Dominance | ecnanimoD

[Primalex]

If you tell a sub something and she follows the order, is this Dominance? Is there actually Dominance, if both agree to only do what both want? Can you actually dominate a doormat submissive or isn't this mutually exclusive?

If I want that someone does something and I make him or her do it, does the method used determine, whether I'm dominant?
Am I more or less dominant if I just pay for it?
Am I more or less dominant if I use my charming personality?
Am I more or less dominant if I beat him/her up?

Or is Dominance just the ability to establish and maintain the pecking order in a group, no matter how? I mean, in the traditional sense, the dominant animal controls the resources and decides about the distribution of food and sex - usually in the simple egoistic method - me first until satisfied, then who cares. Am I dominant the very moment I do this?

If she says that she has no clue why she did what I wanted, does this mean that I'm dominant? Is it how she feels about it that decides if I'm dominant?

 

[Stella_Omega]

These are the very questions that keep me awake at nights, my brother.

The set of behaviors that I notice in dominant people-- who identify as dominant-- look a hell of a lot like micromanaging and codependency to me, and when people tell me I'm being dommish, I usually look back on my actions and feel embarrassed for being so childish.

Unless it's actually within a sexual setting.

I got no answers.

 

[eastern sun]

Hey, in my world, Dominance with a capital D is felt when something happens against someone's will.

He wishes that weren't true though, and claims that Submission only occurs voluntarily.

edited: to amend my first statement . . . Dominance is also felt when the outcome goes against the habitual grain, pushes the players in a new direction, creates a new pattern in behavior.

 

[mediocre]

These are the very questions that keep me awake at nights, my brother.

The set of behaviors that I notice in dominant people-- who identify as dominant-- look a hell of a lot like micromanaging and codependency to me, and when people tell me I'm being dommish, I usually look back on my actions and feel embarrassed for being so childish.

Unless it's actually within a sexual setting.

I got no answers.

Micromanaging I can see and understand. Codependency not so much. Can you explain that a bit more?

 

[waaitg]

If you tell a sub something and she follows the order, is this Dominance? Is there actually Dominance, if both agree to only do what both want? Can you actually dominate a doormat submissive or isn't this mutually exclusive?

If I want that someone does something and I make him or her do it, does the method used determine, whether I'm dominant?
Am I more or less dominant if I just pay for it?
Am I more or less dominant if I use my charming personality?
Am I more or less dominant if I beat him/her up?

Or is Dominance just the ability to establish and maintain the pecking order in a group, no matter how? I mean, in the traditional sense, the dominant animal controls the resources and decides about the distribution of food and sex - usually in the simple egoistic method - me first until satisfied, then who cares. Am I dominant the very moment I do this?

If she says that she has no clue why she did what I wanted, does this mean that I'm dominant? Is it how she feels about it that decides if I'm dominant?

In my opinion, Dominance occurs once the submissive follows the orders/commands/suggestions/requests/etc even though their own preference or inclination would be to do something different.

There are many ways to reach this point (I.E., respect, trust, fear, arousal, etc) and that is part of why there are so many branches involved in D/s and no one "true" path.

Micromanaging I can see and understand. Codependency not so much. Can you explain that a bit more?

I am not a Dr. but I found the follow definition of Co-dependency:

A relationship which emphasize discipline, regimentation, and order as primary values, and the only rewards given are for compliance with strict and often illogical rules.

I would take this to mean that co-dependency occurs when someone has internalized a set behavior pattern because it is a means of receiving rewards, but does not allow them to have a relationship with someone.

...

Which makes me wonder, how many jobs are simply a co-dependent relationship?

W~

 

[mediocre]

I guess I defined codependency differently. I was thinking of the alcoholics family as being codependent because they enabled the alcoholic to continue to drink by providing the support structure to continue beyond where the alcoholic could have continued by themselves.

With your definition I can see what she meant. Thanks.


Carry on.

 

[KoPilot]

The set of behaviors that I notice in dominant people-- who identify as dominant-- look a hell of a lot like micromanaging and codependency to me, and when people tell me I'm being dommish, I usually look back on my actions and feel embarrassed for being so childish.

This, plus from what little I've seen on this forum and elsewhere, it seems like there's no room for flexibility on behalf of the D; that they're trapped in a set of behaviors that require constantly reestablishing their dominance at every opportunity.

In fantasy, that sound hot. In reality? It sounds more like crippling insecurity and paranoia.

Which typically aren't behaviors associated with dominance.

I spent a couple months contrasting S's mutability and flexibility with the rigidity that seems to be much more popular among s-types. Then it made me wonder: which one ultimately gets its way? The rock or the river?

Flexibility means being able to thwart me no matter what I do, whatever resistance I put up, whatever counter-argument or bargain I make; even if that means thwarting me at my own game of submission. It's deliciously frustrating and absolutely perfect. I could never deal with a micromanager.

 

[Scentofawoman]

I also think that respect and perception is a big part of the equation. I have been floating around all the threads for the last couple of months really trying to find myself. Because of my real life experiences and my my husbands personality I have realized I am attracted to and live with a dominant man. But what makes him dominant is not sexual, but his arrogance and drive. It is the attitude of "I worked hard at what I know and I am right.".

If I take this argument into a bedroom setting I have somewhat reflected on this question in the OP. My perception of a Master/Dom (PYL) is this:

A Master knows what is to have submitted. Either in real life or in RP but has truly committed his mind to the act of "letting go". In order to dominate someone's mind his own should have been able to be dominated.
As smart Master will say, " I have made my desicion based on my experience. You can as a sub can trust that experience."
I also think a smart Master will quickly know that a sub can question the decision made, but not why the decision was made.

That I think that Seperates a lot of true Masters from the "Dom wanna-be". The wanna be has the attidude that " I said it. Now do it because I said it.". They are the ones that when you question the reason it is because they perceive what Dominace is and not not what it truly is.

My humble opinions. Maybe I over think it. But to use a Star Wars analogy... One cannot be a Master without being a Padowan first. Too bad there is no Jedi council to identify true Masters. That just has to go on the perceptions and merit of a persons action alone.

 

[Primalex]

That I think that Seperates a lot of true Masters from the "Dom wanna-be". The wanna be has the attidude that " I said it. Now do it because I said it.". They are the ones that when you question the reason it is because they perceive what Dominace is and not not what it truly is.

My humble opinions. Maybe I over think it. But to use a Star Wars analogy... One cannot be a Master without being a Padowan first.

Hm. I have two objections when I read this.
First, it somehow implies that you can learn dominance. This is contrary to all my experiences.

Second, it might work when we are talking about certain issues (which kind of rope to use), but really, how many good reasons are there why I need my cock sucked, despite that I need my cock sucked? Dominance would mean for me that I don't even get the "Why?" question asked (or at least, that my glance is a sufficient answer to quench the curious mind of the inquirer.).

 

[Stella_Omega]

Hm. I have two objections when I read this.
First, it somehow implies that you can learn dominance. This is contrary to all my experiences.

Well... although no one can learn to have a personality trait-- almost anyone can learn management skills, which might augment dominance, or possibly mimic it to a satisfactory degree?

Second, it might work when we are talking about certain issues (which kind of rope to use), but really, how many good reasons are there why I need my cock sucked, despite that I need my cock sucked? Dominance would mean for me that I don't even get the "Why?" question asked (or at least, that my glance is a sufficient answer to quench the curious mind of the inquirer.).

and a wholehearted yes to this.

 

[Scentofawoman]

Hm. I have two objections when I read this.
First, it somehow implies that you can learn dominance. This is contrary to all my experiences.

Second, it might work when we are talking about certain issues (which kind of rope to use), but really, how many good reasons are there why I need my cock sucked, despite that I need my cock sucked? Dominance would mean for me that I don't even get the "Why?" question asked (or at least, that my glance is a sufficient answer to quench the curious mind of the inquirer.).

True in the most basic sense. But yet that is an example of the greater question you hypothesized. I gave you my objective viewpoint. Sorry the scientist in me is going to come out. ; ). Maybe if you can clarify if you mean in real life work environment or in real life sexual context? Third is both real life and sexual context combined. My subjective opinions can and do vary upon these three catagories.

And yes I say you can learn dominance. Go to a dog obedience class. If the dog can sense the weakness if your commands then he won't sit. After 8 weeks you can clearly see if the dog walks the person or the person walks the dog.

 

[Primalex]

And yes I say you can learn dominance. Go to a dog obedience class. If the dog can sense the weakness if your commands then he won't sit. After 8 weeks you can clearly see if the dog walks the person or the person walks the dog.

When I wrote this, I already started a new sub-thread in my head, trying to figure out what and how much can be learned.

If you take the movie "What women want", where Mel Gibson's child character grows up basically around half-naked women in a Vaudeville environment, I would suspect that a lot of his personality is learned.

But then again, you can learn to use a rifle and you can learn to kill a human, but I'm not sure if you can learn to enjoy to kill a human, at least not with self-study. If you have a Clockwork Orange setting, then..maybe.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't think that "dominance" as a personality trait is unusual, although it might not always be manifested in any particular person.

In fact, i hypothesis that there's a continuum submissive to dominance like Kinsey's straight-to-gay chart. the vast majority of folk fall in those middle numbers, and unless the D/s dynamic happens to come to their attention, they might not even notice their predilections. Such a person might think that they were trained to be dominant-- or submissive-- but there was something there to be trained.

Or something like that.

 

[Scentofawoman]

Well from a purely scientific view there is a big difference between the Kinsey scale and dominance and submissiveness . Ok so to make a bold Objective statement and differentiate that the Kinsey scale is based on expression of human demeanor. However dominance and submissiveness is a true genetic expression of all living things. Remember Mendel proved round peas are dominant to shriveled peas.

I guess I again have to ask are you asking in an everyday situation or in a sexual environment.

Environment has a huge influence on the desicions we make. Strip it to its basic level a woman is going to make a desicion about if she wants to fuck someone or wants to be fucked. That I think is the basic decision. If she walks into a fetish bar and she has answered that question, then the dominance has already been given to the person she chooses due to the environment of the bar.

Change the scenario a bit and let's say a man and a woman meet on a beach somewhere. Just standing around in bathing suits how does one tell who is going to be the dominant person?

 

[Angellica1612]

Can a submissive chime in? I'm new to all this, and frankly much of this has gone right over my head, lol. But I consider myself a submissive because it is my basic personality to enjoy the things the person I am with enjoys. For example, I get into football only if I'm in a relationship with someone who's into it. On my own, I could care less. I tend to give more weight to the other person's opinion than my own in many instances. If I'm cybering and have a certain scenario in mind, but the other takes it elsewhere... I comply without a complaint. That's not to say I don't occasionally enjoy being the aggressor...but I will only do so if I know he enjoys that.


Hi, Stella!

 

[LazzieLace]

An interesting discussion.

I think dominance can be learnt. At least the surface skills to appear dominant. Just like submissive skills can be learnt. It all depends on the power of the mind as to whether you grow to like what you do or if you rationalise it so that it makes it easier for you to accept.

I would agree also that most people have both traits. I can be very submissive in some ways but equally dominant in other ways. I think those that are deep down dominants often don't even realise many of the things that they do in order to assert their authority.

@Scentofawoman. Why do you think that dominance and submissive would be a genetic expression. I could see things like strength being genetic. But I would view dominance and submissive being as a result of our environment and upbringing.

 

[Scentofawoman]

sorry LL is my answered is hurried I have time crunch


Ok so the scientist is coming out and I am just establishing that Dominace truly is a genetic expression. Remember grade school biology and dominant traits and recessive traits. Simple example.. Being tall is dominant to being a short plant. But if there is not enough sunlight then the plant will be short. here environment has become the dominant variable for the expression of the plant. In this sense submissive is synonymous with recessive .

I was establishing from the original post to my post that everything has the genetic ability to display dominence. It is established scientific fact that dominace is an inherent factor in human condition

What needs to be pulled out and clarified by the OP is what actions does a person express to show Dominacny.

The pure hypothetical conjecture was what is dominance? I was just showing known variable and dissmissing suppositions.


Ok hope that answers my direction of thought!

 

[YourCaptor]

If you tell a sub something and she follows the order, is this Dominance? Is there actually Dominance, if both agree to only do what both want? Can you actually dominate a doormat submissive or isn't this mutually exclusive?

If I want that someone does something and I make him or her do it, does the method used determine, whether I'm dominant?
Am I more or less dominant if I just pay for it?
Am I more or less dominant if I use my charming personality?
Am I more or less dominant if I beat him/her up?

Or is Dominance just the ability to establish and maintain the pecking order in a group, no matter how? I mean, in the traditional sense, the dominant animal controls the resources and decides about the distribution of food and sex - usually in the simple egoistic method - me first until satisfied, then who cares. Am I dominant the very moment I do this?

If she says that she has no clue why she did what I wanted, does this mean that I'm dominant? Is it how she feels about it that decides if I'm dominant?

Yes you can dominate a doormat. Why wouldn’t you be able to?

You can be dominant and pay for sex. You can be anything and pay for sex.

You can be dominant and be charming, you can be dominant and beat them up, etc

It doesn’t matter who establishes the pecking order, or who maintains it. Selfishness is also not necessary for dominance.

If she says she has no clue why she did something she may be retarded. lol

The dominant person is in control. I think people often make the mistake of thinking that a dominant person should be controlling, however that isn’t necessary. A dominant person simply is in control.

 

[YourCaptor]

Can a submissive chime in? I'm new to all this, and frankly much of this has gone right over my head, lol. But I consider myself a submissive because it is my basic personality to enjoy the things the person I am with enjoys. For example, I get into football only if I'm in a relationship with someone who's into it. On my own, I could care less. I tend to give more weight to the other person's opinion than my own in many instances. If I'm cybering and have a certain scenario in mind, but the other takes it elsewhere... I comply without a complaint. That's not to say I don't occasionally enjoy being the aggressor...but I will only do so if I know he enjoys that.


Hi, Stella!

Awesome

 

[Stella_Omega]

Lolololololol!

Well from a purely scientific view there is a big difference between the Kinsey scale and dominance and submissiveness . Ok so to make a bold Objective statement and differentiate that the Kinsey scale is based on expression of human demeanor. However dominance and submissiveness is a true genetic expression of all living things. Remember Mendel proved round peas are dominant to shriveled peas.

I guess I again have to ask are you asking in an everyday situation or in a sexual environment.

Environment has a huge influence on the desicions we make. Strip it to its basic level a woman is going to make a desicion about if she wants to fuck someone or wants to be fucked. That I think is the basic decision. If she walks into a fetish bar and she has answered that question, then the dominance has already been given to the person she chooses due to the environment of the bar.

Change the scenario a bit and let's say a man and a woman meet on a beach somewhere. Just standing around in bathing suits how does one tell who is going to be the dominant person?

I'm just guessing here, but-- the one with the round peas?

Did I get it right?

 

[KoPilot]

Oh boy... evo-psych, social Darwinism, or both?

 

[Scentofawoman]

Yes ding ding!


I really over thought this. Damn you Coke Zero!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yes ding ding!


I really over thought this. Damn you Coke Zero!

Well I gotta thank you, because you've given me the best laugh I've had in days.

Tears in my eyes, even.

I keep thinking about those submissive shriveled peas...

HAHAHAHA fuck!

 

[Scentofawoman]

Yes I know sometimes I have to tell myself a pea is just a pea. It is not easy being green.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yes I know sometimes I have to tell myself a pea is just a pea. It is not easy being green.

Are you a shriveled pea, or a round one?

*blink biink*