions ) .

Personally, I think the only thing that makes it different from a vanilla relationship that operates in the same way is the fact that we label ourselves differently; and perhaps, like focus50 said, there is the knowledge and acceptance of deference to another.



AlexAussieSub -> RE: Definition of a Dom and a Sub (11/3/2006 4:02:34 AM)

I think if you've never been submissive in your personal relationships it's because you underwent the life experiences that made you a Domme at an early age.

About what you "always heard about the fragile male ego and that women should stroke it to keep the man happy", this seems to me to be strong evidence for what I said about women being submissive in the vanilla world. What you heard would be the last thing a Domme would say. I would say that most of the women that you talk about who treat the man as dominant are doing it because they want to be submissive, and then justifying it to themselves as just massaging his ego because they have a hang-up about it.

With what you said about vanilla women being prepared to allow the man to lead but with her as an equal decision making partner: I think that what's going on here is analagous to a Sub having limits as to where a Domme can take things, but apart from that wanting her in charge. I'm a Sub but I know I would put my foot down if I had my limits dictated to me! This seems to me to be an extremely strong parallel, does anyone else see it?

If the above sounds sexist, I don't mean it to be. Subs should be proud of who we are. But looking at not just my own but other people's relationships, what I've described seems to be what most people have inside them. Which is why there needs to be a scene for those that are different.



AlexAussieSub -> RE: Definition of a Dom and a Sub (11/3/2006 4:30:22 AM)

Interesting that you think that there are a lot of vanilla relationships where the woman is in charge. With the exception of one girl I was seeing in high school (who I unfortunately lost contact with after we finished), the women I've met outside the scene didn't really have it in them to be dominant more than momentarily.

When I'm talking about vanilla women being submissive to their boyfriends/husbands, I'm talking about them doing it because they want to, because they only feel attracted to someone who they trust with their submission, not because they're forced to do it. Pretty much the same reason I give for why a Sub submits to a Domme.

The whole "walking on egg shells" argument makes a lot of sense to me, and would probably be helpful in explaining to vanilla people what being a Dom is about.

Totally agree with what you say about a dominant partner in gay relationships. I think perhaps guys seeking out a dominant partner is caused by gay genes, and guys need to have certain life experiences on top of that to make them seek a Domme, in a similar process to that which makes women lesbians. Maybe I'll need to start a topic on this sometime...

Thanks to everyone anyway[:)],



LTRsubNW -> RE: Definition of a Dom and a Sub (11/3/2006 4:42:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlexAussieSub
What makes a Dom different from a boyfriend/husband, and a female Sub different from a girlfriend/wife?


I'm actually amazed that no one's asked this before.

It's in the index finger.

They're longer in Doms and female subs.

Also, they both tend to drink mocha's as opposed to single mochachino's.



Archer -> RE: Definition of a Dom and a Sub (11/3/2006 5:36:16 AM)

The idea that dominance and or submission has anything at all to do with the why's of sexual orientation is ludirous at best.
The idea was debnuked along with all the other eugenics theories. As a observational retort to the idea I would submit for consideration the gay and lesbian Masters.  If submission made them gay or lesbian there would not be Dominant gay or lesbian partners.
The thousands of them I have met stand in stark rebuttal of your idea.

The idea that women are socialized to act in certain ways and men in others, might hold some sway. Lets see if a man shows submission towards his wife he's henpecked or some equally derissive term, if a woman is submissive towards her partner then she is demure or some other equally possitive adjective. This socialization would not change the facts of dominant or submissive nature but mearly force them to hide their true self behind a mask of socially acceptable behaviour. Now the closest thing I can come to agreement with the idea you propose is that society rewards behaviour based on gender, that does nothing to address any natural tendancy of the individual.



MsKatHouston -> RE: Definition of a Dom and a Sub (11/3/2006 6:11:41 AM)

In my vanilla associations I have found the woman to be the one in charge most of the time.  However, there is a certain amount of equality.  Big decisions are discussed together, etc.  However, money matters, the running of the household, etc. is left to the woman.  She is the organizer, she sets the budget, she decides the home decor, she decides where to eat and what, etc.  The male in these relationships often portray a certain amount of dominance and may even say he's "in charge" but then he gets "the look" from his wife and all of a sudden it's "yes dear".  This past week the husband in the most vanilla couple I know was talking about some vacation plans with my husband.  When they got some suggestions down, the hubby said "Ok let me go talk to the boss" referring to his wife.  This happens in a lot of nilla households I see and these friendships were formed at different stages, some from high school, some work associations, etc.  Yes, there are the male dominanted ones but I don't see that nearly as much.  (and I am talking about ones that are not abusive)

Even pre feminism, I think the male dominated/female submissive household dynamic was a bit skewed in favor of appearances as opposed to actuality.  Women have always had a large amount of power in relationships but it was not always as "in your face" but more subtle and women would often use different tacts to assert that power so as to keep up the facade. 

I think in vanilla relationships as a whole there is typically a more dominant personality and the dynamic is rarely a 50/50 equality.  However, I do not agree that there are very few women in those dominant roles.  I think it is likely more prevalent than one may think. 

The difference between male dominanted vanilla relationships and defined M/f D/s relationships is awareness and consent in my opinion.  Leaving out any of the kink aspects that may or may not be present in D/s relationships, it's the explicit consent and boundaries that are established.  I think Focus50 made very valid points and I agree with him.  In my F/m relationship, taking out any of the kink, we function quite similarly in daily life to many of our vanilla friends' relationships where the woman is obviously the dominant.  What makes us D/s is the consent. It did not just "happen" it was negotiated and agreed upon. 



Arpig -> RE: Definition of a Dom and a Sub (11/3/2006 6:36:12 AM)

quote:

What makes a Dom different from a boyfriend/husband, and a female Sub different from a girlfriend/wife?

As any man in a vanilla marriage can tell you, the difference is the Dom has a real say in what happens on a day-to-day basis. A female sub actually defers to her man, she doesn't just paint a nice veneer of submission over her actions.
It was being in a vanilla marriage for 12-13 years (Damn, I can't actually remember how long, maybe I am starting to block it out mentally....ever hopeful) is what made it clear to me that I do not wish to be involved in another "equal" relationship again.



nephandi -> RE: Definition of a Dom and a Sub (11/3/2006 6:55:10 AM)

In most vanilla relationships i know, the woman is actualy the one mostly in charge. My grandmother bossed my grandfather around and took lead, and the same whit most of my frinds if boyfrinds/girlfrinds the woman is either completly equal or in lead. My mother in law and father in law is just the same, she own the house and set alot of the rules in the house. Of all the cupples i have had mutch interestion hwit, only one had him as the boss.

However in most of the relationships there have been standard male/female work patters, she cook, he do the heavy lifting, butthat dont realy constitute as to who is the boss.

i myself was raised by my mother and my grandparenths whit no father involved unthil i was 15 and i was not raised to defer to a man, but i ended up submissive ayway. i do feel that women usualy but not always live less stressfull lives if they ahve more traditional female roles and let the man lead, however this is not often the case in Norway to day.



toservez -> RE: Definition of a Dom and a Sub (11/3/2006 7:10:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlexAussieSub

Even though feminism has changed a lot in areas like the workplace, to me it still seems that when it comes to sex and relationships in the vanilla world, even in Western society men are still dominant and women are still submissive. The people that are different are probably like this for very similar reasons that people become gay or lesbian. This necessitates a scene for, and provides definitions for, Dommes and male Subs.

What makes a Dom different from a boyfriend/husband, and a female Sub different from a girlfriend/wife? Is it just that you are explicit about what vanilla chemistry seems to be about? Do you have a theory like mine that provides for a difference? Do you disagree with what I said about the vanilla world?

Female Subs will probably also have interesting ideas on this subject, and anyone else should feel free to comment too. [sm=smile.gif]


I am sorry but to me this is a definition type question as it pertains what is power and what are things that define an alpha and a beta in a relationship. It can be pretty much be however you want your view to be. To me there are very few purely equal relationships. There is almost always an alpha and a beta. Most people can phrase it how they want to feel. Go back in time to the 1950's wife and  people would say she was the beta but others would point out she did almost all the decisions and family work in the day to day family life that would that not be technically the alpha.

For me Western culture has just slapped new definitions on standard roles that most people fall into in this world. Most women, not all, still are more submissive to their man and prefer it that way. Most woman will almost always describe wanting outgoing and confident men when asked about the characterisitcs we are looking for which are alpha type. Look around, what is the percentage of women who marry someone below them and/or potentially always below them on the economical food chain, who stays home when the unmentionable is sick, who comes home and fixes dinner and who usually holds the remote :).

All people and couples are different in their relationship. For most the power exchange is quite minor as many have said their may be equal power in major decisions and life choices. The difference between traditional life roles and D/s is just the level of power exchange, it is just more polarized in more severe cases and acknowledged. Throw in some kink and there you go.




AlexAussieSub -> RE: Definition of a Dom and a Sub (11/3/2006 7:14:57 AM)

Archer,

There seems to be so much variation among gay people that no one theory could ever explain homosexuality in all people. I definitely don't think all gay men are gay because they've got Sub genes, merely that some are. I've met gay masters too. Since it is almost certain that there is more than one gay gene in humans (we're a lot more complicated than fruit flies) this doesn't contradict my theory. What I was talking about was the fact that there seem to be a far greater proportion of Subs who are gay or bisexual than men in general, even once you take into account the closet cases. Doing a quick search of collarme.com I counted about a ratio of 40 Male Submissives seeking Dominant Men compared to 150 Male Submissives seeking Dominant Women in Australia in the past 2 days. Given that the ratio of gay to straight men is between 1:10 and 1:30 this illustrates my point.



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Definition of a Dom and a Sub (11/3/2006 7:16:19 AM)

What makes it different to me is the transfer of and expectation of adhering to authority.

And I think a sizeable chunk of even Ds relationships are "actually" run by the submissives.



darksdesire -> RE: Definition of a Dom and a Sub (11/3/2006 7:41:34 AM)

All of my vanilla relationships have been with dominant men (perhaps domineering might be a better term).  Whats interesting is that while i was naturally submissive, i would inevitably find myself resisting their control and fighting desperately for my own power.   While i wouldn't be trying to control the other, i would be so focused on maintaining my own footing, that there was little room for anything else in the relationship.

In a D/s relationship, there is the agreement that i relinquish that power.  i get to be my natural submissive self, and while it was something i strongly resisted in vanilla relationships, i embrace it in my D/s relationship.  i think it is because there was never an agreed upon power exchange in the vanilla relationships.  Instead, i felt like my power was consistently being taken from me simply because he was more dominant, and i resented that deeply.  In a D/s relationship, i give up my power willingly, he accepts it and appreciates it.  

The paradox is that in my D/s relationship, i am aware of my own power probably for the first time, simply because i have to find it first, and then hand it over to him.   



MstrssPassion -> RE: Definition of a Dom and a Sub (11/3/2006 7:54:54 AM)

This would just be the loosely collected demographics of your general area based on one teeny-tiny speck on the net.

So I will add one more loosely collected piece of information... most gay men look for other gay men on sites & real time locations set up for finding other gay men.

As for dominance... gender doesn't define it. Many societies have set up standards that they feel are appropriate for the little boys & little girls to grow up with. I for one found that I couldn't identify with many of these standards... they simply didn't make sense to me & I was very confused. Because of this I didn't have "boyfriends" during my school years yet I had many friendships with boys. I saw how the girls were when they were around the boys & I found their behavior to be silly if not down right sickening. I simply couldn't interact with the boys like that. As their friend I could make the rules... make things happen based on what I wanted to do or how I felt things should be done & not one of the boys had a problem with this & they often followed my lead. On the other hand when their girlfriends did this they had little or no success in doing so & because of this I was pretty much shunned & even found myself subject to some rather ugly rumors. First I was the slut who was sleeping around but eventually when no boy could say that he had been with me I became the class bull-dike since I wasn't sexually involved with any of the boys. Funny thing about it all... after all my years of heterosexual relationships I find myself in the most fulfilling relationship of my life with a transwoman, still no desire for a genetic woman but impossible to deny being in a lesbian relationship. But I digress...

I've heard it argued that the maledom/femsub relationships are too closely associated to that of the vanilla-het relationships & that femdom/malesub is a stronger expression of dominance & submission since it breaks further from the society standards of normal.

I don't think this is an argument that will win out any more so than the sub vs slave argument. Different strokes for different folks & to each his or her own.

I'm rather cool with simply defining myself & what I do & how I understand it to be & share this with those when it is relevant in conversation because no matter how confident I might be about what I think or how successful I am with my own applications... there will most likely be dozens of people out there that believe me to be completely full of shit.... & I'm ok with that.



agirl -> RE: Definition of a Dom and a Sub (11/3/2006 12:09:31 PM)

For myself, in vanilla relationships, there was a constant, subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) vying for the best position to have situations the way we wanted them.  There were no guidelines, no rules, no certainty, nothing that I felt could make living and communicating better. Even though there was much talking and discussing, there was always shifting sand.

I prefer to know exactly where I am. M/s, the way it's applied to my life just makes sense and is peaceful in a way that I appreciate.

agirl



Archer -> RE: Definition of a Dom and a Sub (11/3/2006 12:51:30 PM)

I would contend that the fact that they have already passed through one comming out that a second comming out is easier for gay men and would explain away some of that disparity.
I would further contend that the "masculine and gay" environment that Leather/ SM provides for and in fact celibrates, would be a further explanation for the level of disparity.
Remember prior to the late 1940's the "public's" image of all gay men was effeminent,there were few masculine role models for gay men to emulate or model their behaviours after.

The Dominant to submissive ratios have always been scewed towards more submissives than dominants, as evidenced by the research Gloria Braham published in Different Loving.
Bisexuality in submissives appearing inflated is something I would look at as a factor of "forced exploration" causeing more to find and admit to some level of bi sexual tendancies. Rather than bi sexual tendancies being the cause of the submissive trait.
If there is a cause and effect I would think the other direction would be more logical.
(ie more folks find they are bi beacuse they are submissive than find they are submissive because they are bi)






Focus50 -> RE: Definition of a Dom and a Sub (11/3/2006 2:12:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlexAussieSub

Interesting that you think that there are a lot of vanilla relationships where the woman is in charge. With the exception of one girl I was seeing in high school (who I unfortunately lost contact with after we finished), the women I've met outside the scene didn't really have it in them to be dominant more than momentarily.

When I'm talking about vanilla women being submissive to their boyfriends/husbands, I'm talking about them doing it because they want to, because they only feel attracted to someone who they trust with their submission, not because they're forced to do it. Pretty much the same reason I give for why a Sub submits to a Domme.

The whole "walking on egg shells" argument makes a lot of sense to me, and would probably be helpful in explaining to vanilla people what being a Dom is about.

Totally agree with what you say about a dominant partner in gay relationships. I think perhaps guys seeking out a dominant partner is caused by gay genes, and guys need to have certain life experiences on top of that to make them seek a Domme, in a similar process to that which makes women lesbians. Maybe I'll need to start a topic on this sometime...

As you can see from other replies, "dominant" females in "equal" vanilla relationships is not the least bit unusual in general.  But I've gone to some length to explain that that may be nothing more than mutual convenience.  It's always difficult, even futile, to isolate and assign specific traits as supportive evidence, even in formalised D/s relationships.
 
I have a work mate who has no idea what his shirt size is because the missus chooses (and buys) everything he wears.  If I suggest a game of golf for the coming weekend, his first response is that he'll find out what the missus has planned - and on it goes....  All these little things suggest he defers to her but who other than them really knows if it's always like that.  Maybe it's reversed in the bedroom - dunno!  And I have two other mates who outwardly defer to their wive's wishes, too.  But not always....  As with *any* relationship, the boundaries of mutual comfort often get squeezed and I've also seen what amounts to a revolt in those same vanilla relationships; where the woman becomes temporarily "shamed" for not respecting mutual equality.  But in the day to day functions of those relationships, when both seem happiest, the woman decides and runs most things.  And this is exactly why I could no longer function in such an environment - nothing is formalised and my nilla relationships were always in turmoil.  I was even accused of being some sort of (*gasp*) control freak!
 
You can see dominant or submissive traits in almost any vanilla relationship.  You can see dominant traits in submissives and vice versa.  There is no singular trait that defines either role because there'll always be individual exceptions.  The closest you get is when you compare multiple traits and responses over a variety of situations.  But most accurate of all is when a relationship has a defined, agreed and *mutually fulfilling* control dynamic.  This is perhaps the genesis of BDSM, or at least D/s and M/s relationships.
 
Hence I'll always argue that dominant or submissive tendencies (esp within BDSM) are as much or more a part of individual genetic makeup as they are home environment in our formative years.  Best example I can give is my brother and sister, or at least my brother to eliminate gender differences.  He's your "poster boy" equal nilla who'll freely make subtle shifts to either role (d or s) with his wife depending on the situation.  My sister is outwardly dominant most times but quickly backs off if confrontation is building.  I think her domination is more about a hubby who actually enjoys doing the housework and not much else around home....  lol
 
Nature abhors a vacuum.  Maroon six submissives on an island and one will take charge because someone needs to.  And I think this is what happens in egalitarian relationships - one becomes more dominant through relationship need moreso than individual need.  And my dominance is an *individual* need, which can't be fulfilled with an equal nilla partner....
 
Focus.



Lashra -> RE: Definition of a Dom and a Sub (11/3/2006 2:48:28 PM)

Yes it is the last thing a Domme, like myself would say. My Mother would say and she was submissive as she was taught to be that way, but yet she fought it because she had Dominant tendancies. If that makes sense? The reason I stated that was exactly as I said it was something that I had heard, but do I believe it? No. I believe SOME men may have fragile egos just as some females do.I believe the personality is shaped by different variables including environment and genetics to a degree. I have never agreed with the theory that one gender is naturally submissive to the other as I've seen many cases in humans <and animals> where is just ain't so.

I feel everyone should be proud of who they are regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation etc. We are all PEOPLE and should accept each other for who and what we are, not try to force people into societal molds.

~Lashra



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875