It's like a normal world, only weirder. Now with 100% more poetry!
Dominant.
Posted 08-04-2015 at 03:37 PM by An_Jon
Updated 08-04-2015 at 04:24 PM by An_Jon (I spelling bad apologise)
Updated 08-04-2015 at 04:24 PM by An_Jon (I spelling bad apologise)
The title should have made it obvious - this is a blog post about the word 'dominant', and what it means in the kink community. I'll preface the rest of this post by being open about my feelings towards the word: I'm growing to dislike it and everything it represents. More on that later.
What got me thinking about the word, properly, was overhearing a conversation between two people about my age whom I assume had just entered into a D/S relationship. It's a habit some people form when they start taking writing seriously - the best way to make a character to seem interesting and real is by observing and copying real and interesting people. I was eating my lunch in a shopping centre at the time, when they sat opposite my table with the bottom's favourite brand of sandwich (after all, they like it the sub-way). The tables are often quite packed together in this place, and their tone was one that you had to be explicitly listening in to to hear. Sorry about that, you two.
I assume they were either meeting for the first time, or were, sensibly, talking over the particulars of their interests. The first I heard was the dom of this couple - the guy (this was a hetro relationship) - say this:
"So you mentioned liking chains earlier?"
My interest was obviously, and instantly, peaked. Her reply
(shyly) "Yeah, I mean I think I like more, but chains are what I look at when... y'know..." Trails off a bit, she picks up her voice a few seconds later "I just think I like feeling helpless, I guess."
If you want my opinion here - she absolutely loves bondage, and is being coy about it. She's probably had very few conversations about it with another person who hasn't thought of her as either perverted or a slut. Yer man is a smooth operator though.
"If you'd like we could stop by a B&Q sometime and look into getting some - if that's alright with you?"
"I'd love that".
Young love, it's beautiful. She gave her response quite quickly - again, an indication that you'd only have to touch her with chains before she falls over in a soggy, flustered mess.
They went a bit quiet & had a normal conversation after that. That gave me time to finish writing my notes up (in my super-serious writer's notebook). Almost on-cue they restarted their filthy, filthy interview. Or rather - she, still dripping from the promise of chains, restarted it:
"So are you dominant all the time, or just in private?"
Herein lies my problem.
Not with her question - though it is a dangerous question. Not even so much with his reply (though I will get on to that). It's the insinuation that someone can choose to be dominant at all times in their life. I've had the misfortune of interacting with such people a number of times, and often find them thoroughly repellent bastards.
"Yes, I'd say I am", he replies.
Not necessarily a bad thing. You can exude dominance from every pore on your imposing figure. You can control a room with subtle techniques that a master negotiator is trained in. Here's the trick though - dominance is subtle. It's imposing your will before others know it's there. It's having others feeling compelled to obey you for no other reason than you just seem like you have to be obeyed. That's dominance, and people will subconsciously notice it and follow it. It is not, I repeat NOT, someone walking into a room banging a drum going LISTEN TO ME I'M IMPORTANT LALALALALALALALA.
Yer man continues:
"I try and make people do as I say..."
Oooh, please be careful
"... I'm very aware of my place in society..."
Normally that's an acceptable thing to do in Britain. In this context though.. tricky.
"... I hate disobedience and punish those who do disobey me"
Who are you, Joffrey Baratheon?
"... and I can tell my boss what to do at work."
Errrm. Good-o.
Was she impressed by this Silverback display of alpha-manliness? I don't know. I was too in awe of his presence to notice. To be a mere mortal in the presence of such a man- of course I checked, and she seemed to give a sort of reaction that a 6 year old gives when opening a present on Christmas day only to find socks. I was aware I was almost staring at this point, so I went back to eating for a bit and reflected.
The first bit I couldn't get out of my head was this: Where does this guy work? If you can boss your boss around there are only 4 options:
1 - You're the type of guy that works awfully in teams, and is given some pseudo responsibility by your boss to shut you the hell up.
2 - You're a natural born leader destined to be a manager by 24.
3 - Your boss is an incompetent nitwit.
4 - You work in research, and literally have to tell your boss what to do so they know in what direction to steer the company. Literally, your job is a to tell your boss (or 'advise') your boss on what to do.
I'm not discounting any of the four. But either one it is, through the wording you use it makes you sound like a total arsebisuit, and probably lessens your chances of being number 2.
I'm going off topic here. This is why I am growing to dislike the word dominant. Too many people have taken over the word, and like what happened with feminism the word is being polluted to the point that being a dom is toxic stuff. These people are like maggots eating away at the dead corpse, until you having nothing left except for hungry maggots and fat flies. The flies will go off and find some other shit to wallow in, but the maggots will die with what was left of the corpse, and the whole thing will be worthless.
That's a flowery way of saying that these people are making others disassociate with being a dom, and those who stick around in the scene for a little while are actually doing some damage. I'll give you an example.
I was chatting with someone regarding an ad I put out to be a switch (shortly before my thing with Kat started). I got a message in response from a guy who claimed to be a genuine dom. HE could control all aspects of my life. HE ould turn me on in ways I never knew possible - I just had to be brave enough to hand myself over to him. 'Cool', I thought, I'll give this a go.
Turns out he wanted me to join teamviewer so he could control my PC. I have sensitive info on my PC, so that's not happening. I gave him the hard no. He persisted. He went on. I stopped messaging him. A few weeks later I got a message on Kik from him. Stupidly, I answered, figuring he couldn't be after my teamviewer again. After a brief chat about myself and Kat he decided to ask again. Again, I gave the hard no. He claimed that his persistence was one of his best qualities, I told him he was fucking annoying and U'd never message him again. He messaged back saying I was afraid of him or something.
He's my example of a dangerous guy. Over the internet he can't do much physical damage (save for being an emotionally-draining douchehole), but the damage he can do is give new people the impression that we're all predators. It's the Christian Grey school of domming - I've called myself a dominant and therefore I can. No, wrong, you can't. Consent is important. Even doms can be told no.
Trouble is, the word 'dom' has become so popular now it has become interchangeable with 'horny guy ready to fuck you at a moments notice however I want and you'll love it because". This has given licence to thousands of guys online to send harassing messages to women (and men!) exclaiming how because they're a dom and have a penis they have a right to what they want.
This is in direct contrast to the subtlety I mentioned earlier. I'm not saying these guys have less finesse than truly dominant people do, I'm saying that they have no finesse at all. I'm also not saying that they're not doms - they can label themselves as they chose and be that - but a dominant in the bedroom requires another consenting adult who is willing to accept your dominance. Being a dom in the bedroom is not born in you, like, say, homosexuality, but something you acquire with a consenting partner. Being a dom in real life is natural being an unnatural dom has another name - being a thundercunt.
I do wish those two well in their relationship. I had to leave before conversation was truly struck up again. I was also too busy making notes to be fully paying attention (whilst also looking nonchalant). I also hope, for cummy-chain girl, that her new dom doesn't turn out to be a total thundercunt.
What got me thinking about the word, properly, was overhearing a conversation between two people about my age whom I assume had just entered into a D/S relationship. It's a habit some people form when they start taking writing seriously - the best way to make a character to seem interesting and real is by observing and copying real and interesting people. I was eating my lunch in a shopping centre at the time, when they sat opposite my table with the bottom's favourite brand of sandwich (after all, they like it the sub-way). The tables are often quite packed together in this place, and their tone was one that you had to be explicitly listening in to to hear. Sorry about that, you two.
I assume they were either meeting for the first time, or were, sensibly, talking over the particulars of their interests. The first I heard was the dom of this couple - the guy (this was a hetro relationship) - say this:
"So you mentioned liking chains earlier?"
My interest was obviously, and instantly, peaked. Her reply
(shyly) "Yeah, I mean I think I like more, but chains are what I look at when... y'know..." Trails off a bit, she picks up her voice a few seconds later "I just think I like feeling helpless, I guess."
If you want my opinion here - she absolutely loves bondage, and is being coy about it. She's probably had very few conversations about it with another person who hasn't thought of her as either perverted or a slut. Yer man is a smooth operator though.
"If you'd like we could stop by a B&Q sometime and look into getting some - if that's alright with you?"
"I'd love that".
Young love, it's beautiful. She gave her response quite quickly - again, an indication that you'd only have to touch her with chains before she falls over in a soggy, flustered mess.
They went a bit quiet & had a normal conversation after that. That gave me time to finish writing my notes up (in my super-serious writer's notebook). Almost on-cue they restarted their filthy, filthy interview. Or rather - she, still dripping from the promise of chains, restarted it:
"So are you dominant all the time, or just in private?"
Herein lies my problem.
Not with her question - though it is a dangerous question. Not even so much with his reply (though I will get on to that). It's the insinuation that someone can choose to be dominant at all times in their life. I've had the misfortune of interacting with such people a number of times, and often find them thoroughly repellent bastards.
"Yes, I'd say I am", he replies.
Not necessarily a bad thing. You can exude dominance from every pore on your imposing figure. You can control a room with subtle techniques that a master negotiator is trained in. Here's the trick though - dominance is subtle. It's imposing your will before others know it's there. It's having others feeling compelled to obey you for no other reason than you just seem like you have to be obeyed. That's dominance, and people will subconsciously notice it and follow it. It is not, I repeat NOT, someone walking into a room banging a drum going LISTEN TO ME I'M IMPORTANT LALALALALALALALA.
Yer man continues:
"I try and make people do as I say..."
Oooh, please be careful
"... I'm very aware of my place in society..."
Normally that's an acceptable thing to do in Britain. In this context though.. tricky.
"... I hate disobedience and punish those who do disobey me"
Who are you, Joffrey Baratheon?
"... and I can tell my boss what to do at work."
Errrm. Good-o.
Was she impressed by this Silverback display of alpha-manliness? I don't know. I was too in awe of his presence to notice. To be a mere mortal in the presence of such a man- of course I checked, and she seemed to give a sort of reaction that a 6 year old gives when opening a present on Christmas day only to find socks. I was aware I was almost staring at this point, so I went back to eating for a bit and reflected.
The first bit I couldn't get out of my head was this: Where does this guy work? If you can boss your boss around there are only 4 options:
1 - You're the type of guy that works awfully in teams, and is given some pseudo responsibility by your boss to shut you the hell up.
2 - You're a natural born leader destined to be a manager by 24.
3 - Your boss is an incompetent nitwit.
4 - You work in research, and literally have to tell your boss what to do so they know in what direction to steer the company. Literally, your job is a to tell your boss (or 'advise') your boss on what to do.
I'm not discounting any of the four. But either one it is, through the wording you use it makes you sound like a total arsebisuit, and probably lessens your chances of being number 2.
I'm going off topic here. This is why I am growing to dislike the word dominant. Too many people have taken over the word, and like what happened with feminism the word is being polluted to the point that being a dom is toxic stuff. These people are like maggots eating away at the dead corpse, until you having nothing left except for hungry maggots and fat flies. The flies will go off and find some other shit to wallow in, but the maggots will die with what was left of the corpse, and the whole thing will be worthless.
That's a flowery way of saying that these people are making others disassociate with being a dom, and those who stick around in the scene for a little while are actually doing some damage. I'll give you an example.
I was chatting with someone regarding an ad I put out to be a switch (shortly before my thing with Kat started). I got a message in response from a guy who claimed to be a genuine dom. HE could control all aspects of my life. HE ould turn me on in ways I never knew possible - I just had to be brave enough to hand myself over to him. 'Cool', I thought, I'll give this a go.
Turns out he wanted me to join teamviewer so he could control my PC. I have sensitive info on my PC, so that's not happening. I gave him the hard no. He persisted. He went on. I stopped messaging him. A few weeks later I got a message on Kik from him. Stupidly, I answered, figuring he couldn't be after my teamviewer again. After a brief chat about myself and Kat he decided to ask again. Again, I gave the hard no. He claimed that his persistence was one of his best qualities, I told him he was fucking annoying and U'd never message him again. He messaged back saying I was afraid of him or something.
He's my example of a dangerous guy. Over the internet he can't do much physical damage (save for being an emotionally-draining douchehole), but the damage he can do is give new people the impression that we're all predators. It's the Christian Grey school of domming - I've called myself a dominant and therefore I can. No, wrong, you can't. Consent is important. Even doms can be told no.
Trouble is, the word 'dom' has become so popular now it has become interchangeable with 'horny guy ready to fuck you at a moments notice however I want and you'll love it because". This has given licence to thousands of guys online to send harassing messages to women (and men!) exclaiming how because they're a dom and have a penis they have a right to what they want.
This is in direct contrast to the subtlety I mentioned earlier. I'm not saying these guys have less finesse than truly dominant people do, I'm saying that they have no finesse at all. I'm also not saying that they're not doms - they can label themselves as they chose and be that - but a dominant in the bedroom requires another consenting adult who is willing to accept your dominance. Being a dom in the bedroom is not born in you, like, say, homosexuality, but something you acquire with a consenting partner. Being a dom in real life is natural being an unnatural dom has another name - being a thundercunt.
I do wish those two well in their relationship. I had to leave before conversation was truly struck up again. I was also too busy making notes to be fully paying attention (whilst also looking nonchalant). I also hope, for cummy-chain girl, that her new dom doesn't turn out to be a total thundercunt.
Total Comments 8
Comments
-
Firstly, great work. This blog is a masterpiece in my opinion and I see you also dedicate yourself to your writing, which is amazing too.
I did feel afraid, though. Repetitively over this thread I was one of these "thindercunts" you described, and only when you said those last few paragraphs about the way they impose themselves like they own the world did I feel safe in dismissing it. Now, three things:
1. You can be a dom without having the FULL natural feeling. For example, I am switch. Part of me likes giving up to submission, craves love and attention. Another part of me feels the need to be in constant control, is possessive, and so on. I also roleplay. If I need to change my attitude I will. It is possible to take the dom's position without being one and while it's almost impossible to as good as a natural one, it's nit guaranteed to be a screw up.
2."I'd say I am." It's not such a bad answer. There are cues to be taken. The guy is imposing because he thinks the girl wants it. It's flirting. And even of it wasn't, what would YOU respond to someone asking "are you a dom?" or something lie that. C'mon. You might say "yes" or another variation of it, but otherwise you'd be lying. Having no choice on the matter is no excuse to say it doesn't apply to you. If you have cancer, you cancerous, like it or not. Equally if you're a dom, you're a dom. If someone asks you if you are...what answer but "I'd say I am"?
3.That maggot examples has major issue. The flies are only mentioned in the end. A reader will be left very confused at first.Posted 08-04-2015 at 04:00 PM by DareProphet 
-
I don't have enough time to give a response worthy of what you wrote, but I think you did an incredible job on this post and I at least wanted to give my thanks!Posted 08-04-2015 at 04:17 PM by Alexis Rune
-
Thank you for you kind words about my writing - they're much appreciated!Quote:Originally Posted by DareProphet
Firstly, great work. This blog is a masterpiece in my opinion and I see you also dedicate yourself to your writing, which is amazing too.
I did feel afraid, though. Repetitively over this thread I was one of these "thindercunts" you described, and only when you said those last few paragraphs about the way they impose themselves like they own the world did I feel safe in dismissing it. Now, three things:
1. You can be a dom without having the FULL natural feeling. For example, I am switch. Part of me likes giving up to submission, craves love and attention. Another part of me feels the need to be in constant control, is possessive, and so on. I also roleplay. If I need to change my attitude I will. It is possible to take the dom's position without being one and while it's almost impossible to as good as a natural one, it's nit guaranteed to be a screw up.
2."I'd say I am." It's not such a bad answer. There are cues to be taken. The guy is imposing because he thinks the girl wants it. It's flirting. And even of it wasn't, what would YOU respond to someone asking "are you a dom?" or something lie that. C'mon. You might say "yes" or another variation of it, but otherwise you'd be lying. Having no choice on the matter is no excuse to say it doesn't apply to you. If you have cancer, you cancerous, like it or not. Equally if you're a dom, you're a dom. If someone asks you if you are...what answer but "I'd say I am"?
3.That maggot examples has major issue. The flies are only mentioned in the end. A reader will be left very confused at first.
I feel like I can offer a bit of clarity on your comments:
1 - I'm a switch too, as is my girlfriend, so I totally get what you're saying. It is possible to change your opinion and say you're a dom. As I mentioned in the blog, you can give yourself the label all you want, but actually being a dom doesn't come into fruition until you have the consent of another. Therefore, a switch can decide whether the feel like a sub or a dom on any given day, but don't actually become either unless someone is there to submit to or dominate (and is consenting).
As for a full natural feeling - the idea is that it is natural and not a feeling. In that sense I'm not necessarily talking about the bedroom, but for people who just have the subtle and inherent ability to control a room.
2 - I do say the answer isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think that the question is probably more dangerous than the comment - as I said it insinuates that someone can choose to control those around them, and I find that those people are pretty narky to be around. They try to control you at every turn, even when it's not their place to do so.
But, as I admit, for some people that just comes easily. In those cases it's quite normal for everyone to subconsciously acknowledge their dominance. A notable example of this, however, is people who try to be dommy - they tend to then get petty and outdo the other for domliness.
You do make a perfectly reasonable point, however - that's just how I've interpreted it based on my experiences.
I will also point out that she didn't ask if he was a dom - but if he was a dom all the time, even when not in private. Ergo, making a concious effort to be controlling all the time.
3 - I'm struggling to see what you're saying here. I think you mean that I should restructure the metaphor so that the flies are introduced even earlier? I thought I put them in as early as I could. Where would you suggest?
Thank you for your points - it's always great to hear how others interpret things!Posted 08-04-2015 at 04:19 PM by An_Jon
-
Thank you, much appreciatedQuote:Originally Posted by Alexis Rune
I don't have enough time to give a response worthy of what you wrote, but I think you did an incredible job on this post and I at least wanted to give my thanks!
Posted 08-04-2015 at 04:21 PM by An_Jon
-
1-I have to disagree. Being a sub or a dom or a switch is more of an urge, a need. You WANT to control or loose control. And what you want is not defined by what someone accepts or ceases to accept. To be on a dominant position, yes, you need someone who agrees to be beneath you. But being dominant requires no consent.Quote:Originally Posted by An_Jon
Thank you for you kind words about my writing - they're much appreciated!
I feel like I can offer a bit of clarity on your comments:
1 - I'm a switch too, as is my girlfriend, so I totally get what you're saying. It is possible to change your opinion and say you're a dom. As I mentioned in the blog, you can give yourself the label all you want, but actually being a dom doesn't come into fruition until you have the consent of another. Therefore, a switch can decide whether the feel like a sub or a dom on any given day, but don't actually become either unless someone is there to submit to or dominate (and is consenting).
As for a full natural feeling - the idea is that it is natural and not a feeling. In that sense I'm not necessarily talking about the bedroom, but for people who just have the subtle and inherent ability to control a room.
2 - I do say the answer isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think that the question is probably more dangerous than the comment - as I said it insinuates that someone can choose to control those around them, and I find that those people are pretty narky to be around. They try to control you at every turn, even when it's not their place to do so.
But, as I admit, for some people that just comes easily. In those cases it's quite normal for everyone to subconsciously acknowledge their dominance. A notable example of this, however, is people who try to be dommy - they tend to then get petty and outdo the other for domliness.
You do make a perfectly reasonable point, however - that's just how I've interpreted it based on my experiences.
I will also point out that she didn't ask if he was a dom - but if he was a dom all the time, even when not in private. Ergo, making a concious effort to be controlling all the time.
3 - I'm struggling to see what you're saying here. I think you mean that I should restructure the metaphor so that the flies are introduced even earlier? I thought I put them in as early as I could. Where would you suggest?
Thank you for your points - it's always great to hear how others interpret things!
I also need to remind you that being a good dom and a bad one are both possible. Talent isn't a requirement, whatever that talent may be. In fact, why is getting your way with words a necessary dom characteristic? A lot of people seek out abuse doms and I assure you, they have no natural skills with their speech (unless I have the wrong idea. Either way I mean no offense to anyone).
You may ask, if this doesn't conflict with what I said before. No. You don't have to be a dom to take a dom's place. And it's possible to enjoy both giving up and gaining control.
2-I think you misinterpreted the question too. Unless I missed a whole lot of text, the question was if he was a dom all the time. Let's say someone walked into you frying an egg for breakfast for the fourth time that week. Or that you came to work with half your buttons unzipped on your first day of work. People could ask "do you always have eggs for breakfast?" or "are you always so clumsy?". The "always", in the context of having just heard someone that I assume she didn't meet a long time ago, offer to help her live her fantasies, acting like a dom, meant something like "should I expect you'll keep doing this for me?" not "is every aspect of your life a form of exerting your dominace?". Did I get my point across? I mean, I am of course speculating, but it is my belief that we should first consider that which is more reasonable. It was hum...someone's scissors the law was called. I can't remember who now.. But the point is, if we can go to the bizzar extremes right away, we might as well say they were aliens trying to brainwash you.
I also want to point out that nobody controls others "by accident". You CHOOSE to control. No exceptions. People may choose not to be controlled. But you don't control them without your own consent. Your own awareness.
3-When you mention the maggots eating and then you say that all that's left is the maggots and the flies. Am I supposed to assume the flies magically popped out of nowhere to fly away for metaphor convinience? That's called a Deus Ex Machina. No, either you include the flies from the moment you include the maggots or you don't include the flies at all. Why? They are tents of comparison. If you said "Potatoes are like a and therefore are a dangerous weapon." you would be very confused. You need the comparison term right away so you can compare. Attidue A leads to consequence A, attitude B leads to consequence B.
That's it for now, thanks for your work and appreciation and politeness.Posted 08-04-2015 at 05:24 PM by DareProphet
-
I can agree with some of this, but other things you discuss here I think are more complicated. I have encountered some who use domination as an excuse to be bossy, get their kinky desires fulfilled, have others feed their ego without feeling obligated to give anything back, etc. There are some people who are just not good dom/mes, but it's for a variety of reasons. Some people misunderstand and have only shallow impressions of D/s because they are new, some just don't know what safe, sane, and consensual kink looks like yet (and I was one of those), and some are manipulative, predator, asshats who are only using BDSM to abuse others. It's important to recognise red flags, abso-fucking-lutely, but I don't think it's a good idea to get carried away and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
What I see you describing here is some people using dominance a bit too casually for comfort. And yes, it rubs me the wrong way too. Lots of words getting tossed around like that bother me. But I think it's perhaps wiser to deal with the underlying problems regarding why they do what they do rather than the surface issue that's causing irritation.
'Dominant' in it's best form within BDSM is an incredible profound, beautiful, inspiring, delightful concept. D/s well-done is utterly incredible. I had to go through a few bad experiences as well as some awesome ones (i.e. Wardell) to really start to grasp the difference. I understand your growing dislike of the word 'dominant' because of your experiences with it - but I feel like the issue lies more in the misuse of the word than the word itself, the abuse of D/s when you know and I know that it can and does exist in absolutely fantastic form when it is done well.
Yep, it sucks that people go too far too fast when they don't know what they are doing. We help that by graciously giving people a hand and sharing what we've learned, where appropriate and welcome. And while I have no great love for Fifty Shades, I'm glad it's helped a lot of people discover their own love of kink, and people can and will learn and get better at expressing it in more...satisfying ways. You don't know better until you do. Everybody has to start somewhere. Hopefully everyone learns and grows and matures and becomes better, kinkier versions of themselves everyday.
And it really, really sucks when people use any kink or aspect of BDSM for their own ends, when they prey upon others without (sufficient) regard for the well-being of their partners. I can see some red flags with this guy - making people do what one says is not being dominant but domineering. Submission is given, not demanded, just as consent is given, not ordered or forced out of someone; punishing those who disobey him might be fine, discipline is important in D/s, but if he means everyone everywhere at all times...yikes; and for him to categorise his dominant identity with his work above his boss indicates he doesn't actually understand how authority works, he just runs roughshod over it to get his way. He could be really bad news...or he could be still figuring out just how deep domination can go. Maybe he will learn to use the word better.
I can agree with some of what you've said those who are 'truly dominant.' I have found that the really good doms I've known have been the ones who didn't have to present all this evidence to support their claims to dominance - they just said it suited them, could tell me what they loved about it, they knew what they were doing because they'd lived it and thought about it and taken the time to learn and do better. They didn't have to go through a lot of posturing, they didn't just boss me around but actually recognised that earning my trust and waiting for me to submit to them was necessary, and they had genuine respect for authority.
However, your comment that the word 'dom' being throw around so it gives horny guys license to do whatever they please, I think a little caution is in order there. It doesn't give them license. They just think it does - and they're wrong, because they still need my consent, they still need me to give my submission, or they have and are...nada. They're just entitled - and that doesn't come from the word 'dom' being used a lot, it comes from a culture of 'I want, therefore I have the right to have.' It shows up in many, many areas, not just domination.
But just because not everyone is at that final, wonderful, mature, superbly dominant state and still calls themselves dominant, it doesn't mean they are lesser or that they are just playing at being dominant. Sure, I believe that domination (like submission, and all kinks, really) is something in us, in our DNA, our personality, wired into our brains somehow - it suits us, and we love it because oh-my-chocolate-and-caramel-sunday-this-feels-so-ridiculously-good-I-had-no-idea-this-was-possible-and-I-can't-believe-I-didn't-try-this-sooner. But I've yet to meet anyone who was so naturally dominant, or submissive, or ropey, or whatever, that they didn't need to learn anything or grow or gain some experience in order to be the awesomely kinky fucker we know and love today.
Everyone who truly loves dominance...is naturally dominant. If they have a knack for it, awesome. If they need to practice a bit more and get their footing and learn the ropes, awesome too. I have yet to meet anyone who knew their stuff and didn't have both these elements.
So I'm not crazy about drawing a line between those we see as 'naturally' dominant because they exude a certain presence (and sure, they do, but I also know some people can turn that on and off at will - same thing with some subs) and those who are still in that experimental, learning, making mistakes because they need to figure things out, growing, maturing, gaining experience, and still becoming the best dom/me they can be and saying, because they don't have it all nailed down yet that they are somehow...less naturally dominant. Or that they are perhaps only a bedroom dominant. Or that they are playing at it.
Just because someone has that dominant presence doesn't mean they didn't go through a developmental stage too. I doubt they just sprang from the womb as the fully-formed dom/me.
And just because someone has chosen to live out their kink primarily in the bedroom or only on Fridays or only when the cable is out, it doesn't mean they are not truly dominant. It means they are selective about when they express that part of themselves. And the same applies to submissives.
And that's where I will finally shut up - that this is part of who they are, it doesn't have to be the entirety of someone's identity in order to be 'true' or 'real' or 'genuine' or 'valid'. So yes, I can agree with how you differentiate between subtle dominance, where there is a confidence from experience and not arrogance from entitlement and assumption. And sure, it sucks that some people give it a bad name. But you don't fix things by abandoning them, you fix things by doing it right and encouraging others to do better. So I hope you don't give up on the word 'domination' and that you find some really good incarnations of it to trump the bad experiences (and I really am sorry for those, I've been there frequently) soon. And I'm sorry I'm in a really talkative mood and my words just exploded in your blog comments. But not enough to not click 'Post Now'!Posted 08-04-2015 at 11:30 PM by naughtylittlegirl
-
Oh good, I thought you were never going toQuote:Originally Posted by naughtylittlegirl
And that's where I will finally shut up
You make a series (as always) of great points. I will say that 2/3rds of your comment is you just saying back to me what I was trying to put across in the post, but most of the time you say it better than I did, which isn't all that much of a surprise (when it comes to non-fiction writing I have a tendency to gloss over my arguments a bit more).
I also think I'm being misunderstood here a bit - I never say that people who are just dominant in the bedroom/people who aren't necessarily alpha can't be doms at all. Far from it. I'm saying there's a difference between just saying you're a dom and acting like one. Bossing your boss around isn't being a dominant - it's being a asshole.
I'm also not saying that mistakes aren't allowed, which you seem to be implying. And whereas you're right to point out that horny guys only THINK they're getting a licence to harass, you then use it to justify the exact point I was making... so thanks for that. I agree that I should have been clearer on that particular point, however.
I wholeheartedly agree about hoping whoever wants in can be afforded space to find their own kinky path. That does, however, include people being told when what they're doing is wrong - otherwise they're unlikely to see how they could hurt people.
Thank you for your comment. I'll definitely keep most of your points in mind when it comes to me writing another blog. As always, you put your opinions across in a wonderful manner that only encourages learning - so ta muchly!Posted 08-05-2015 at 11:02 AM by An_Jon
-
You might want to watch your phrasing here. A lot of what you say comes off as quite patronising - like you're talking to a 1 year old. I really hate that. Anyway, I thought I'd respond to you like an adult (and not by shitting myself at 3 am and crying for the rest of the morning).Quote:Originally Posted by DareProphet
1-I have to disagree. Being a sub or a dom or a switch is more of an urge, a need. You WANT to control or loose control. And what you want is not defined by what someone accepts or ceases to accept. To be on a dominant position, yes, you need someone who agrees to be beneath you. But being dominant requires no consent.
I also need to remind you that being a good dom and a bad one are both possible. Talent isn't a requirement, whatever that talent may be. In fact, why is getting your way with words a necessary dom characteristic? A lot of people seek out abuse doms and I assure you, they have no natural skills with their speech (unless I have the wrong idea. Either way I mean no offense to anyone).
You may ask, if this doesn't conflict with what I said before. No. You don't have to be a dom to take a dom's place. And it's possible to enjoy both giving up and gaining control.
2-I think you misinterpreted the question too. Unless I missed a whole lot of text, the question was if he was a dom all the time. Let's say someone walked into you frying an egg for breakfast for the fourth time that week. Or that you came to work with half your buttons unzipped on your first day of work. People could ask "do you always have eggs for breakfast?" or "are you always so clumsy?". The "always", in the context of having just heard someone that I assume she didn't meet a long time ago, offer to help her live her fantasies, acting like a dom, meant something like "should I expect you'll keep doing this for me?" not "is every aspect of your life a form of exerting your dominace?". Did I get my point across? I mean, I am of course speculating, but it is my belief that we should first consider that which is more reasonable. It was hum...someone's scissors the law was called. I can't remember who now.. But the point is, if we can go to the bizzar extremes right away, we might as well say they were aliens trying to brainwash you.
I also want to point out that nobody controls others "by accident". You CHOOSE to control. No exceptions. People may choose not to be controlled. But you don't control them without your own consent. Your own awareness.
3-When you mention the maggots eating and then you say that all that's left is the maggots and the flies. Am I supposed to assume the flies magically popped out of nowhere to fly away for metaphor convinience? That's called a Deus Ex Machina. No, either you include the flies from the moment you include the maggots or you don't include the flies at all. Why? They are tents of comparison. If you said "Potatoes are like a and therefore are a dangerous weapon." you would be very confused. You need the comparison term right away so you can compare. Attidue A leads to consequence A, attitude B leads to consequence B.
That's it for now, thanks for your work and appreciation and politeness.
1 - I'm a switch too - pretty much a 50/50 one. I understand perfectly what you mean by urges and desires.
We'll have to agree to disagree about 'being a dom requires no consent'. Though do be careful there - anything sexual requires consent. My reasoning is that you can label yourself a dom, but it doesn't come into fruition until you actually practice dominance for real in a D/S setting (either online or real). It's like calling yourself a golf player because you own clubs, but not once ever going out onto a golf course. Are you a golf player? Yes - in the sense that you see yourself as one; no - because you've never actually played golf.
Talent never comes into it in my blog, does it? Don't know what you're getting at there.
2 - I never say anyone controls anyone by accident - I'm saying some people just CAN do it. That's not to say other's can't learn, too - I just despise the people who force it all the damn time.
Unless we go and ask her what she meant by the question - we'll never truly know what she meant. I was basing my response on what I felt his interpretation of the question was, which I judged by his answer.
3 - A maggot is a fly larvae - therefore when a maggot eats more it will grow into a fly. That's not Deus Ex Machina at all - that's biology! To be honest, based on your description, I'm not entirely certain you fully know what DeM is... (You know like I mention several times that I'm a writer - I do understand those terms).
If you have any other questions, feel free to raise them. I feel like I've contributed all I can to that particular discussion, so any further comments would be going round in circles.
Ta!Posted 08-05-2015 at 11:13 AM by An_Jon
Updated 08-05-2015 at 11:25 AM by An_Jon (Spelling is bad. Grammar is badder.)
