Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Naturally Dominant: Rare?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master >> RE: Naturally Dominant: Rare? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Naturally Dominant: Rare? - 5/1/2007 11:37:29 PM   
peepeegirl5


Posts: 214
Joined: 3/12/2007
Status: offline 		This top makes me look fat. Is it trampy to go on a first date nude?

(in reply to hisannabelle)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Naturally Dominant: Rare? - 5/1/2007 11:57:23 PM   
mistoferin


Posts: 8284
Joined: 10/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: peepeegirl5
This top makes me look fat.


Really? It doesn't make you look nearly as bad as your immature behavior.

_____________________________

Peace and light,
~erin~

There are no victims here...only volunteers.

When you make a habit of playing on the tracks, you thereby forfeit the right to bitch when you get hit by a train.

"I did it! I admit it and I'm gonna do it again!"

(in reply to peepeegirl5)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Naturally Dominant: Rare? - 5/2/2007 6:49:01 AM   
LaTigresse


Posts: 26123
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline 		Step awaaaaaaaaaaaay from the hookah.

_____________________________

My twisted, self deprecating, sense of humour, finds alot to laugh about, in your lack of one!

Just because you are well educated, articulate, and can use big, fancy words, properly........does not mean you are right!

(in reply to peepeegirl5)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Naturally Dominant: Rare? - 5/2/2007 8:38:08 AM   
MadRabbit


Posts: 3460
Joined: 8/9/2006
Status: offline 		You would first have to define what naturally dominant is and thats the tricky part.

My guess would be, that when people say they are rare, they mean their "ideal" of what a dominant personality is is rare.

Even the aspect of "taking charge" would be defined as assertiveness and just one of many traits that can be attributed to dominance, like confidence, directness, decisveness, bossiness, being demanding, stubborness, etc.

Society in general breeds up to be complacent, doctile and complient. While I consider myself to have plenty of dominant characterstics, I dont go around ordering everyone around, making demands and being generally bossy. If I did so on a 24/7 basis in all walks of life, soon...I would have a very hard time functioning in society...as well as making friends.

My dominance is only one part of an identity with many parts and only comes out under the right social context. Much in the same way that I act a certain way around my boss, the police, and my father and a completely different way around my buddies, I act dominant around people I can let that part out without any worries.

I think this more of a general lack of understanding of the commenting person's part of how people are just simply people.

< Message edited by MadRabbit -- 5/2/2007 8:43:44 AM >

_____________________________

Advice for New Dominants
The Unpolitically Correct Lifestyle Definitions

Obama is NOT the Messiah! He's just a VERY NAUGHTY BOY

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Naturally Dominant: Rare? - 5/2/2007 8:41:46 AM   
Nogimmicks


Posts: 38
Joined: 6/15/2006
Status: offline 		peepeegirl5
Vanilla

"This top makes me look fat. Is it trampy to go on a first date nude?"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps you should start a new thread on the theme of first date etiquette. Honestly, I think your posts are very witty, but not very much on topic. Perhaps you would like to apply that wit to the topic under discussion. Thusly, we can learn from you and you from us. One of the first lessons you might garner from us might well be to show a little basic human respect for the people present, that way, they will more appreciate your obvious (and I mean this sincerely) wit. keep in mind that the rest of us were 18 once too and we also knew everything there was to know about. We just all got real stupid when we got to, say, age 30.

(in reply to LaTigresse)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Naturally Dominant: Rare? - 5/8/2007 1:43:27 AM   
peepeegirl5


Posts: 214
Joined: 3/12/2007
Status: offline 		Perfect!

(in reply to Nogimmicks)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Naturally Dominant: Rare? - 5/8/2007 4:28:39 AM   
WillowRain


Posts: 191
Joined: 6/18/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Was going to hijack the thread, but I suppose a new one's better..
quote:

ORIGINAL: NakedGirlScout
I believe that natural, non-switching dominant women are just rare enough that some people would never have met one and come to the conclusion that they don't exist. The same could be said of natural dominant men, though!

I hope you don't mind, GirlScout.  If so, my apologies for not taking the time to check first and I'll edit it out.

I just have to ask this, because it's confusing me so badly.  What do people mean when they say something like "natural dominants are rare"?  I've heard this sentiment so many times, and I've often asked for explanation when seen, but now I'm just far too curious.

I've never been very social, so I never paid much attention to others outside my family and close friends to notice a lack of dominance.  Inside my family, most are at least somewhat dominant.  I've come to believe it's a normal, human characteristic that most people have.  So is this not the case, or do people mean something more than what I'm readily picking up by "naturally dominant"?  (I'm getting now that most people might not be naturally dominant, but for it to be "rare"?  That's the part that's confusing me.)


Well, here is an opinion from the bottom not the top. "Naturally Dominant" is used in a lot of ways. Sometimes it's a flag term for someone who wants to be bossy but is utterly unwilling or unable to be responsible or do the work necesarry to be a functioning Dominant or Master. The term is often followed by statements like, "I don't get along with anyone in the local community. I don't need to learn from anyone how to be a good Dominant. There is nothing they can teach me, I was born to this." *cringe* This can be a warning flag on someones description of themself and sometimes means that they have no real desire to learn and grow in their dominance, and think that all the work to be done in a D&s relationship falls on the submissives shoulders.

Sometimes people use the term "Naturally Dominant" to mean that they don't have to work at being in charge, being in charge is their default. Doesn't matter where they start in a social or work structure, they will get bumped upward into responsibility. This can be true for someone who orients submissive or dominant, and often refers to their vanilla life. I could probably label myself with this version of the term. In work situations, this is very true of me and I am pretty solidly submissive in personal intimate relationships.

Sometimes "Naturally Dominant" means to some folks that they have been drawn to that side of kink from an early age. You know who you are, those grade school spankers, those cowboy and indian players who  tied up  everyone they could  get their hands on, those dungeon fantisisers. If you actively trapped another child in a box before the age of nine, this would be you.

To me, "Naturally Dominant" doesn't mean that they like to tell people what to do, it means they are good at it. That others naturally want to listen to them and follow their good sound advice. They are smart, and thoughtful, unselfish and even tempered. My mother once told me that it was foolish to let a man have control and say in the house unless that man could be trusted to consistantly make unselfish choices about what to do, choices that were based on  what was good for the whole of the family. My grandfather was like that, and everyone who knew him deeply loved him. He was unfailingly kind and reliable. My grandmother's devotion was complete. His pattern is the longed for ideal in my family system. They were not bdsm folks, but there was a D&s dynamic within that household. To me, for me, that is what I think of when I think "Naturally Dominant." And yes... I do think it is profoundly rare, like maybe... finding a unicorn, or a huffalump.

Master Jack's,
Willow

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Naturally Dominant: Rare? - 5/8/2007 6:42:53 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: peepeegirl5

This top makes me look fat. Is it trampy to go on a first date nude?


quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

Step awaaaaaaaaaaaay from the hookah.


Made my night.

(in reply to peepeegirl5)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Naturally Dominant: Rare? - 5/8/2007 10:13:23 PM   
WhiplashSmile


Posts: 1472
Joined: 6/8/2004
Status: offline 		"Naturally dominant" vs. what, this is the question I wonder about.  Society is full of Hierarchical structures, if you want to look at in natural terms.  Alpha and Beta get tossed around to imply a certain level of dominance.  Alpha Doms or Apha Slaves. What is an Alpha slave exactly, a dominant slave?  Does this mean that even a Dominant Domly Dom is capable of submission if they encounter a Greater Dominant Domly Dom?  Alexander the Great was a powerful Dominant Domly Dom figure in history,  How about his Generals and officers down the Hierarchical struture.   Does this mean the common foot soldier was a mere submissive or not?   The foot soldiers that got the promotions, were the Doms working their way up the ranks?

Back to the alpha slave concept and beta wolf idealisms here.  It's apparent that people like to somehow place labels of measurement upon dominance.   Do beta slaves submit to alpha slaves, Do not betas in a wolf pack end up submiting to alpha?  Is not dominance often tested by other dominants and even submissives at times.

In terms of being "Naturally Dominant", I feel I'm in the same boat with similar experiences that Action posted about.  Where I find myself simply taking charge or being the group leader in social settings.   This is not always the case, but more times then not this has been the case.  Organizing and taking charge of things, starting groups, getting people together and simply doing things.  At times thinking outside the box and coming up with unexpected solutions to problems.  Not mindless following the established social clicks and forming my own social group instead. 

Think peepeegirl5 started to express something in regards to high school click groups.  Some of these groups I actually dispised for how they treated others at times.  I know I did my share of head butting with Alphas in some of this clicks, for the most part it was amatter of personal code of conduct and ethics.  Needless to say, I recieved my share amount of attention in school, some of it great and some of it not so great.  I simply stood out from the crowd and controversy surrounded me.

I'd like to believe I'm "Naturally Dominant", however if I woke up one day and figured out that I'm Dominant for some other reasons, it would not change a thing.   So if I'm Dominant due to my social experiences or the environment I grew up in, Pffttt.. this does not make me any less of the person I am today.   

Again "Naturally dominant" vs. what, this is the question I'd like to pose.

< Message edited by WhiplashSmile -- 5/8/2007 10:14:44 PM >

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Naturally Dominant: Rare? - 5/9/2007 2:43:23 PM   
Action


Posts: 260
Joined: 8/19/2005
From: Cali
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WillowRain

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Was going to hijack the thread, but I suppose a new one's better..
quote:

ORIGINAL: NakedGirlScout
I believe that natural, non-switching dominant women are just rare enough that some people would never have met one and come to the conclusion that they don't exist. The same could be said of natural dominant men, though!

I hope you don't mind, GirlScout.  If so, my apologies for not taking the time to check first and I'll edit it out.

I just have to ask this, because it's confusing me so badly.  What do people mean when they say something like "natural dominants are rare"?  I've heard this sentiment so many times, and I've often asked for explanation when seen, but now I'm just far too curious.

I've never been very social, so I never paid much attention to others outside my family and close friends to notice a lack of dominance.  Inside my family, most are at least somewhat dominant.  I've come to believe it's a normal, human characteristic that most people have.  So is this not the case, or do people mean something more than what I'm readily picking up by "naturally dominant"?  (I'm getting now that most people might not be naturally dominant, but for it to be "rare"?  That's the part that's confusing me.)

To me, "Naturally Dominant" doesn't mean that they like to tell people what to do, it means they are good at it. That others naturally want to listen to them and follow their good sound advice. They are smart, and thoughtful, unselfish and even tempered. My mother once told me that it was foolish to let a man have control and say in the house unless that man could be trusted to consistantly make unselfish choices about what to do, choices that were based on  what was good for the whole of the family. My grandfather was like that, and everyone who knew him deeply loved him. He was unfailingly kind and reliable. My grandmother's devotion was complete. His pattern is the longed for ideal in my family system. They were not bdsm folks, but there was a D&s dynamic within that household. To me, for me, that is what I think of when I think "Naturally Dominant." And yes... I do think it is profoundly rare, like maybe... finding a unicorn, or a huffalump.


I agree to this vastly! Right on the ball. When I agree that I feel I am a "Natural Dominant" this is the term and definition. Since I was a child I was always the "wise" one that they came to for advice. Growing up I had almost no libido and had no intrest in dating, I knew it would ruin my friendships. When my friends wanted to do something as a group, they looked to me to orginize it, as well I always thought what THEY would like not for my own personal likes or dislikes. I derive more pleasure seeing other people happy then my own, as submissive as that line can come off, the way in which I help thet might not always like. I forced my best friend to go back to college dispite not feeling able to, now he's happier and on a healthier path and he thanks me for it.

Either way Im rambling, all your points on different doms I agree with, and thank you for putting it in such good terms.

-Action


_____________________________

The only ones for me are the mad ones....who burn burn burn like fabulous roman candles. -Jack Kerouac

(in reply to WillowRain)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Naturally Dominant: Rare? - 5/11/2007 1:08:42 PM   
Tetron


Posts: 48
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline 		I think that many valid aspects of what a "Natural Dominant " is have been expressed. The concept of having felt it as part of your base nature, the natural leadership, the tendancy of others to look to you when decicions need to be made. These are all important aspects of this term. What I think most people use this word to juxtapose are those people who are dominant because they have some lack in their life and this is their counterbalance. Those who are dominant because they feel small, or weak, or out of control. They choose this so they can feel powerful, in charge, etc. I have come across many of those, and from the profile descriptions of the subs and slaves on this site they have come across many as well. Those who try to be dominant for the wrong reasons are what in general I think "Natural Dominant" is juxtaposed with.

(in reply to Action)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Naturally Dominant: Rare? - 5/11/2007 5:06:12 PM   
minnetar


Posts: 1272
Joined: 4/11/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lashra

Everyone has dominant and submissive personality traits. However one or the other will usually prevail over the other. I am naturally dominant and have been so all my life. Decision making comes quite easily for me, I do not hesitate to take on the leadership role. It is just natural and I do have a hard time handing control over to someone else.

I think if your not a natural dom or sub, perhaps you could be pretending to be something that you are not? I mean doesn't this come from deep inside of a person? I know it does with me. Though I have heard of cases where people pretend to be one role base solely upon their gender and not their personality or mindset.

So are we rare? Eh, I think there are more subs than dominants but since no one has done a world census we may never know.

~Lashra



how beautifully written.  i have always tried to please and placate everyone since i was a child so i agree that people are born with either submissive or dominant traits.

minnetar

(in reply to Lashra)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Naturally Dominant: Rare? - 5/12/2007 11:54:49 AM   
marion17991


Posts: 2
Joined: 5/9/2007
Status: offline 		I am not sure whether a "natural dominant" is rare or not.  But it seems to me that I have a lot of doms in my life now.  And I think that I have always been attracted to the type of person with a dominant air about them.  The two most important dominant men in my life right now are my HusDom and my Mentor.  And while they both came to the lifestyle in very different ways, and at very different times in thier lives, I do belive that they are both natually dominant.  My HusDom was introduced to D/s by me.  We had been married 26 years at the time, and he had always pretty much been head of the house.  But when i truely gave him my submission, our marriage became more satisfying and happy for both of us, I think because we were no longer trying to be who we were not.  I am much happier at his feet, then by his side. But this comes with the knowledge that I spent many years by his side, and if I was not happy, would be welcomed there again.

My mentor came to the lifestyle as a teen.  To him it was a natural part of who he is.  While he has a lot more experience than my HusDom and is much more sadistic than my HusDom, he is no more or less dominant.  The main difference I see in the two are that my Mentor knows what he wants in a submissive, and knows how to train one to get what he wants.  My HusDom still has a ways to go to figure out what he wants and needs me to be. 

However, in the presence of both of these men, I feel something in the air, don't know quite how to describe it, that makes me want to serve them, sit at their feet, and do what I can to make their lives easier, and be pleasing to them.

So I would say that if Natural Dominants are rare, than I am truely blessed to have two such rare beings in my life.

< Message edited by marion17991 -- 5/12/2007 12:45:22 PM >

_____________________________

marion
House of Reason
"Thy husband is thy lord, ...women... should kneel for peace;...they are bound to serve, love and obey." William Shakespear's The Taming of the Shrew, Act 5, Scene II

(in reply to minnetar)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Naturally Dominant: Rare? - 5/12/2007 1:21:56 PM   
peepeegirl5


Posts: 214
Joined: 3/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: peepeegirl5

This top makes me look fat. Is it trampy to go on a first date nude?


quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

Step awaaaaaaaaaaaay from the hookah.


Made my night.


Cease masturbating to my profile CuriousLord, I'm saving myself for Elder Tigresse's mouth.

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Naturally Dominant: Rare? - 5/12/2007 1:31:32 PM   
NakedGirlScout


Posts: 370
Joined: 1/10/2006
From: Toronto
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I hope you don't mind, GirlScout.  If so, my apologies for not taking the time to check first and I'll edit it out.



Naaaah, I don't mind... do whatever you like, this is the internet!

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Naturally Dominant: Rare? - 5/12/2007 1:38:37 PM   
NakedGirlScout


Posts: 370
Joined: 1/10/2006
From: Toronto
Status: offline 		Since I was the one CuriousLord quoted in the first place to start this thread, I may as well explain that what I meant by it. "Naturally Dominant" is someone who has had a power fetish on the dominant side of the coin from the begining of their sexual development right through to the end, and who needs to express themselves as a dominant in order to have fulfilling personal relationships (I mean sexual relationships, not family or friendships). That person may or may not be a *successful* dominant or a *good* dominant, but they've never felt anything other than dominant.

Same for submissives, one can be a pathetic and wretched submissive, but by my definition one would be a "natural submissive" if submissive is the only way one has ever felt.

I know others have other definitions, but that's what I meant by the quote that CuriousLord posted.

(in reply to NakedGirlScout)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Naturally Dominant: Rare? - 5/15/2007 11:12:02 AM   
peepeegirl5


Posts: 214
Joined: 3/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NakedGirlScout

Since I was the one CuriousLord quoted in the first place to start this thread, I may as well explain that what I meant by it. "Naturally Dominant" is someone who has had a power fetish on the dominant side of the coin from the begining of their sexual development right through to the end, and who needs to express themselves as a dominant in order to have fulfilling personal relationships (I mean sexual relationships, not family or friendships). That person may or may not be a *successful* dominant or a *good* dominant, but they've never felt anything other than dominant.

Same for submissives, one can be a pathetic and wretched submissive, but by my definition one would be a "natural submissive" if submissive is the only way one has ever felt.

I know others have other definitions, but that's what I meant by the quote that CuriousLord posted.


The Dominant is, in the deepest and best sense of the word, the Aristocrat,
the flower of a long line who have accepted responsibility for a group or community.

Some things can't be learned, they are just known.


peepeegirl5

(in reply to NakedGirlScout)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Naturally Dominant: Rare? - 5/15/2007 11:38:42 AM   
Najakcharmer


Posts: 2121
Joined: 5/3/2004
Status: offline 		I'm unclear on why switching makes someone not a natural dominant.  There's stuff you do because it's your natural inclination, and stuff you do because it's kind of fun even though it doesn't necessarily describe you or define you.

I know some loud, mouthy, homophobic and uptight male doms who trumpet loudly that they're REAL because they don't switch....and they're always the ones who ask me to secretly dominate them without telling anyone else in the community.  Now I'm sure not every single one of the loudmouths is a closet sub, but the demeanor of someone who is so uptight that they have to actively badmouth switches and loudly proclaim their un-switchability tells me that there is something they are not entirely secure about inside themselves.

I also know some confident, powerful, strong and easygoing dominants who have explored switching or bottomming, sometimes as part of their spiritual journey or specifically to learn the submissive perspective.  Some of them decided it was fun to explore the other side, and some of them decided naah, it's not for me.  Either way, these are the people I personally tend to have a lot more respect for, and the ones I consider more "naturally" dominant. 

Switching for me is in the same category as parachute jumping, eg, one of those interesting adventures that sound like they might be fun and that I might or might not get around to at some point in life.  I don't have a huge emotional attachment to it one way or another, but I used to identify publically as a switch mainly because I was so goddamn annoyed with all the Domly-Doms who thought that not being a switch was what made them Real, and subs living in fantasy land who only wanted to submit to a Real Domme (eg, a cardboard cutout from a fetish magazine who was not an actual human being).  But since it was more of a political statement than an accurate description of what I've done and what I want to do, I stopped doing that. 

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Naturally Dominant: Rare? - 5/15/2007 11:46:36 AM   
Faramir


Posts: 1043
Joined: 2/12/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NakedGirlScout
"Naturally Dominant" is someone who has had a power fetish on the dominant side of the coin from the begining of their sexual development right through to the end, and who needs to express themselves as a dominant in order to have fulfilling personal relationships (I mean sexual relationships, not family or friendships).


What's interesting is that you are talking about sexuality, about a sexual orientation or mode, but most of the posters here are talking about their leadership qualities, and I don't think there is any relationship between the two.

Leadership is a the presence of a suite of virtuous: a person who is just, has good judegementt, is decisive, has initiative, is dependable, has tact and integrity, enthusiasm, bearing, unselfishness, courage, etc, etc is the kind of person who can persuade others to follow them.  I'm borrowing from the Marine Corps 14 leadership traits, and that is likely slanted towards military leadership, but you get the idea.  Leaders have moral qualities and follow principles that inspire other people to follow their lead.

Which doesn't have a fucking thing to do with dominance, a sexual mode or orientation.  I believe every person here who says they are a dom or a master or whatever.  If you say that you like to be in charge in sexuality and itimacy, great.  That being said, 90% of the doms here couldn't lead a cockroach to a vomit sandwhich.  And the more some fat, rayon shirted goof with a St Andrews cross goes on about what a dominant leader he is, the more sure you can be he is a weak, powerless person in a greater social sense.  Certainly there is no link between sexual dominance and social agression and social hierachy--you go to a munch and the average guy there is a low-testosterone chubby little goober. 

The converse to this is that submissives aren't weak, and can be leaders.  My best friend in the world is a battalion commander over in Iraq, and he is the warrior I respect most in this world.  I'd follow him in combat because I know (even thought he is only a soldier and not blessed enough to be a Marine) that he knows his shit backwards and forwards, and is a multiple-time combat tested veteran of every war and every single BlackOp America has done in the last 17 years.

He likes to have women tell him what to do, please them, and serve them.

He is a leader, he is socially dominant, and he is sexually submisisve.  Sexuality and leadership are not related.

(in reply to NakedGirlScout)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Naturally Dominant: Rare? - 5/15/2007 11:48:23 AM   
SimplyMichael


Posts: 7229
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline 		I am even rarer than a natural dominant, I am an unnatural dominant.

(in reply to Najakcharmer)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master >> RE: Naturally Dominant: Rare? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.094