Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant?

Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (Full Version)

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

Message

juliaoceania -> Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 7:40:51 AM)
I have read a post recently about the "acid test" for finding a dominant. I am not attacking the acid test or anything, but I wanted to challenge something I read on one page that talked about it quote: Various estimates and surveys have placed the ratio of true (i.e., natural) male sexual Dominants to female sexual submissives at about one to ten. However, a quick count in any given D/s oriented chat room would lead you to believe that male Doms outnumber the subs at about two to one. Now if there is actually only one male Dom for every ten female subs, that means that 19 out of the 20 "Doms" you see online HAVE TO BE FAKES. Keep this in mind. There is a 95% chance that any man you talk to online claiming to be a Dom is no such thing. This leads us to our first rule, a rule that all statisticians and scientists already know by heart: "When in doubt, throw it out!" Your search for a suitable Dominant partner (especially if you are seeking a serious long term relationship as well) could easily take years. http://www.mybdsm.com/pages/kalanasc/bdsm/acidtest.html I read this and to be honest, I wondered how they came up with such numbers, how their methodology worked. I wondered if it was in fact incorrect to discount all those horny men because they shun a "scene". I also thought perhaps dominant men might be more likely to stay at home rather than go out and play in public or join a group. Perhaps men and women approach the social aspects of the lifestyle differently. My main objection was that I wondered how anyone can quantify those who seek and are practicing WIITWD in the privacy of their own home as being all wankers... Is one only a true and natural dominant if they join a group? Should doms that stay at home be dismissed? What are your thoughts?

GeekyGirl -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 7:56:01 AM)
The greatest dom I have ever played with does not attend public functions. Partially because he does not care for them and partially because of a misunderstanding that occured several years ago with a local Lifestyle couple, which got blown out of proportion and gave him a bad name over something he didn't really do to begin with. He's probably one of only a handful of real dominants I have ever met in my life, and in my opinion is the BEST dominant I ever met. I couldn't sing his praises more if you paid me! However, he finds his local scene pretty laughable and would rather play in the privacy of his own home.

mistoferin -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 7:59:20 AM)
I don't believe that an affiliation with a group or community is the defining factor. Your quote referenced chat rooms and online communities. I do believe that particular medium is probably a bit more ripe with the "wanker" variety of Dominant. I also sometimes think that real time groups tend to have a higher proportion. Maybe it is because it is easy there to access and learn all of the info that makes it possible for one to know all the terminology necessary to successfully "talk the talk"and be very convincing on a once or twice monthly basis. I don't believe that lack of affiliation makes one an automatic "wanker"....but I do believe that it makes one harder to find and I am sure that there are many, many who practice what we do strictly in the privacy of their own environments.

vield -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 8:01:29 AM)
Very good question, juliaoceana! I have been in this scene for a long time, and I have found that no "acid test" or rule fits everyone. I certainly have seen things like that test set up to demean or attack a person numbers of times. Whether or not one will be happy with a certain person is a matter of the chemistry between you and the honesty and trust you both can develop towards each other. There are lovely and skilled dominant women to whom I feel no degree of submission. The chemistry is not there. There are beautiful skilled submissive women to whom I feel no attraction, and to whom I feel no dominance. A hot Domme I know was surprised to find the need to be my slave. She is still Domme to everyone else, which is fine with me. I have also experienced the surpise of a very submissive woman when she and I both felt the need for me to deeply submit to her. Open minds and honest communications serve us much better than any arbitrary on line tests, in finding those who may meet our needs!

ownedgirlie -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 8:04:22 AM)
I tend to find the majority of chat-room attendees to be wankers, but that's just my personal opinion based on having spent WAY too much time being one myself, LOL. Most of the doms I knew there couldn't dom a flea, and most of the submissives would balk at actually being told to do something. But it was a fun place to hang out.....for awhile. It serves its purpose. As for public play and group involvement...neither Master nor I have been involved with any community stuff. He simply won't, due to his career and public community involvement. And I've just never had time or opportunity, although I'm looking into some stuff locally currently, just to meet people. I have no desire, however, to display the intimacies of what my Master and I privately share together with others as a spectator sport. I don't think that invalidates my submission or his dominance. No idea though, how the numbers you quoted were derived. Seems anecdotal. I certainly wouldn't judge someone's validity by how involved or uninvolved they are in a community; that seems silly to me.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 8:05:51 AM)
Someone isn't bright enough to understand statistics. 100% of natural male dominants lurk in chatroom and only 10% of submissive females lurk in chatrooms. Assuming the ratio (whatever it is) in real life is the same as one would find in a chatroom is idiocy. the mix of men/women is roughly equal, the need for both to have sex is roughly equal and yet at any sex event open to anyone men almost always outnumber women.

susie -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 8:06:54 AM)
My Master is a private person. I know that he has attended a couple of lifestyle events in the past but was put off by those events, although he has never played in public. He does not use the forum here or on other sites that he is a member of. He is very much a Dom. This actually brings back thoughts of a recent thread about references where it was suggested that any Dom on here searching should be able to provide a reference from a local group of some sort if they were a "real" Dom and not a player. My Master would certainly not have been able to provide information like that for the reasons stated above. Perhaps way too much store is placed on public play rather than the day to day domination required to sustain a D/s relationship.

juliaoceania -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 8:14:24 AM)
quote: I do believe that particular medium is probably a bit more ripe with the "wanker" variety of Dominant. I have read many wanker type emails from personals sites. I definitely agree with that! I also had many many emails from people that genuinely seemed to be looking for a submissive for a real time relationship but they did not belong to a community. I am really gullible in some ways and tend to take people at face value though. quote: I also sometimes think that real time groups tend to have a higher proportion. Higher proportion of what? Wankers or the genuine article? I was unclear as to how you meant that. quote: I don't believe that lack of affiliation makes one an automatic "wanker"....but I do believe that it makes one harder to find and I am sure that there are many, many who practice what we do strictly in the privacy of their own environments. I am very interested in how others that have looked both offline and online perceive this. In reading that article I posted above I thought if the ratios are right, and there are that many femsubs to dominants, it would be hard to find a long term monogamous relationship in such a place where my kind is a dime a dozen (or almost...lol).

juliaoceania -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 8:21:31 AM)
quote: This actually brings back thoughts of a recent thread about references where it was suggested that any Dom on here searching should be able to provide a reference from a local group of some sort if they were a "real" Dom and not a player. My Master would certainly not have been able to provide information like that for the reasons stated above. Perhaps way too much store is placed on public play rather than the day to day domination required to sustain a D/s relationship. My Daddy has went to munches, he enjoys going out and socializing, but I do not know if he ever joined a group. I never asked. I understand that some people find great value in references, and if they are helpful to some that is great.. I did not ask and was not offered a reference. My Daddy does not play casually, and the two submissives he had been involved with before he is no longer in contact with. One married and the other went back to where she had lived before if I am not mistaken. We might play in public down the road. I would love to meet new people too, I hope we can find friends that have many common outside interests that also love WIITWD too. (there are a few people on this site that I would love to get to know on a personal level)

OedipusRexIt -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 8:22:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Someone isn't bright enough to understand statistics. 100% of natural male dominants lurk in chatroom and only 10% of submissive females lurk in chatrooms. Assuming the ratio (whatever it is) in real life is the same as one would find in a chatroom is idiocy. ...plus, it's not like ANYONE is quoting anything here but testimonial evidence, which isn't exactly data. So, take a loose assortment of "facts", correlate them using faulty statistics, and you get a conclusion of sorts.... And here, a person can think they're righ,t no matter the facts. Ain't life grand?

juliaoceania -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 8:23:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Someone isn't bright enough to understand statistics. 100% of natural male dominants lurk in chatroom and only 10% of submissive females lurk in chatrooms. Assuming the ratio (whatever it is) in real life is the same as one would find in a chatroom is idiocy. the mix of men/women is roughly equal, the need for both to have sex is roughly equal and yet at any sex event open to anyone men almost always outnumber women. True, how many of those submissives are actually men...laughing. That quote I posted seemed deeply flawed to me from what I know of statistical analysis

mistoferin -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 8:29:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: I also sometimes think that real time groups tend to have a higher proportion. Higher proportion of what? Wankers or the genuine article? I was unclear as to how you meant that. It has been in my experience that in real time lifestyle communities there is still a higher percentage of the "wanker" variety in comparison to the "genuine article". Again, I can only comment from my own experience, but in that experience I have found many times Dominants who can very convincingly portray the "genuine article" in the public spotlight but when one gets to know them away from the scrutinizing eye of the community you find that their Dominant stature is one that appears to be limited to the "show" and not an integral part of the way they live their life.

Missokyst -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 8:31:16 AM)
When I first started doing this I am pretty sure there were no groups. It would have been a shame to dismiss the most powerful influence on my development simply because there was not a public arena in which to judge him. Kyst

SimplyMichael -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 8:34:51 AM)
The first S&M groups were around in the 1970s (at least for us breeders) such as www.soj.org, www.tes.org as well as the inevitable splinter groups.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 8:36:53 AM)
I think references are a useful tool, but I know people who I would lend someone to who couldn't provide them and I know people I wouldn't let look at my property who run groups. If someone can provide references from more than one group and an ex or two, that is certainly something of value and worth considering.

juliaoceania -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 8:42:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: I also sometimes think that real time groups tend to have a higher proportion. Higher proportion of what? Wankers or the genuine article? I was unclear as to how you meant that. It has been in my experience that in real time lifestyle communities there is still a higher percentage of the "wanker" variety in comparison to the "genuine article". Again, I can only comment from my own experience, but in that experience I have found many times Dominants who can very convincingly portray the "genuine article" in the public spotlight but when one gets to know them away from the scrutinizing eye of the community you find that their Dominant stature is one that appears to be limited to the "show" and not an integral part of the way they live their life. This does not surprise me really. Thanks for clarifying

CuriousLord -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 8:42:34 AM)
The article appears to be for those who are looking for scene play. For them, this is what they want. This sort of "test" works for them. To me, this sounds very bedroom/scene-top-ish. I would call it softcore on the D/s aspect. I believe I would fall under the catigory of a boarderline control freak by their standards. Whoever wrote that was a mild-scene "Dom" in opposition to the idea that others might simply be more dominant than them. Author makes numerous references to the positions being "sexual" roles. Edit: Looks like I deleted a couple words in a setence by accident. Or they mysteriously vanished. Ah wells. It should be fine now.

Missokyst -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 8:56:54 AM)
Well.. I was married in 1975. If there were groups it wasn't something we got into. Too busy getting bound up and tortured I guess. <g> Kyst quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael The first S&M groups were around in the 1970s (at least for us breeders) such as www.soj.org, www.tes.org as well as the inevitable splinter groups.

MistressMelissa -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 8:58:27 AM)
Greetings, Over the years I've seen all kinds of ratios published. In reality they mean nothing. Men are much more likely to venture publicly for sex that women and you can debate if this is due to the social double standard which states a promiscuous male is just being a guy and a promiscuous female is a slut. In most swingers clubs there is a constant effort made to keep the ration of males to females in balance. Women are grant free memberships and free admittance while as one club owner calls it "the dick tax" keep going higher to keep things in balance. Single guys are much more likely to show up at a public event than a single woman. This is probably more of a study in gender and social roles. As for acid tests they are but a product of the writer and their experiences good or bad and the lore of the internet. The internet also makes it possible to obtain and maintain a good reputation by ones ability to regurgitate internet facts without any real life experience. While I might be respected in real life, I seldom receive that recognition on the internet and I'm often labeled a control freak. Those that have lived in my house and know me will understand the fine line that exists between the control freak and the owner. Intent is often the defining element to ones actions. Statistically by what I read there should be 10-20 subs/slaves just waiting for me to claim them. Reality is their are 10-20 bottoms, mostly guys wanting a dominatrix to enact their fantasies for them that they might get the "little general" out for a swim.

slavegirljoy -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 9:13:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania My main objection was that I wondered how anyone can quantify those who seek and are practicing WIITWD in the privacy of their own home as being all wankers... Is one only a true and natural dominant if they join a group? Should doms that stay at home be dismissed? What are your thoughts? This is utter nonsense. Many Dominant men don't join groups or attend public BDSM events for all sorts of reasons. i have had D/s relationships over the past 29 years with several different Dominant men and none of them ever joined a group and only one ever took me to a BDSM event one time just to check it out and see if He would be interested in that sort of thing. He decided that, while it was somewhat interesting, it wasn't anything He was interested in doing again. The Dominant men i have been involved with have been very independent and had no interest in being a part of a group. my first Dom was very much a swinger and did enjoy socializing with other swingers, but not to the point of joining any group. my current Master might be interested in attending an occasional event, if His work schedule changed to allow for a night off when events are taking place, but He isn't interested in joining any ongoing group. slave joy Owned property of Master David

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125