"What is it that a Dom does?"

[EllAyyBee]

As a father of 2 this made me laugh pretty hard.

I snickered too

 

[removed9556]

 

[Irreverent1]

I am very sorry that you are frightened. Perhaps some cuddle-time might be in order.

I think we are disagreeing on two levels - one fairly trivial, and probably a matter of emphasis, and the other more profound and to do with different views of D/s.

On the first one, of course no means no. But it means no at that time. It does not mean that the matter is forever closed and never to be addressed again. People change. The worrying corollary of your argument is that yes means yes, and that therefore a submissive who once says yes to an activity, and years later, for any of a hundred different reasons, finds the same activity profoundly troubling, is somehow obliged to continue with it because of their initial yes. This is the problem with this moral reification of the very useful idea of limits into some kind of categorical imperative.

On the second issue, the kind of relationship you are describing seems more and more commonly to be seen as the norm, here and elsewhere in BDSM circles. It is, broadly, what I would describe as one of a service-oriented Dominant. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing what someone else wants, in the bedroom or elsewhere - of letting them be the arbiter of what is and is not to be done. To my mind, though, such an interpretation of D/s sits uneasily with the idea of power exchange and control. It is worryingly close to the kind of trite nonsense one sees so often, inspired, I think, by a confusing of D/s with misogyny (as if all Ds were male and straight), which says that the submissive has the true power in the relationship. If my submissive has the power, then I am not in control.

None of that, to repeat, is to say that I have some special right to force myself on anyone. But it does say that I see a D/s relationship as profoundly different from other kinds, in that it is, of course, entered into in a spirit of profound equality - it has to be, to differentiate it from mere old-fashioned bondage in the non-sexual sense - but thereafter equality is not central to its purpose. It may even be inimical to it. D/s is not about bedroom games, for me. Sex is an emergent property of a D/s relationship, not its defining purpose. Ideally, it is an utterly joyous, life-long partnership, where both partners change and grow and develop into better and better partners for the other. It is not about offering up some kind of marble ten commandments on day one and locking them away forever.

First off, If you need some cuddling then seek it elsewhere, I'm not the one for you. I wouldn't have pegged you for someone that needed some warm fluffy time though.

Second, is a hot tip. If you're going to try to be sarcastic and/or condescending towards someone then don't dangle your participles. It's too easy to make you look like an ass when you do that.

The problem we're having is that you are trying to argue that I'm saying, or at any time said, that the sub can't change their mind on a Limit. I never said or even implied that. In fact, I stipulated to that very notion no less than twice in my missive to you. Don't know how you missed it but c'est la vie.

But that is, actually, neither here nor there. I will reiterate what I said originally: A Dom/Domme may NOT do ANYTHING that their sub doesn't ALLOW that Dom/Domme to do. EVER. I will, henceforth, refer to this statement as Rule A.

If, later on, the Dom/Domme discusses a Limit with the sub and the sub changes their mind the sub is THEN ALLOWING the Dom/Domme to pursue that action. No matter what it always requires the subs approval and allowance. Yes does mean yes. But you glossed right over the fact that the yes had to come from the sub. That means that it is something the sub is allowing the Dom/Domme to do. Refer back to Rule A. Do you see how that works? There is no command that a Dom/Domme can give that will subvert Rule A. The sub has to feel comfortable. If not, no means no. If the Dom/Domme persists and violates the subs Limit without obtaining permission while the sub says "no No NO", "Stop", uses predetermined safe words or, hopefully thought of, non-verbal cessation signals then the Dom/Domme is possibly committing Domestic Battery, Sexual Assault or worse, Rape. No one claimed Limits couldn't or wouldn't change. However, if the Limits do change it is the sub, not the Dom/Domme, changing the Limit. One more time, refer to Rule A.

As for how you view D/s, it is utterly irrelevant. That isn't said to be rude. I view D/s differently than you. Others view D/s differently from us both. In no viewpoint does that change the simplest fact of Rule A. If the sub suddenly decides in the middle of a Scene that they no longer wish to be a sub then you are immediately no longer a Dom/Domme. Not to that person/former sub you're not. All Dominance disappears in an instant. Now, how you view D/s notwithstanding, that is a pretty immutable fact.

 

[SpunThings]

I don't think you two are disagreeing with each other as much as you think you are.

 

[Irreverent1]

First of all, if you think that you cannot make a human do things they don't want to do without violating the law, you obviously never had to make kids tidy up their room.

Second, you are again changing the premise and taking a subset of possibilities of 'make', just so you can go ballistic on something nobody said.

I would repeat my question, but as far as I can tell, your mind is like a broken record, repeating the same part of the track over and over. Such strong fanatism is often shown by people who changed the side - the person complaining loudest about cigarette smoke is usually not a concerned mother, but an ex-smoker.

First of all, the OP was about a Doms/Dommes role, more or less. That is a discussion that is about adults with the legal right to self-determination. Which is not granted to minors. So while people snicker or thought your attempt at humor was cute you wound up comparing Apples to Sea Plankton. You can legally punish children, to an extent, under the law. You can't punish adults without permission from said adult physically. Under the law. Your comparison was idiotic to say the least.

Second, there is no change in premise or parameter. You cannot "make" (the word you used by the way) any person do something they do not wish to do. You can convince the person. You can threaten to withhold a favor in some form of straight exchange such as: If you don't allow me to do X then I will not perform Y (Y=favorite thing). You can simply promise to make the X a pleasurable experience. Who knows? But not matter what you do the sub would have to relent and then ALLOW you to proceed past the limit. If you proceeded past the Limit without the subs approval and allowance and the sub then said no or stop, you are committing a felony. At a minimum you're most likely single.

This would be twice that I answered your question. The first time was more circumspect, I grant you. This time was more direct. I also served volley last time and asked you to explain how you would make a person do something against their will or, more directly, do something that they do not allow without breaking the law. You did a nice double talk around it. It was interesting but I still saw that you failed to answer. So once again I ask, please explain how you can make someone do something they have expressly forbidden you to do to them without violating the law.

 

[CutieMouse]

I was really curious about the d/s relationship, not because I live it, but because there's a part of me that can understand it, and can understand the role of power in sex. And I was really curious about exactly what a Dom does. I would like to think there is more to it than one person controlling all aspects of the relationship while one person submits. Granted, it appears that there are those who are happy with one partner having all, or most, of the control.

Side note...

Just because one CAN control all aspects of a D/s relationship, doesn't mean they do. There are dominants who want to micromanage, and dominants who wouldn't dream to dare telling their partners how to run day to day like. There are dominants who give general guidelines, and expect the submissive to figure out the details. There are submissives with certain skill sets, and because of that the dominant hands control of XYZ to him/her. And there are even dominants and submissives who do the D/s stuff during sex, but otherwise treat each other equally.

Every description above is still a dominant - the only differences are the individuals and what they want/need/expect from a relationship.

 

[LadyVer]

Side note...

Just because one CAN control all aspects of a D/s relationship, doesn't mean they do. There are dominants who want to micromanage, and dominants who wouldn't dream to dare telling their partners how to run day to day like. There are dominants who give general guidelines, and expect the submissive to figure out the details. There are submissives with certain skill sets, and because of that the dominant hands control of XYZ to him/her. And there are even dominants and submissives who do the D/s stuff during sex, but otherwise treat each other equally.

Every description above is still a dominant - the only differences are the individuals and what they want/need/expect from a relationship.

Thanks for the clarification, CM. Honestly, I don't know what to think, other than maybe it's better I continue on alone.

 

[SalvDali]

I don't think you two are disagreeing with each other as much as you think you are.

Yea i am seeing a little bit of "No it is not orange, it is yellowish red" lol

 

[Conager]

First off, If you need some cuddling then seek it elsewhere, I'm not the one for you. I wouldn't have pegged you for someone that needed some warm fluffy time though.

Second, is a hot tip. If you're going to try to be sarcastic and/or condescending towards someone then don't dangle your participles. It's too easy to make you look like an ass when you do that.

The problem we're having is that you are trying to argue that I'm saying, or at any time said, that the sub can't change their mind on a Limit. I never said or even implied that. In fact, I stipulated to that very notion no less than twice in my missive to you. Don't know how you missed it but c'est la vie.

But that is, actually, neither here nor there. I will reiterate what I said originally: A Dom/Domme may NOT do ANYTHING that their sub doesn't ALLOW that Dom/Domme to do. EVER. I will, henceforth, refer to this statement as Rule A.

If, later on, the Dom/Domme discusses a Limit with the sub and the sub changes their mind the sub is THEN ALLOWING the Dom/Domme to pursue that action. No matter what it always requires the subs approval and allowance. Yes does mean yes. But you glossed right over the fact that the yes had to come from the sub. That means that it is something the sub is allowing the Dom/Domme to do. Refer back to Rule A. Do you see how that works? There is no command that a Dom/Domme can give that will subvert Rule A. The sub has to feel comfortable. If not, no means no. If the Dom/Domme persists and violates the subs Limit without obtaining permission while the sub says "no No NO", "Stop", uses predetermined safe words or, hopefully thought of, non-verbal cessation signals then the Dom/Domme is possibly committing Domestic Battery, Sexual Assault or worse, Rape. No one claimed Limits couldn't or wouldn't change. However, if the Limits do change it is the sub, not the Dom/Domme, changing the Limit. One more time, refer to Rule A.

As for how you view D/s, it is utterly irrelevant. That isn't said to be rude. I view D/s differently than you. Others view D/s differently from us both. In no viewpoint does that change the simplest fact of Rule A. If the sub suddenly decides in the middle of a Scene that they no longer wish to be a sub then you are immediately no longer a Dom/Domme. Not to that person/former sub you're not. All Dominance disappears in an instant. Now, how you view D/s notwithstanding, that is a pretty immutable fact.

Dangling participle? Oooh, a grammar dom. I got 5 quid on the Englishman by TKO inside of 3 rounds.

Need GFY to do a drive by and drop off a gif of dangly-bits being tortured.

To your post: the last bit about a submissive deciding the don't wanna be submissive, or as you well clarified, don't wanna with their particular dominant, struck me funny.

Begs the question, "When did you just decide to be capital D Dominant, or at least feel the urge to behave alll Dom-ly towards a particular submisive?"

Assuming there's nothing particularly amiss between the consensual relationship between a dominant and a submissive I can't picture a situation where what you describe would happen assuming those labels actually apply to the two parties involved. If some part of their essence, their raison d'etre, is D/s mktivated, they will revert to form. There might well be some discussion about alternates to this activity or that, but the germaine point is submissives LIKE and need to submit, and Dominants find submission validating.

 

[cookiecat]

So now, what is it that a Dom does?

 

[Collar_N_Cuffs]

So now, what is it that a Dom does?

Bicker, maybe?

 

[1sickbastard]

So now, what is it that a Dom does?

Whatever the sub lets the do...

 

[Conager]

So now, what is it that a Dom does?

I like to joke sometimes:

"You know what you do with a submissive?"

"No, what?"

"Whatever you like, she's a submissive. . ."

Obviously not true in the, "Hi, I've a dominent streak and I am here to take advantage of you" sense since trust takes time, effort and chemistry to establish, but in a fantasy sense it isn't far wrong.

I am not the least bit ashamed to admit that I find elements of coercion kind of sexy at times. There's a big difference though between the sort of gentle, playful coercion that goes into these sort of exchanges and inappropriate coersion that happens when you have actual power in their lives that it would be inappropriate to abuse.

My observational anecdotal experience with how submissive react to me in these sort of power plays has been positive. I don't think it's uncommon either when you look at erotic literature and how much of it involves elements of being taken advantage of in some way.

 

[cookiecat]

Bicker, maybe?

 

[cookiecat]

I like to joke sometimes:

"You know what you do with a submissive?"

"No, what?"

"Whatever you like, she's a submissive. . ."

Obviously not true in the, "Hi, I've a dominent streak and I am here to take advantage of you" sense since trust takes time, effort and chemistry to establish, but in a fantasy sense it isn't far wrong.

I am not the least bit ashamed to admit that I find elements of coercion kind of sexy at times. There's a big difference though between the sort of gentle, playful coercion that goes into these sort of exchanges and inappropriate coersion that happens when you have actual power in their lives that it would be inappropriate to abuse.

My observational anecdotal experience with how submissive react to me in these sort of power plays has been positive. I don't think it's uncommon either when you look at erotic literature and how much of it involves elements of being taken advantage of in some way.

I see that a lot - "make me" do dirty dirty things.

I've wrestled with embracing my slut-hood and saying it's ok to just get my nasty on and be good with it. But but but.. I'm a good girl! Having someone take my and and lead me down the rabbit hole floats my boat. That's what a Dom does!

 

[KimGordon67]

I see that a lot - "make me" do dirty dirty things.

I've wrestled with embracing my slut-hood and saying it's ok to just get my nasty on and be good with it. But but but.. I'm a good girl! Having someone take my and and lead me down the rabbit hole floats my boat. That's what a Dom does!

I've stayed out of this thread, because I don't identify as submissive ... but in a sexual context, I often enjoy giving someone else control over what happens ... so yeah, for me, it's sort of that - because I've given him the power to do it, he pushes me further than I'd push myself, but only because I totally trust him to know when I could go that little bit further, and when I've really had enough.

 

[SpunThings]

So now, what is it that a Dom does?

I feel like this thread would have been more informative if the question was "What does YOUR dom do?"

It seems to me so many respondents came in with an absolute approach, rather than describing how it works in their relationship. There are just so many ways people interact in their relationships, and different ways that a power exchange can play out.

 

[Miasorrow]

So now, what is it that a Dom does?

I do not believe he does things. He inspires. He inspires and she does. He fills her with the urge to claim his total attention. He earns control making her inner primal sexuality available.

 

[Primalex]

I do not believe he does things. He inspires. He inspires and she does. He fills her with the urge to claim his total attention. He earns control making her inner primal sexuality available.

This is surprisingly accurate.

 

[Irreverent1]

I don't think you two are disagreeing with each other as much as you think you are.

I'm inclined to agree with you, frankly.

 

[Irreverent1]

Side note...

Just because one CAN control all aspects of a D/s relationship, doesn't mean they do. There are dominants who want to micromanage, and dominants who wouldn't dream to dare telling their partners how to run day to day like. There are dominants who give general guidelines, and expect the submissive to figure out the details. There are submissives with certain skill sets, and because of that the dominant hands control of XYZ to him/her. And there are even dominants and submissives who do the D/s stuff during sex, but otherwise treat each other equally.

Every description above is still a dominant - the only differences are the individuals and what they want/need/expect from a relationship.

That is very well said. I agree with every part of it

 

[Irreverent1]

I like to joke sometimes:

"You know what you do with a submissive?"

"No, what?"

"Whatever you like, she's a submissive. . ."

Obviously not true in the, "Hi, I've a dominent streak and I am here to take advantage of you" sense since trust takes time, effort and chemistry to establish, but in a fantasy sense it isn't far wrong.

I am not the least bit ashamed to admit that I find elements of coercion kind of sexy at times. There's a big difference though between the sort of gentle, playful coercion that goes into these sort of exchanges and inappropriate coersion that happens when you have actual power in their lives that it would be inappropriate to abuse.

My observational anecdotal experience with how submissive react to me in these sort of power plays has been positive. I don't think it's uncommon either when you look at erotic literature and how much of it involves elements of being taken advantage of in some way.

This is all fair minded and I like what you're saying. It is entirely subjective. I've done the no-yes-just-trust-me-and-relax thing before. I've cajoled a loosening of a Limit before. It's a tightrope to be sure. And you're 100% right about the trust.

 

[Irreverent1]

I see that a lot - "make me" do dirty dirty things.

I've wrestled with embracing my slut-hood and saying it's ok to just get my nasty on and be good with it. But but but.. I'm a good girl! Having someone take my and and lead me down the rabbit hole floats my boat. That's what a Dom does!

Yup. Have the talk with a Dom/Domme and let them explore you. Or it could just be a Top/bottom thing and the Top stops and says "I'm going to do this..." and give you a bit to decide if you want to go down that path. It's complicated but it's not

 

[Irreverent1]

Dangling participle? Oooh, a grammar dom. I got 5 quid on the Englishman by TKO inside of 3 rounds.

Need GFY to do a drive by and drop off a gif of dangly-bits being tortured.

To your post: the last bit about a submissive deciding the don't wanna be submissive, or as you well clarified, don't wanna with their particular dominant, struck me funny.

Begs the question, "When did you just decide to be capital D Dominant, or at least feel the urge to behave alll Dom-ly towards a particular submisive?"

Assuming there's nothing particularly amiss between the consensual relationship between a dominant and a submissive I can't picture a situation where what you describe would happen assuming those labels actually apply to the two parties involved. If some part of their essence, their raison d'etre, is D/s mktivated, they will revert to form. There might well be some discussion about alternates to this activity or that, but the germaine point is submissives LIKE and need to submit, and Dominants find submission validating.

I'll take your bet and bump it to 20. I like this post, by the way

To answer your question, my personal answer would be: Always. It's my personal inclination and I always have the urge. That isn't to say I can't control it but the urge itself is always there. I'm pretty certain we've all had "vanilla" relationships before. I have. They just weren't into it. If you're asking when did I make my proclivity known to my new partner I would say that I would begin to fringe it almost immediately as soon as tensions turned sexual. I'd either pull her hair a little during a particularly passionate kiss or maybe swat her bottom. Depending upon her reaction that would let me know whether to continue or back off and try again later. At the very least it brought up a discussion later on.

My example was extreme as you rightly point out but it doesn't make it incorrect. Doms/Dommes aren't Doms/Dommes without a submissive. I do disagree with the premise that subs NEED to submit. subs have vanilla relationships also. subs want to submit, I'll grant that. I will say that a sub that finds a Dom/Domme and gets together it is very much like a round peg with a round hole and both will just fall into it.

 

[Irreverent1]

This is surprisingly accurate.

I agree