Who's the Dom?

[dashd]

I have been contemplating this question quite a bit recently. Could it be that the so called “sub” in a relationship is actually the “dom”? In most Sub/Dom relationships where the sub “sets the limits” and has a “safe word” ... is that not truly establishing the sub as dom? Is not the “sub” in effect telling the “dom” to dominate me actually in fact telling the submissive dom what to do thereby making the dom the sub in the relationship... especially when limits are set? Would not a true submissive accept his/her masters domination without limits? I would like once to experience being truly dominated... forced to do those things I would never do... no limits.... even denied orgasm to be used solely as my partner’s enjoyment... and be punished ... again no limits... if I fail to bring that pleasure to her/him.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Be careful what you wish for. I personally don't see orgasm denial as very edgy play...it can be uncomfortable, but for me it doesn't come close to some things which can be demanded in a 'no limits' relationship. Just my 0.02 cents worth though.

Catalina

 

[VelvetDarkness]

I agree that pyls (pick your label; sub, slave, bottom) have the ultimate veto on most things in a power exchange relationship. OTOH I do think it's a fair exchange for the amount of control they give up to the PYL (Pick Your Label; Dom, Master, Top) during any sexual play.

In order for trust to be established there have to be places where a PYL agrees not to go. I don't think that negates the dynamic or makes it any less real. Most people seek someone whose tastes tally with their own in order to minimise the things that are 'off limts.'

No self respecting PYL wants to overstep their pyl's comfort zone (much) or they risk inflicting psychological or physical damage and even of criminal charges if they've done something to someone without their consent. PYLs generally treat their toys with respect. That way they get to keep playing with them. That doesn't mean the toy has a say in when and how they get played with in real terms.

Hope that made sense.

 

[Primalex]

I have been contemplating this question quite a bit recently. Could it be that the so called “sub” in a relationship is actually the “dom”? In most Sub/Dom relationships where the sub “sets the limits” and has a “safe word” ... is that not truly establishing the sub as dom? Is not the “sub” in effect telling the “dom” to dominate me actually in fact telling the submissive dom what to do thereby making the dom the sub in the relationship... especially when limits are set? Would not a true submissive accept his/her masters domination without limits?

I would rather have a sub who knows that she lacks the experience and therefore sets limits and a safeword than a sub who jumps into the relationship with "dominate me any way you want, master!" and then runs crying to the police, because her ass got raped by the dom and his buddys.

Limits and safewords don't just protect the sub.

 

[rosco rathbone]

It would be awesome if it were still say, 400 AD and we could ride through villages putting the menfolk to the sword and sowing the fields with salt.

And bearing away all nubiles to lives of sexual bondage.

The truth is that we exist as doms on the sufferance of females these days, and if they want to fuck us, all they have to do is call the cops and say "he beats me: look at the bruises."

Deal with it.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I agree that pyls (pick your label; sub, slave, bottom) have the ultimate veto on most things in a power exchange relationship. OTOH I do think it's a fair exchange for the amount of control they give up to the PYL (Pick Your Label; Dom, Master, Top) during any sexual play.

In order for trust to be established there have to be places where a PYL agrees not to go. I don't think that negates the dynamic or makes it any less real. Most people seek someone whose tastes tally with their own in order to minimise the things that are 'off limts.'

No self respecting PYL wants to overstep their pyl's comfort zone (much) or they risk inflicting psychological or physical damage and even of criminal charges if they've done something to someone without their consent. PYLs generally treat their toys with respect. That way they get to keep playing with them. That doesn't mean the toy has a say in when and how they get played with in real terms.

Hope that made sense.

Hmmm, I see where you are coming from, but I would be careful about defining what self respecting PYL's should and would do. Personally I am in a TPE no limits relationship which means just that, not that I have made clear I will be 'no limits' as long as he sticks to the list I expected him to when I agreed to it. When I offered to take this step (it was planned, but for much further in the future than I offered it), F did not initially accept it and made me spend some time thinking about exactly what I was agreeing to...IOW, he did not intend to keep to a list of things I considered OK, nor was he going to guarantee there would not be things expected of me which at that time were within his limits, and yes, he has added things which previously he had no attraction to, nor wanted to do.

Part of the attraction in these tasks lies in the fact he knows they were way beyond anything I would jump up and down and beg for, nor are they things which can be done in a flash just because I desire to please/obey, but at the end of the day, they are to be obeyed. This is why I spend the time warning people to not jump into 'no limits' believing it is still within their control and/or that their PYL is not good if he dares step outside their comfort zone in a way they do not like or approve of. That is the point of 'no limits'...to keep to limits the PYL sets (not the pyl), and without expecting them to consider their pyl's preference and view of them once they issue their orders.

Catalina

 

[dashd]

Perhaps you miss my point.... I consider myself bi-curious and submissive. But if I should go to a dom partner and say “Force me to suck off another guy.” am I not in truth dominating my partner telling her what I want her to make me do and in effect in this relationship the true dom? I understand that there needs to be trust in a sub/dom relationship to in effect “be safe” including no transmission of disease or permanent injury.

 

[sexycaz22]

Perhaps you miss my point.... I consider myself bi-curious and submissive. But if I should go to a dom partner and say “Force me to suck off another guy.” am I not in truth dominating my partner telling her what I want her to make me do and in effect in this relationship the true dom? I understand that there needs to be trust in a sub/dom relationship to in effect “be safe” including no transmission of disease or permanent injury.

Well, for me personally, if someone came to me and gave me his wishes/wants to me, I would certainly listen to them, and discuss them with my sub, but ulimately, it would be my FINAL DECISION, so if someone came up and said that he wants to do it with another guy, I might decide to let him try it, or NOT! Ulimately, it would be my decision, and mine only. (well...I think!)

 

[BiBunny]

Perhaps you miss my point.... I consider myself bi-curious and submissive. But if I should go to a dom partner and say “Force me to suck off another guy.” am I not in truth dominating my partner telling her what I want her to make me do and in effect in this relationship the true dom? I understand that there needs to be trust in a sub/dom relationship to in effect “be safe” including no transmission of disease or permanent injury.

But if you're in a D/s relationship with this person, then he/she doesn't have to agree to your demands.

In other words, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

Perhaps you miss my point.... I consider myself bi-curious and submissive. But if I should go to a dom partner and say “Force me to suck off another guy.” am I not in truth dominating my partner telling her what I want her to make me do and in effect in this relationship the true dom? I understand that there needs to be trust in a sub/dom relationship to in effect “be safe” including no transmission of disease or permanent injury.

I can't imagine any of the dominants I know tolerating either tone or implication of being 'told' what to do. You might suggest that one of your desires " is to suck another guy off", when, where and IF that's entertained is an entirely different matter. Clearly doesn't put you in control. The buck stops with the Dominant.

 

[greeneyed_Lady]

Isn't that were primary negotiations and checklists come in handy then? I have done checklists with one, more as a curiosity thing, looking for commonality, a limit. We had similar hard limits, which was good. I have some trust issues, so for me to completely open up and relax and be at ease in a relationship, I have to know that my limits will be respected.

I've had one sub try and make our time together to be all about him, comes in all demanding telling me what he wants and how. Our time together was cut short as a result. I don't like being told what to do (I make a crap sub as a result!!), and I certainly don't like being micro-managed. The fact that he didn't listen to my needs/requests and in fact hurt me badly the one time meant he wasn't a good fit for me. He recently contacted me and started in again with his demanding ways and I sent him away to think about what he wanted/needed versus what I wanted/needed. That was 3 days ago and I haven't heard from him since.

While I haven't had to use a safe word with anyone, it's nice knowing that it's there for BOTH parties. I tend to take my time getting to know someone before I enter into any sort of play situations. I like to be able to read their body responses, and I can't do that instantly.

But yes... dashd. I think you're right. It all depends on how you view service, submission and dominance. For example.. the sub I was in a relationship with, he and I are both people pleasers. In his submission, he wanted to do things for me that would please me, make my life easier. As his dominant, I wanted to show him he had done those things. He actually explained it really well when we discussed him topping me one time. He viewed himself as submissive, and even in the dominant role he was serving me as it was something he knew would please me.

 

[serijules]

No limit relationships and relationships that lack the negotiation or "demands" you speak of come in time. They are not just instantly formed. "Instant submissive, just add water!"

It doesn't make any one less submissive if they have limits or safewords. It may make their relationship less of a total power exchange, but that is just fine. If both parties want that level of exchange, they will get there in time, once they really know one another and can push those limits safely or accept the consequences if they choose to NOT go about it safely.

I'm not sure I would consider a submissive that expects having her limits pushed and being completely dominated without considering the ramifications of it someone I would hold much respect for. It reeks of instant gratification.

"Trueness" is validated by the people involved in the relationship, not the random lifestyle population.

 

[Bandit58]

I agree that pyls (pick your label; sub, slave, bottom) have the ultimate veto on most things in a power exchange relationship. OTOH I do think it's a fair exchange for the amount of control they give up to the PYL (Pick Your Label; Dom, Master, Top) during any sexual play.

In order for trust to be established there have to be places where a PYL agrees not to go. I don't think that negates the dynamic or makes it any less real. Most people seek someone whose tastes tally with their own in order to minimise the things that are 'off limts.'

No self respecting PYL wants to overstep their pyl's comfort zone (much) or they risk inflicting psychological or physical damage and even of criminal charges if they've done something to someone without their consent. PYLs generally treat their toys with respect. That way they get to keep playing with them. That doesn't mean the toy has a say in when and how they get played with in real terms.

Hope that made sense.

Both Sir and I have limits - places we prefer not to go. Luckily those limits are much the same There are also things He likes that I am not too sure about, e.g. anal play, enemas. Because we have established trust between us over the past 4 years, if He decided He wanted to do these things then I would be willing to at least give them a try.

I tend to see things as a "worst case scenario" and "what if..." LOL - I have to work on my submission in that way I guess - and just give up the control and place my trust in Him that He loves me and would never ever deliberately cause me damage.

 

[Caitlynne]

No, it does not make the sub the dominant. A list of things a pyl will or will not consent to isn't the same thing as a demand for anything from a Dominant.

A sub sets her limits as a parameter around her consent. It has nothing to do with what will happen and when it will happen within that consent. In other words, you can say "I'd like to be forced to suck off some stranger", but it might not ever happen. It might only happen if the Dom wants to see that. You could in fact twiddle your thumbs a long time waiting for it, especially if what the Dom really wants to see is you 'longing for it" but never having it.

You're not dominating the Dom when you give your consent to such an act. You're only giving your consent. What happens next is up to him and his desire and maybe whim. It's sort of like a sub draws her playing field, but after it is drawn, what happens [if anything] on that playing field is totally up to the Dominant.

 

[intothewoods]

Be careful what you wish for. I personally don't see orgasm denial as very edgy play...it can be uncomfortable, but for me it doesn't come close to some things which can be demanded in a 'no limits' relationship. Just my 0.02 cents worth though.

Catalina

Lol, agreed. It's funny. I realized the other day I have "no limits." I mean, I'm not allowed to say no to anything he wants to do to me, but um, he doesn't want to do anything that edgy so.....big whoop? It more worked out that we're compatible and also about the same level of experience, so we are kind of evolving together, I'd say.

 

[intothewoods]

No limit relationships and relationships that lack the negotiation or "demands" you speak of come in time. They are not just instantly formed. "Instant submissive, just add water!"

It doesn't make any one less submissive if they have limits or safewords. It may make their relationship less of a total power exchange, but that is just fine. If both parties want that level of exchange, they will get there in time, once they really know one another and can push those limits safely or accept the consequences if they choose to NOT go about it safely.

I'm not sure I would consider a submissive that expects having her limits pushed and being completely dominated without considering the ramifications of it someone I would hold much respect for. It reeks of instant gratification.

"Trueness" is validated by the people involved in the relationship, not the random lifestyle population.

Oh, I missed this before. It's nice to hear that sometimes! In my local group, I always feel like kink superlite or something, and I always feel like, excuse the crap out of me for not wanting to be hoisted on a dildo in front of 50 people!

I have other things going on in my life, and I can't just jump into edgeplay without any regard for my family, for example, or my own sanity and safety.

 

[serijules]

Oh, I missed this before. It's nice to hear that sometimes! In my local group, I always feel like kink superlite or something, and I always feel like, excuse the crap out of me for not wanting to be hoisted on a dildo in front of 50 people!

I have other things going on in my life, and I can't just jump into edgeplay without any regard for my family, for example, or my own sanity and safety.

Heck no....I think it is ridiculous to try to judge someones' submissiveness based on how much they take or how edgy they get. Kind of reminds me of how people look at families with the perfect jobs and gorgeous houses and 2.5 kids with the dog and assume life is just grand for them, they are so lucky, etc. The people in those families are just as fucked up as the rest of us, they just have the means to hide it better.

Grass ain't greener and all that.

One thing I notice about a lot of very edgy submissives is well, the lack of submissiveness. It can get to a point where it's all about the sensation at the level they want it, and for their partners, all about giving that level of sensation. The actual D/s in the relationship becomes superficial. Not always o course, but I do see that a lot in heavy players. So being edgy and all-too-willing are sometimes fucked up examples of submission in a pretty package. Kind of like that white picket fence deal.

For Ma'am and I, we truly enjoy exploring that admittedly fucked up side of ourselves. It's where we click the deepest, so it really works for us and really feeds into our D/s interaction very well. That in no way makes us SuperDommeSub or whatever compared to others.

Such comparisons have NO place in this lifestyle in my opinion. There is enough judgemental bullcrapo in the world as it is. I'm safewording on bullcrap, thankyouverymuch.

 

[_kiana_]

I think sometimes people have to be reminded that it's not only the submissive that has the opportunity to set limits and safe words. Like Bandit said, her Sir has things he is not willing to do so that is a limit for him. You just don't hear about the PYL's limits as much because if the PYL doesn't want to do something then it's usually never an option at all. It simply never even gets discussed because s/he is the one deciding what will happen. And if s/he doesn't want to do something then there's no point in bringing it up is there?

PYL's also have the same power safewords give submissives. Both parties can stop a scene (or relationship) anytime they wish. But when the PYL does it, it usually comes across differently than if a pyl has to safeword. It's again because the PYL is the one in charge so if the scene is cut short by him/her, there's usually no need for explanation. They just wanted to stop the scene.

What happens next is up to him and his desire and maybe whim. It's sort of like a sub draws her playing field, but after it is drawn, what happens [if anything] on that playing field is totally up to the Dominant.

I like this analogy

 

[Lalah]

I have been contemplating this question quite a bit recently. Could it be that the so called “sub” in a relationship is actually the “dom”? In most Sub/Dom relationships where the sub “sets the limits” and has a “safe word” ... is that not truly establishing the sub as dom? Is not the “sub” in effect telling the “dom” to dominate me actually in fact telling the submissive dom what to do thereby making the dom the sub in the relationship... especially when limits are set? Would not a true submissive accept his/her masters domination without limits? I would like once to experience being truly dominated... forced to do those things I would never do... no limits.... even denied orgasm to be used solely as my partner’s enjoyment... and be punished ... again no limits... if I fail to bring that pleasure to her/him.

I don't normally visit the BDSM subsection, but this thread drew my attention. This is a question I have been asking myself too.

I, too, let my lover use, humiliate and dominate me, but the truth is that I'm really the one in control. He's not raping me or forcing me into it, I'm the one setting the limits and in essence deciding how we play; we're doing what appeal to me. He can't do anything I don't want without risking ending up in jail.

So yes, the way I see it I'm the boss and I'm just being nice enough to let him play with me the way I like it. I have all the cards, the real power in the relationship. This is part of the reason why I don't like or use the "master" and "slave" label, but I won't get into that now.

Does anyone else think like this? Are the people letting themselves be dominated actually the ones in control?

 

[JamieB]

Zackly

You're not dominating the Dom when you give your consent to such an act. You're only giving your consent. What happens next is up to him and his desire and maybe whim. It's sort of like a sub draws her playing field, but after it is drawn, what happens [if anything] on that playing field is totally up to the Dominant.

I totally agree with the above. Defining what you want and expect early on is just laying the foundation of the relationship. Both partners should be very clear about that stuff before any serious scening. Pushing a sub's limits can be very gratifying, but you have to know what they are first.

I was with a very vocal sub for a short time who would say, "Fuck my face! Pull my hair! Call me a slut!"

That to me is topping from the bottom. Or trying to anyway.

J

 

[Bandit58]

I totally agree with the above. Defining what you want and expect early on is just laying the foundation of the relationship. Both partners should be very clear about that stuff before any serious scening. Pushing a sub's limits can be very gratifying, but you have to know what they are first.

I was with a very vocal sub for a short time who would say, "Fuck my face! Pull my hair! Call me a slut!"

That to me is topping from the bottom. Or trying to anyway.

J

*grins* Reminds me of something my father used to say when I was a kid: "Will you have it now or wait till you get it?" This was usually said when we were whining or pestering for something

 

[Lalah]

I totally agree with the above. Defining what you want and expect early on is just laying the foundation of the relationship. Both partners should be very clear about that stuff before any serious scening. Pushing a sub's limits can be very gratifying, but you have to know what they are first.

I was with a very vocal sub for a short time who would say, "Fuck my face! Pull my hair! Call me a slut!"

That to me is topping from the bottom. Or trying to anyway.

J

But, when most people have sex, they don't order the people around with words either. They don't go "suck my breast now!" "lick my nipple!" etc. They let their partner improvise.

How is it different with BDSM? If say I like waxing and spanking, and I told my partner that, it's not really important when or how he does it, he's just improvising like the other guy above. Is it really dominating? It the normal lover who decide he want to focus on my pussy instead of my breasts being dominating? The way I see it, he's not being dominating, just imaginative.

I think I have to revise my former opinion in the above post. I don't think anyone can really be dominating or dominated, we're really all equal except we have different turn ons; some like to handle the whip and others want to receive it. Some like to act submissive and some like to act dominating, but in truth they are both as consenting and important to the relationship. Am I wrong?

 

[dashd]

As I have read some of these responses and considered my own preferences, it also came to my mind that in my professions, I am totally dominate as those professions demand me to be. When it comes to play time... I prefer to take the back seat... I'm tired of making gdecisions and setting the rules, thus at play I prefer to be submissive. I wonder how many other so called subs are also in this predicamenr.

 

[JamieB]

I don't think anyone can really be dominating or dominated, we're really all equal except we have different turn ons; some like to handle the whip and others want to receive it. Some like to act submissive and some like to act dominating, but in truth they are both as consenting and important to the relationship. Am I wrong?

Interesting point, and I totally agree.

J

 

[serijules]

As I have read some of these responses and considered my own preferences, it also came to my mind that in my professions, I am totally dominate as those professions demand me to be. When it comes to play time... I prefer to take the back seat... I'm tired of making gdecisions and setting the rules, thus at play I prefer to be submissive. I wonder how many other so called subs are also in this predicamenr.

I'm "dominant" in my everyday life in the sense that I am a boss and own a business. That doesn't have any impact or import to what role I relate to though, namely, slave. You will find what you described to be EXTREMELY common. The role we prefer with our partners and in our sexuality is separate but just as valid.