Reflections on Gentleman Doms

[Venefica]

I spent my whole life not raping, but people on lit still see me as an asshole and not a gentleman

Good one !

I assume that Prince Andrew call himself a gentleman.

I helped a good (more precisely my best) female friend searching a (DOMinant) partner over several years. We hit some men being well educated, with a good behaviour at the beginning and where later unmasked as misogyn a---- holes.

 

[Love_Is_Blonde]

For me, this adds to the thrill.

The knowledge that he could, but chooses not.

I suspect mileage on this varies greatly, submissive type dependent. A more service oriented submissive might be appalled, but my submission has an edge. Predator/prey, consensual non-consent. The physical power disparity is part of the arousal.


*nods vigorously*

I have a wide service streak, but also appreciate play/submission that is deeply transgressive. Verging on non con and definitely with elements of pain and humiliation.
And yes... the line between him doing whatever he wants because he can, and not going past negotiated limits has everything to do with him being trustworthy and, at heart, a gentleman.

What Enny and Cassie said resonates deeply with me, and this is a spectrum, right? That’s what makes this discussion so interesting. (And hopefully this can remain a discussion so that we can hear others’ perspectives, and people don’t shut down and feel as if they can’t share his or her points of view.)

It’s the “what if” part. The scary part. The fear. It all comes into play for me with this type of relationship. And that is why I had never found someone who fit my idea of a man who would be able to be a Dominant to me- because I didn’t trust anyone enough to hand over control of myself to. I hadn’t met a man who was a Gentleman enough to earn that privilege from me. (Not that I am a huge prize to everyone; I am just saying that for lack of better wording).

A Gentleman, for me, is someone I can trust to do the right thing, and who is there for me even when no one is looking, even when I am at my absolute worst, even when I am at my weakest, and at his core, he is honorable and I know that I can depend on him no matter what.

I will add that, for anyone who doesn’t know @Mei5ter, he is the definition of a Gentleman and should in no way be looked at in any other way because of this discussion.

 

[Mei5ter]

Sorry, but bullshit

Good morning.

At that point it ceases to be submission. If the dominant ignores agreed boundaries and consent, then it moves into assault and rape, not dominance and submission.

Submission is a willing act where the submissive chooses to give themselves to their dominant, and it relies on trust because the relationship is deliberately engineered to make one party vulnerable.

Ignoring safe words, or taking what you want because you can is basic cuntishness.

Yes, I know this. But I think you're answering a different point than the one I was making. I'll try to clarify.

Your point appears to be that the D shouldn't do that, and that Ds who do are being abusive. This is correct, if crashingly obvious, and no one is saying otherwise.

I was responding to a discussion here about whether or not submissives actually have control in a D/s relationship, because they can withdraw their consent.

The point I was trying to make is: yes, a sub can withdraw their consent, but should their partner ignore their withdrawal of consent, there may well not be much the sub can do about it.

Yes, that would be about as disgusting a betrayal of trust as you can get, and you'd then be looking at rape, assault, actual/grievous bodily harm, and God knows what else. No one is disputing that.

But, if the sub is physically helpless, they are reliant on the D to be completely trustworthy, because if the D ignores that safe word, they don't have any other options. It isn't a very pleasant thing to point out, but I'm afraid it's the truth.

By the same token, if the D needs to use their safe word to end a scene, the sub can't force them to continue it.

I hope that clarifies things.

 

[Neanderthal247]

I mean.. not saying that you are not a gentleman (you most definitely are!) - But:
When did not committing a criminal act become the standard for a gentleman?

Maybe my definition of "being a gentleman and having good manners" differ from others?

Look at you being all nice to me, I knew you had the hots for me

Good one !

I assume that Prince Andrew call himself a gentleman.

I helped a good (more precise my best) female friend searching a (DOMinant) partner ovr several years. We hit some men being well educated, with a good behaviour at the beginning and where later unmasked as misgyn a---- holes.

100% true




Ladies I 100% agree with you, also going to jail and getting tortured in every way is a strong deterrent.


But to be fair, I don't think he meant it's OK to rape. I think he meant respecting a woman's boundaries, despite wanting to devour her is being a gentleman.

Of course I am not him and he's a grown man, that can speak for himself if he chooses to.

 

[Neanderthal247]

@Cat

On a funnier note

You see, you can't say anything nice to me, without me thinking " I know she wants me! ".

 

[YourGentleDom]

A Gentleman Dom treats his sub like a princess or queen in everyday life, but in bed like the whore she likes to be. Not like the bitch he wants her to be. A sensitive Dom does not need a safeword or a stop sign. Because he knows that her pleasure counts more than his.

 

[cascadiabound]

What Enny and Cassie said resonates deeply with me, and this is a spectrum, right? That’s what makes this discussion so interesting. (And hopefully this can remain a discussion so that we can hear others’ perspectives, and people don’t shut down and feel as if they can’t share his or her points of view.)

I'd like to echo this bolded bit especially.

It's easy to get heated about topics related to BDSM partly because

1) everyone works out the particulars differently (it's a spectrum/buffet)

2) power dynamics mixed with sexuality always has a risk of someone crossing a line with or without intent

3) there are way too many assholes who use the cover of BDSM as an excuse to be misogynistic abusers and carte blanche to behave badly. Obviously people who fall into this category are not good actors- they should be avoided at all costs and pointed out to others as persons that have not proved trustworthy.

I'd like this thread to remain a civil and interesting dialog. My starting assumption is that criminal behavior is far outside of the definition of a gentleman.

Let's talk nuances. Let's avoid name calling and pointing fingers. Let's try to speak for ourselves. Let's seek clarification when something doesn't sit right or we are confused. And let's remember that there is no absolute true path to making relationships work in ways that are safe and satisfying for both persons.

Thanks everyone!

 

[Venefica]

I'd like to echo this bolded bit especially.

It's easy to get heated about topics related to BDSM partly because

1) everyone works out the particulars differently (it's a spectrum/buffet)

2) power dynamics mixed with sexuality always has a risk of someone crossing a line with or without intent

3) there are way too many assholes who use the cover of BDSM as an excuse to be misogynistic abusers and carte blanche to behave badly. Obviously people who fall into this category are not good aactors- they should be avoided at all costs and pointed out to others as persons that have not proved trustworthy.

I'd like this thread to remain a civil and interesting dialog. My starting assumption is that criminal behavior is far outside of the definition of a gentleman.

Let's talk nuances. Let's avoid name calling and pointing fingers. Let's try to speak for ourselves. Let's seek clarification when something doesn't sit right or we are confused. And let's remember that there is no absolute true path to making relationships work in ways that are safe and satisfying for both persons.

Thanks everyone!

On the DOM side there are many people with a narcissistic personality disorder, on sub side you have many borderliners.

 

[cascadiabound]

On the DOM side there are many people with a narcissistic personality disorder, on sub side you have many borderliners.

That may be true. But I don't see how saying so advances the discussion topic of this thread.

 

[cascadiabound]

Being a Gentleman Dom means to be always respectful, based on consent and not on his choice or that of a personal whim. A gentle Dom has only the power in which his sub has granted to him.

It’s not about what he can sexually get. It’s only about what he can give.

This sounds like the definition of a service top, not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[cascadiabound]

A very old, but useful post. This is a sticky at the top of the BDSM talk board.

Top. dom. sub. bottom. And the differences between them. AKA "Stella's usual rant."

Note: Our society has become very enamored of the concept of Dom and Sub. Many people come into the lifestyle without ever hearing that any other dynamic can exist, which is why I have written this little essay. I do not wish to give the impression that you or anyone else are restricted to one or another of the roles I have described here. My reason for writing it, in fact, is exactly the opposite-- to show that there are more roles and motivations within BDSM than are commonly recognised.

I don't want to give the impression that any role is solid or permanent. There is a lot of fluidity in most people. Needs and desires change and mutate over a lifetime, within a relationship, for any reason or none. And motives, methods, preferences can be mixed together.


----
Many people know what they want to feel, and how they want to feel it, and many people get a lot of pleasure out of providing sensation for someone else. This kind of dynamic is widely misunderstood in current BDSM parlance.

Let me start with a handful of Definitions;

This, as someone recently pointed out to me, is not a definition included in Webster's dictionary. But the way I am using "top" and "bottom" here has been common since the seventies. I swear it! Long before I ever heard "submissive" and dominant" there was "top and bottom." Google agrees with me, so there.

Topping and bottoming refer to relative roles in activities. Dom and sub refer to relative roles in relationships.

When two people are fucking, there is usually one person who is active and one who is receptive. In SM activities, one person is doing unto, and one is being done unto. The active person is the top, the receptive person is the bottom.

Dominant and submissive refer to relative status. Also, for many people, the motivations behind many relational activities.

In the relationships that we define as D/s, one person's preferences and desires define the relationship, and the other person allows the relationship to be defined by their partner. We say the sub has given their power to the dom.

For our purposes here, we can say that topping and bottoming are the things we do, dom and sub are how or why we do those things.


------


Why are these distinctions important to you?

The big problem that arises from this misunderstanding and the resulting social expectations, is that people-- women in particular-- believe that they want to be submissive and owned because of their desire for sensation when what they really want is to have a whole lot of attention paid to them. And when a service top-- whose real intent is to serve-- thinks that he has to be the boss in all things, when in fact he might not be suited for that role at all.

Many people come into the lifestyle thinking that anyone who does unto, is dominant. Anyone who receives, is submissive. That's not always true; Not all tops are doms. Likewise, not all bottoms are subs.

Folks who know how they want to be done are often called "Bossy bottoms," or SAM's ("Smart Ass Masochists") or "Pillow Princesses" or other things, but they they might actually be "Dominant Bottoms." They might not be submissive at all, in other words. And really, there is no reason why they should try to be.

Tops who *want to provide* what such a person *wants to feel* get told that they are wimps, or not really Doms-- and in fact, they might not consider themselves to be dominant. They can call themselves "Service Tops," and IMO, that's a mighty fine and honorable position to claim. An active partner might not be suited to be the boss. If not, then there is no reason why they should try to be.


If you want more information on what kinds of things can happen in BDSM, I recommend these books, All four of them are 'old' these days, and pretty much every other book about BSM is a repeat of what is in these books.

They are;
The New Topping Book
The New Bottoming Book by Dossie Easton and Janet Hardy
Screw The Roses, Send Me The Thorns by Philip Miller and Molly Devon
SM 101; A realistic Introduction by Jay Wiseman

They can be found at Amazon or ordered from your local independent bookseller.

 

[cascadiabound]

A Gentleman, for me, is someone I can trust to do the right thing, and who is there for me even when no one is looking, even when I am at my absolute worst, even when I am at my weakest, and at his core, he is honorable and I know that I can depend on him no matter what.

I like this definition

 

[YourGentleDom]

I know some subs who need a safe word.

Just saying...

And why they need it ? Because he doesn‘t know her limits

 

[Cat]

And why they need it ? Because he doesn‘t know her limits

Oh! Now this sounds pretty dangerous to me.

If you are playing within the pretty spectrum of BDSM, both partners should have safe words.
- That got NOTHING to do with knowing eachothers limits.

But everything to do with us being humans, and therefore prone to err.

- what if the submissive was having a bad day? That might change the limits significantly.
- what if the dominant had not been sleeping well, that might cloud the judgement.

I am not saying that the people does not know or respect eachother, but I am saying that we are humans: sometimes we are more or less aware, more or less sensitive.. you can continue this yourself.

But, safe words are not only for our own sake, it is just as much for our partners sake!
Until we learn how to read minds, they seem to be the most efficient way of protecting eachother.

 

[Saltfountain]

I have deleted my posts in this thread. I apologise for having brought extreme views here

If you have quoted my posts please can you also remove them

Thank you

 

[cascadiabound]

I have deleted my posts in this thread. I apologise for having brought extreme views here

If you have quoted my posts please can you also remove them

Thank you

Salty - you brought no extreme views. In a perfect world I'd have preferred you hadn't called out another member directly as bullshit. But it was also fine. I don't think anyone is that thin skinned that it requires posts to be removed. I think you added to the conversation which is absolutely what I'm interested in and curious about.

We can be civil and disagree and have very different perspectives without being disagreeable.

 

[Saltfountain]

Salty - you brought no extreme views. In a perfect world I'd have preferred you hadn't called out another member directly as bullshit. But it was also fine. I don't think anyone is that thin skinned that it requires posts to be removed. I think you added to the conversation which is absolutely what I'm interested in and curious about.

We can be civil and disagree and have very different perspectives without being disagreeable.

Then why tell me I should have pm'd first before I posted?

I've held my hands up to being the cunt here. I just know if I have to pm first before posting, it's not a thread for me. I'll keep my nose out and leave you all to enjoy it in peace

 

[cascadiabound]

Then why tell me I should have pm'd first before I posted?

It was a suggestion from me to you as a friend. You'd already said on this thread you were writing maybe before reading everything that came before. I know these topics can be super triggering for lots of people. I was hoping I could count on you to contribute and also help keep the temperature down and promote civil conversation.

And my private comments were meant for going forward and to maybe just think a beat. Not intended to ask you or expect you to remove posts.

Just like you reached out to me privately when you had a concern about something I posted, sometimes that's a good route. Not required ever. Just sometimes useful. That's it.

 

[Endless_Night]

I have deleted my posts in this thread. I apologise for having brought extreme views here.

I'm sorry you deleted.

I caught up this morning, but had no time to respond until now.

I wanted to address something you said where you mentioned self-declared Doms who view dominance as license to do what they choose, with no care or responsibility to the submissive involved.

This ties back into my point earlier in the discussion, where parties seemed to start settling into two camps. Those that think the partnership should be seen as equitable, and those who think the submissive has the ultimate control.

Take your self-centric Doms and I'll toss in the set of submissives who know they want to submit but are uncertain where the lines are as far their ability to say no. The two groups together create a situation ripe for abuse.

Even more seasoned submissives can struggle with autonomy, as most have a strong desire to please their dominant partner.

To me, the duality of opinion illustrates @cascadiabound's earlier comment about how single sentence absolute statements don't work well.

Of course the Dom/sub relationship should be characterized with open discussion and equitable value of partners. Ideally. Things are rarely ideal. It's equally important that submissives understand, intellectually and viscerally, that they have the power (and responsibility) to say no to something that's not in their best interest.

While both camps may seem as though they are saying something very different, they're both working from a desire to ensure the well being of participants.

In my opinion one can approach from either direction and still end up in the same place - a healthy relationship.

(Hopefully that was articulated in a reasonably sensible way. It's been a looooooong day.)

 

[MiaBabe23]

I have deleted my posts in this thread. I apologise for having brought extreme views here

If you have quoted my posts please can you also remove them

Thank you

I don’t think you were a cunt at all. I was thinking and feeling the same, and it gave the OP the chance to clarify
Personally I was glad you said it

 

[Mr_bogey]

@MindYaBitness has some expertise on this topic. Has she weighed in?

 

[MiaBabe23]

And why they need it ? Because he doesn‘t know her limits

Nope
Because everyone is different, moods and situations are different, and because it’s obviously essential at the start of such a relationship evolving
And it’s also a vital way of showing someone you respect them, whether or not they choose to use it

 

[Cat]

@MindYaBitness has some expertise on this topic. Has she weighed in?

Not as far as I know?

 

[barefootgirl69]

This is has been brought up, in my opinion and in my experience, a gentleman dom won't push to get into a dynamic. He's content to wait and see how things progress, eager to talk and discuss expectations they both have, listen to fears and qualms, reassure, but also ensure that he's compatible with the sub.

It's a consensual agreement, after all.

Here's the "it was brought up" part. A gentleman dom should insist on them having a safeword, even if it's never used. Yes, "he should know her well enough" but that doesn't always happen right away, or they may be in a different mindset during play.

It also is there for both to use at ANY time. I was told this and I'm holding onto it. Even during conversations where I'm not prepared to comment or answer because I need to think.

 

[Cat]

Take your self-centric Doms and I'll toss in the set of submissives who know they want to submit but are uncertain where the lines are as far their ability to say no. The two groups together create a situation ripe for abuse.

Even more seasoned submissives can struggle with autonomy, as most have a strong desire to please their dominant partner.

Yes to this!! And this is also a reason why both partners should have a set of safe words.

And why, no matter how tedious and mood killing those conversations might be:
If you are attracted to the more edgy/fringe area of BDSM, you need to talk, often and daily.
What was okay yesterday might not be okay today.

Also, having seen and met people myself, who lived in the fringes:
There is a slippery slope.
It is so sneaky, so unassuming, so invisible.
But say you like CNC, you have a partner, all is good and you are both getting what you need from the relationship, but after a while it is not enough, you both need more - so there will be tools, ropes, knives - and that will fuel the need for even more (!), Breath play, real cutting..

I am not saying that any of it is bad. I am not saying that I condemn it!

But what I am saying, is that it is a slippery slope where safe, sane and consensual loses its meaning.
And when that happens, it is usually a pretty good idea to take a step (or ten) back, breathe, and then try again - my guess is, most people will find that their limits change after a reset.

Becoming desensitised is a real danger, and one that we do not talk enough about.

What happens if we go too far beyond our limits, when we are in that "high flying-happy-thrill-hormones" high when desensitised?
What if we start to feel really bad about the things we did?

Who is to blame? If any at all!
And how do we move on from there?

Do we leave that thrilling grey area, never to revisit, or is it possible to find a way to make it work.

Because, you are so right... It can be awful to say the safe words, it can be horrible to stop when things are seemingly going well.
But, it is just so important to realise:

You cannot give consent if the games have begun.. our mind and hormones are not our friends, and what we are willing to agree to when flying high, might not be the same when we have landed.