Thoughts of a sD/dD relationship

bldrst

Virgin
Joined
Jul 10, 2018
Posts
2
Hello. Apologies in advance if this is already something widely discussed, or "common", but I've never heard about it. The post is a bit large, but I've tried to explain this clearly, and thus there's no TLDR. Finally, I thought that the best place to write this would be a BDSM forum, so... here it is. Hopefully, it's appropriate.

---

First of all, I consider myself a very dominant personality, in and out of sexual situations. I like to take action, to take decisions, and definitely don't enjoy "being on bottom", unless it's for a short amount of time or I still have enough control over what's happening. Adopting a passive posture is just not me, being submitted to the whims of someone else is definitely not me, and everything I do tends to have much willpower behind it. This I know; the submissive label (as a general label) does not apply, and will not apply.

Secondly, while I enjoy a more submissive partner (for what the word "submissive" is worth for, I suppose), I also enjoy a partner that can bring some more power to the relationship. Knowing that my partner is perfectly capable of "getting things happening" all by herself is frankly attractive, and I like "butting heads". I like to recognize that power, that force that must be reckoned, to respect it and to play with it (I like the "danger"). Like I said - it's attractive.

Thirdly, I enjoy to an extreme degree giving pleasure to someone that I want to please, sexual and non-sexual. It's at least as good as being pleased myself (though I still require that I'm actually pleased as well, of course. It must have some degree of mutuality, of concern and care).

---

Taking the three things above, I have often considered the idea of a "submissive dominant", or a "slave dominant" (now in actual BDSM, and not just relationship dynamics). The notion sounds a bit odd, putting antonyms in the same sentence; but maybe it has some degree of feasibility. This slave-dominant (sDom for short) willingly submits some of his control to his own dominant (I'll use dDomme here). I feel that this submission must be absolutely from the will of the sDom, and a "contract" is crucially important. Otherwise, the sDom and dDomme could end up stepping on each other, with a possibly explosive effect.

The dDomme has the raw power of the sDom under her command (even for what can be arguably seen as "slave-work", and whimsical desires), and as long as the contract is maintained, the sDom will do so willingly, and of his own desire. Possibly, the sDom may be much more powerful than the dDomme herself (using some power metric, etc.), even knowingly - and still agree to such a BDSM relationship, more like a willingly subjugated "soldier" than a slave.

This paragraph is more how I'd see it if I was the sDom (hence me choosing sDom and dDomme). The sDom would provide the dDomme his own dominant power, for a certain amount of time, according to a certain contract. Together with the usual tenets of a D/s relationship, he would do no complaining, no whimpering for release, no begging. Any physical punishments would be held stoically. Resilience, and raw power. The dDomme would of course be treated with the utmost respect (perhaps a different kind of respect than a traditional submissive). There may be some moments of slight insubordination (say, for example, the sDom decides to directly and bluntly criticise the dDomme on some topic); the dDomme is to deal with such incidents as she sees fit (noting that punishments may, should be stipulated in the contract, of course). Some particular ways of domination would be off-limits (attempts at humiliation and degradation, example) specially as the sDom may suddenly relinquish his submission if faced with non-satisfactory treatment.. Physical restraints wouldn't be of much interest - in this relationship, I would see serious, agreed-upon submission as much more enticing.

---

Now, I've written this here for a couple of reasons. I'd appreciate any comments from more (or even less) experienced persons about the whole shebang, really about anything that might provoke some reflection. I'd like to know if this is even possible (something tell me it is, though it seems particularly difficult). Or maybe this is common, and I just haven't seen it yet. I'd also like to know if anyone has gone through such a relationship, or if there are actually Dom/Dommes that have also though about something like this. Thank you!
 
Seems like an overcomplicated switching.

Why do you absolutely need a contract? It's such a silly thing, and it's not binding in any way anyway...

Can't you just play in bed? Agree on the things you want and don't want to do, and let her do it? Want her to sit on your face? Or tease and edge your cock for a while? These are not really dominant or submissive acts.

I think the initial problem that made you think so much about it are labels. Labels can spoil a lot of things. When you start labeling yourself as Dominant, and her as Submissive - you are putting unnecessary constrictions on your relationship and activities. Instead, think in terms of what you like and don't like to do, and work from there. Discuss, adapt, mix things up.

Also no one says that if you are Dom today - then you are Dom forever. Just mix and match things. Today you tie her up, tomorrow she dominates you, and that doesn't have to ruin anything. The scope of your dominations don't have to be equal - for example when you are on Top, your games may involve bondage and spanking or whatnot. But when She's on Top, the games may be entirely different - with no bondage and no pain, but with light servitude or femdom.

You can even be dominating each other at the same time, if that works for you. For example, have a number of commitments and responsibilities to each other, and either gets punished if they break them. No doms, no subs - just two people who had invented and outlined an arrangement for themselves that pleases both.

I think that making up more labels like sDom only confuses things and brings in completely unnecessary clutter to the relationship.
 
Last edited:
Hello. Apologies in advance if this is already something widely discussed, or "common", but I've never heard about it. The post is a bit large, but I've tried to explain this clearly, and thus there's no TLDR. Finally, I thought that the best place to write this would be a BDSM forum, so... here it is. Hopefully, it's appropriate.

---

First of all, I consider myself a very dominant personality, in and out of sexual situations. I like to take action, to take decisions, and definitely don't enjoy "being on bottom", unless it's for a short amount of time or I still have enough control over what's happening. Adopting a passive posture is just not me, being submitted to the whims of someone else is definitely not me, and everything I do tends to have much willpower behind it. This I know; the submissive label (as a general label) does not apply, and will not apply.

Secondly, while I enjoy a more submissive partner (for what the word "submissive" is worth for, I suppose), I also enjoy a partner that can bring some more power to the relationship. Knowing that my partner is perfectly capable of "getting things happening" all by herself is frankly attractive, and I like "butting heads". I like to recognize that power, that force that must be reckoned, to respect it and to play with it (I like the "danger"). Like I said - it's attractive.

Thirdly, I enjoy to an extreme degree giving pleasure to someone that I want to please, sexual and non-sexual. It's at least as good as being pleased myself (though I still require that I'm actually pleased as well, of course. It must have some degree of mutuality, of concern and care).

---

Taking the three things above, I have often considered the idea of a "submissive dominant", or a "slave dominant" (now in actual BDSM, and not just relationship dynamics). The notion sounds a bit odd, putting antonyms in the same sentence; but maybe it has some degree of feasibility. This slave-dominant (sDom for short) willingly submits some of his control to his own dominant (I'll use dDomme here). I feel that this submission must be absolutely from the will of the sDom, and a "contract" is crucially important. Otherwise, the sDom and dDomme could end up stepping on each other, with a possibly explosive effect.

The dDomme has the raw power of the sDom under her command (even for what can be arguably seen as "slave-work", and whimsical desires), and as long as the contract is maintained, the sDom will do so willingly, and of his own desire. Possibly, the sDom may be much more powerful than the dDomme herself (using some power metric, etc.), even knowingly - and still agree to such a BDSM relationship, more like a willingly subjugated "soldier" than a slave.

This paragraph is more how I'd see it if I was the sDom (hence me choosing sDom and dDomme). The sDom would provide the dDomme his own dominant power, for a certain amount of time, according to a certain contract. Together with the usual tenets of a D/s relationship, he would do no complaining, no whimpering for release, no begging. Any physical punishments would be held stoically. Resilience, and raw power. The dDomme would of course be treated with the utmost respect (perhaps a different kind of respect than a traditional submissive). There may be some moments of slight insubordination (say, for example, the sDom decides to directly and bluntly criticise the dDomme on some topic); the dDomme is to deal with such incidents as she sees fit (noting that punishments may, should be stipulated in the contract, of course). Some particular ways of domination would be off-limits (attempts at humiliation and degradation, example) specially as the sDom may suddenly relinquish his submission if faced with non-satisfactory treatment.. Physical restraints wouldn't be of much interest - in this relationship, I would see serious, agreed-upon submission as much more enticing.

---

Now, I've written this here for a couple of reasons. I'd appreciate any comments from more (or even less) experienced persons about the whole shebang, really about anything that might provoke some reflection. I'd like to know if this is even possible (something tell me it is, though it seems particularly difficult). Or maybe this is common, and I just haven't seen it yet. I'd also like to know if anyone has gone through such a relationship, or if there are actually Dom/Dommes that have also though about something like this. Thank you!


Have to agree with Nezhul - this is overcomplicating things and getting too caught up in labels.

The contract thing has me curious, too. What do you see in this contract? I understand the idea of having really clear communication. A contract, though, feels really constricting. Like you couldn't make a move without checking the document.

I do think contracts are kind of hot. Sitting down with your dDsDDs :rolleyes: (or PYL!!) and talking explicitly about expectations can be really arousing. And a great starting point for jumping in. That being said,there's something to be said for just jumping in and doing what you like.

I was with a Dominant who wanted me to peg him. Strap on and all. I was horrified. How submissive of him! He just laughed and asked if it would easier if he ordered me to do it. He liked what he liked. I found out I liked it, too. It really wasn't about D or sD or any other labels.

If you're in to the contract thing - write exactly what you wrote here. No whining during punishments, yada yada. Maybe it's binding for the weekend.

But a relationship is just a relationship and it ebbs and flows.

Let us know how it works out!!
 
Thank you very much for your inputs.

A "contract" is a word I've chosen to represent a mutually-agreed set of limits and expectations. I do not see the discussion of limits and expectations as optional in any way whatsoever, when in situations where there is a very fine line between what is pleasurable and what is definitely not (many of the BDSM-related kinks come to mind). It, of course, does not need to be written in paper, sealed, stamped, signed, or any of those things usually associated with the common usage of the word contract (though doing so may be fun and kinky in its own right, your mileage may vary). I've chosen "contract" in particular because I want to emphasise the seriousness of it, given it contains the involved parties' limits (the respect of which being paramount) and the expectations of what is to happen (so there aren't any unfortunate surprises and/or misunderstandings, also important). Finally, this contract can be as long or short as wanted and/or required, it definitely does not need/should be a mess of fine-prints and overly constrictive instructions, such that you can't walk ten steps without referring to Article 13.4(c) of a 20-page tome.

I don't envision this relationship, or most "BDSM-centred relationships" even (well, whatever that means), as only revolving around the bedroom. Just "playing in bed" is restricting it significantly; there are many other situations apart from bedroom, sex, and bedroom sex that are kinky, arousing and satisfying in different ways. This relationship is in itself a kink; not necessarily intensive or long-term, not necessarily the only between the involved parties, as all kinks are. Its "constrictions" are actually intended/desired. There can be multiple on-going relationships, multiple ways to behave between any two-plus people (or, at least, that's how I am using this concept, sorry if that may have been confusing). So this relationship I'm talking about is not -the- relationship, but -a- relationship, a particular dynamic that I personally find intriguing. Doable one day, one weekend, one month, or when the fancy hits, depending on what everyone wants and agrees with.

Now, indeed, no-one said that a (generic) Dom today is a Dom forever. I actually did not mention "Dom" at all (excluding the mention of "dominant", perhaps, but more for illustrative/suggestive purposes than as a necessary concept for understanding the relationship). I did mention I consider myself "significantly dominant", and prefer a "more submissive" partner, as an introduction to my ideas, but that isn't in any way binding; as a more submissive partner may have bouts of domination, and a significantly dominant partner may have bouts of submission. I used these "labels" loosely (non-restrictively) and to discuss a broad tendency, not to force an involved party into an hermetic and exclusive label/category.

The terms I am using are "sDom" and "dDomme" (shift them around for your preferred genders), which I have defined myself when exposing the relationship. In fact, the terms are defined precisely by the dynamics of that relationship (who relinquishes control to who, how much, why, the details of such, and so on) and not by the personalities of the parties involved. So they are not a trait, a "label" of someone, as much as they are the -roles- of that specific relationship. Sure I built those word by slapping an "s" or "d" on "Dom" or "Domme", and the why of such is understandable I think, but a rose by any other name would be just as kinky.

I do think that a particular relationship centred on switching or centred on "simultaneous domination" would be interesting to explore further, but neither of those really are this particular "relationship type". It is not a switching relationship, as control doesn't switch between parties that often; it is not a simultaneous domination relationship because control is mostly focused on specific parties, and not "uniformly shared". Thus the submissive and dominative roles are more clearly cut, perhaps in a more stereotypical or "typical" fashion.

I will be exploring about the particulars of this relationship type further though, and I'll try to let you know them as I go.
 
Thank you very much for your inputs.

A "contract" is a word I've chosen to represent a mutually-agreed set of limits and expectations. I do not see the discussion of limits and expectations as optional in any way whatsoever, when in situations where there is a very fine line between what is pleasurable and what is definitely not (many of the BDSM-related kinks come to mind). It, of course, does not need to be written in paper, sealed, stamped, signed, or any of those things usually associated with the common usage of the word contract (though doing so may be fun and kinky in its own right, your mileage may vary). I've chosen "contract" in particular because I want to emphasise the seriousness of it, given it contains the involved parties' limits (the respect of which being paramount) and the expectations of what is to happen (so there aren't any unfortunate surprises and/or misunderstandings, also important). Finally, this contract can be as long or short as wanted and/or required, it definitely does not need/should be a mess of fine-prints and overly constrictive instructions, such that you can't walk ten steps without referring to Article 13.4(c) of a 20-page tome.

I don't envision this relationship, or most "BDSM-centred relationships" even (well, whatever that means), as only revolving around the bedroom. Just "playing in bed" is restricting it significantly; there are many other situations apart from bedroom, sex, and bedroom sex that are kinky, arousing and satisfying in different ways. This relationship is in itself a kink; not necessarily intensive or long-term, not necessarily the only between the involved parties, as all kinks are. Its "constrictions" are actually intended/desired. There can be multiple on-going relationships, multiple ways to behave between any two-plus people (or, at least, that's how I am using this concept, sorry if that may have been confusing). So this relationship I'm talking about is not -the- relationship, but -a- relationship, a particular dynamic that I personally find intriguing. Doable one day, one weekend, one month, or when the fancy hits, depending on what everyone wants and agrees with.

Now, indeed, no-one said that a (generic) Dom today is a Dom forever. I actually did not mention "Dom" at all (excluding the mention of "dominant", perhaps, but more for illustrative/suggestive purposes than as a necessary concept for understanding the relationship). I did mention I consider myself "significantly dominant", and prefer a "more submissive" partner, as an introduction to my ideas, but that isn't in any way binding; as a more submissive partner may have bouts of domination, and a significantly dominant partner may have bouts of submission. I used these "labels" loosely (non-restrictively) and to discuss a broad tendency, not to force an involved party into an hermetic and exclusive label/category.

The terms I am using are "sDom" and "dDomme" (shift them around for your preferred genders), which I have defined myself when exposing the relationship. In fact, the terms are defined precisely by the dynamics of that relationship (who relinquishes control to who, how much, why, the details of such, and so on) and not by the personalities of the parties involved. So they are not a trait, a "label" of someone, as much as they are the -roles- of that specific relationship. Sure I built those word by slapping an "s" or "d" on "Dom" or "Domme", and the why of such is understandable I think, but a rose by any other name would be just as kinky.

I do think that a particular relationship centred on switching or centred on "simultaneous domination" would be interesting to explore further, but neither of those really are this particular "relationship type". It is not a switching relationship, as control doesn't switch between parties that often; it is not a simultaneous domination relationship because control is mostly focused on specific parties, and not "uniformly shared". Thus the submissive and dominative roles are more clearly cut, perhaps in a more stereotypical or "typical" fashion.

I will be exploring about the particulars of this relationship type further though, and I'll try to let you know them as I go.

Good god wtf!!!!!!
You’ll send people running for the hills with your over complicated overthinking labeling crazyness!
Sex is about fun!!! FUN!
To be enjoyed.
You’re out there!!!
 
I've been trying to wrap my head around this topic, and try as I might, I just can't see how this is different from any old D/s dynamic, despite the labels you might use.

To be submissive to one person doesn't mean you have to be weak or that you can't even be more powerful than the person you're submitting to. Submitting to someone doesn't have to be about that someone inexplicably inspiring submission in you. It can be making a choice, over and over again, to submit to that person.
 
This idea makes sense to me. While I'm generally not a big fan of labels in my daily life, in the BDSM world, especially if looking for a partner, labels can be helpful, IMHO. I kind of wish there was a Myers Briggs type standard for the kink world, so there would be a shorthand way of saying you're service-oriented, derive pleasure from giving pleasure, desire a more formal type relationship that embraces certain types of conflict. And you're a male Dominant. This would be in your case, or at least it's my take on it.

I see some people have responded somewhat harshly to your post, presumably it didn't resonate with them. That's okay - if you're searching, those are not the ones you're looking for.

Back to resonance. That you have specific ideas about how this might play out is helpful to those who read it and it rings true to. In my mind, what Domme wouldn't want a masculine alpha "soldier" to do her bidding, in bed and out? He doesn't lose any Dominant footing because he respects her and they know it's what they both want and it works for them.

Pretty sweet deal if you ask me.

Just my two cents.
 
So is this basically BDSM feudalism?

12d7f2f5396ccc7684a885754ec8b19c.jpg


The arch-dom owns all the people in the agreement by right, but may provide lesser doms with ownership over some of their even-lesser subjects as vassals in exchange for services.

The lesser doms, now lords of their fief-doms (pun intended), might themselves allow a handful of their new subjects to lease and command ownership over the rest of the subjects provided by the arch-dom to save them having to micromanage everybody in exchange for the same services they provide the arch-dom.

And so on so forth until we get something like the feudal crisis where the whole thing totally collapses into lawless anarchic power-struggles.
 
I've been trying to wrap my head around this topic, and try as I might, I just can't see how this is different from any old D/s dynamic, despite the labels you might use.

To be submissive to one person doesn't mean you have to be weak or that you can't even be more powerful than the person you're submitting to. Submitting to someone doesn't have to be about that someone inexplicably inspiring submission in you. It can be making a choice, over and over again, to submit to that person.

This.
 
Back
Top