"What is it that a Dom does?"

[NOIRTRASH]

Dear Reader

Around here BDSM is little more than limp wristed role playing and pretend.

 

[Primalex]

Is this supposed to be an 8 bullet revolver? Or a jammed 6 bullet one? Must be a jammed 6 bullet one, there is not enough space in the drum for the two bullets that are blocked by the view, 8 bullet revolvers have the bullets much closer together.

 

[Conager]

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.

Just because a submissive or for that matter a dominant can have a loving fulfilling and enjoyable relationship without having one of their needs met doesn't make it any less of a need.

Probably splitting hairs here between the difference between a need and a want but hunger is a need even if you're not in danger of starving to death.

I figure I have talked to certanly hundreds of women over the last 30 years or so about their sexual needs. I've always had a voyeuristic bent and like to hear whats going on in their heads and how that contrasts with my internal internal urges. I think it started for me as a way to validate that I'm okay despite having what I now would term kinky urges without having had that particular term back then. Probably started with chat lines moved to bulletin boards then chat rooms as the internet became a thing.

In all that time when I talked to women about their current or past relationships with boyfriends and husbands not once have I ever heard a woman say that her sex life is great, but I she wishes he would just be a little more gentle, or let her take the lead once in a while.

Now a couple of things are happening though that skew my sample. One is that we're only talking about women who are online talking about their sex lives typically because something is unsatisfying about it. And secondly we're only talking about people who happen to be attracted to, or st leadt amused by, me and plenty of women find me controlling, obnoxious and assholish.

 

[Wyldfire]

What is it a Dom does? Or what is it a Dom SHOULD do? The two aren't necessarily the same....... Just saying is all.

 

[Conager]

Is this supposed to be an 8 bullet revolver? Or a jammed 6 bullet one? Must be a jammed 6 bullet one, there is not enough space in the drum for the two bullets that are blocked by the view, 8 bullet revolvers have the bullets much closer together.

I read through the whole thread twice trying to figure out what this was a reference to because I forgot about James' avatar and I happen to have avatars turned off at the moment.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

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.

God I have such a commonfuckingsense hard-on for you right now.

 

[HisArpy]

hauling Primalex and HisArpy by the ears to the spanking room for a lesson in civility.
Now shake hands and make up boys....please?

Lol. Sorry for being late back to the party, I was busy at work with a few emergencies. 18 hour days can screw up your life. I'll try to be good.

My main issue, which comes across throughout this thread even while I was elsewhere, is that there is a lot of nattering while saying nothing. Empty rhetoric posing as complex, yet misunderstood by all, subject matter mastery. When it really isn't anything of the sort.

What is true is that dominance is nothing more than being the one who is on top.

Let's use an example: A simple kingdom illustration. Dominance doesn't mean the king doesn't have advisors. Nor does it mean he won't take advice from those below him. Nor does he have to 'understand' his subjects. He can even change his mind after making a decision if he wants to.

What all of that means is that the king is the one who makes the decisions which allow the kingdom to run with the least amount of problems. And, as anyone knows, a happy kingdom is one which grows in scope and depth. Stable economics, population growth, and laws which benefit everyone are much better than crying, starving, and dying. (Remember it's an illustration so don't go off on arguing about the symbolism.)

It doesn't matter if the stability factors are money or love or pain. Having enough of what you need is better than not having those things.

On the flip side, those below the king understand THEY are not the king. They are happy being subservient and limited by the rules set by the King. They have their place. Which is right where they want to be.

No one is 'forced' to be subservient to the king. You either are, or you aren't. If you aren't, you get to go find a different kingdom to live in. If you are, then you have the things you are looking for; stability, safety, and (hopefully) happiness.

So, back to the original question: What is it that a Dom does? A Dom gives you what you want. In return he gets what he wants. From there, it's fluid as to what shape the relationship kingdom looks like, what the rules are, and who gets what or does what.

If everyone agrees on these simple things, there is peace. That doesn't have to mean quiet. Some relationships are tumultuous because the parties want it that way. However, that doesn't mean they are at war with each other. As long as each know their place in the hierarchy, there is a dom and a sub.

Somehow, this simple thing got all tangled up with the alt lifestyle desires of the board. Dominance is NOT spanking, caning, binding, crawling, hair pulling, fucking, or any other fun thing you want to do/have done to you. Nor is that the function of a dominant.

 

[barefootgirl69]

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! So much of it is how He makes me want to submit, to please Him because of who He is as a person, the way He thinks, speaks, is. He has captured my mind, and I couldn't help but feel pulled to submit to Him. The way He leads and encourages, inspires me to trust in ways I never imagined.

A Dom is an individual just as a submissive is, not all are the same, which is a good thing. Like any relationship, you want to find one that suits you best.

 

[removed9556]

 

[MeekMe]

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.

When I first read this I rolled my eyes. Flowery language always rubs me the wrong way (that's my flaw I suppose). But I have given this thought. The idea that someone can inspire me to be submissive. I've felt this in different ways. It's not with everybody that identifies with being dominant. Most do nothing for me. Actually, most are laughed at, because most would not be compatible with me. There are those I respect, admire and like, but I would never submit to them.

The idea that there is one set thing that a d-type can do is silly to me. There's not one thing that I could pinpoint what it is that attracts me, other then I like them as a person. When I like a person and I feel like they are the person I could follow, that's it. That doesn't mean I won't ask questions or look after my own wellbeing, I'll never stop doing that. But I will want to please that person, and as long as I've thought through what is being asked/demanded I will do it if it means I will be ok after (mentally/physically), even if it was something I originally thought (even said) I would never do. I see the human part, and the label is just how I get along with that person.

And for those frightened by the idea that you can make someone do something they said "no" to originally... I've done things I have said "no" to. I've done them with someone that inspired me to say "yes." I didn't say "yes" without thought for my own wellbeing, but I did those things and I walked away without the scars I would have originally expected. Force? Maybe. I felt a need to live up to that person's expectations. When I have, I've not felt terrible, just very fulfilled.

Disclaimer: views subject to change based on life experiences.

 

[SpunThings]

I have to disagree that a dom is no longer a dom without a sub. Some people who take on the label of dominant see it as something very essential to themselves and how they approach relationships. Just as someone who is gay or straight would not stop being gay or straight when single.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

I have to disagree that a dom is no longer a dom without a sub. Some people who take on the label of dominant see it as something very essential to themselves and how they approach relationships. Just as someone who is gay or straight would not stop being gay or straight when single.

Yes, that's an absurd assertion. And your examples are apt. Does an artist stop being an artist because she isn't currently working on a painting?

 

[HisArpy]

I have to disagree that a dom is no longer a dom without a sub. Some people who take on the label of dominant see it as something very essential to themselves and how they approach relationships. Just as someone who is gay or straight would not stop being gay or straight when single.

I believe this is true. For the most part.

However, when one is playing a Dom, it may become true when there is no one to dominate as part of the role.

So, that begs the question, is a Dom a Dom? Or is the Dom merely playing a part because someone wants them to? If the Dom is actually a dominant, then they are still a dominant when the playing is over. If not a D/, then they might be anything when there's nothing going on.

I still feel that a lot of the responses are based more in the 'what does a Dom do for me' than what the OP originally asked. A metaphor might be one which is used in some martial arts: There is the path. I cannot walk the path for you. I cannot drag you along the path or force you to see and learn. What I can do is show you where it begins and be there to support you if you are about to fall.

I don't know if this is apt or not. I feel is it, for my relationship with HER, but I don't know if it's that way for all.

 

[SpunThings]

I believe this is true. For the most part.

However, when one is playing a Dom, it may become true when there is no one to dominate as part of the role.

So, that begs the question, is a Dom a Dom? Or is the Dom merely playing a part because someone wants them to? If the Dom is actually a dominant, then they are still a dominant when the playing is over. If not a D/, then they might be anything when there's nothing going on.

I still feel that a lot of the responses are based more in the 'what does a Dom do for me' than what the OP originally asked. A metaphor might be one which is used in some martial arts: There is the path. I cannot walk the path for you. I cannot drag you along the path or force you to see and learn. What I can do is show you where it begins and be there to support you if you are about to fall.

I don't know if this is apt or not. I feel is it, for my relationship with HER, but I don't know if it's that way for all.

I like the term "service top" for someone who behaves as a dom for someone, but doesn't identify as a dom within themselves. The term "playing" sometimes has a connotation of it being fake.

 

[HisArpy]

Service Top vs. Playing? Hmmm, it's fairly easy to assume a role, so are either of these things different other than in a label? Does that label identify the person? Or the observer? Some people can even get so good playing a role you can't tell if it's real or not. Hollywood is a perfect example of this. Sometimes I don't think actors even know if life is a role or not. (I've met a bunch - they're all weird. )

So, once again we're back to what actually is a dominant. Is it a role, a type, or a personality trait? Or both/all/any? I believe it is a personality trait. You either are, or you are not.

If you are, (as someone here once put it) you do Dom'y things.

Maybe it's a matter of perception, like the label question above. I do stuff. How SHE interprets what I do may be different from the way I feel about what I'm doing.

Something for me to ponder about.

 

[SpunThings]

Service Top vs. Playing? Hmmm, it's fairly easy to assume a role, so are either of these things different other than in a label? Does that label identify the person? Or the observer? Some people can even get so good playing a role you can't tell if it's real or not. Hollywood is a perfect example of this. Sometimes I don't think actors even know if life is a role or not. (I've met a bunch - they're all weird. )

So, once again we're back to what actually is a dominant. Is it a role, a type, or a personality trait? Or both/all/any? I believe it is a personality trait. You either are, or you are not.

If you are, (as someone here once put it) you do Dom'y things.

Maybe it's a matter of perception, like the label question above. I do stuff. How SHE interprets what I do may be different from the way I feel about what I'm doing.

Something for me to ponder about.

There are people who have dominant personalities that don't want authority over their partner. I think it's helpful to separate the concept of BDSM dominants from personality traits. There are submissives who have very dominant personality traits. There are dominants who are neutral or have more submissive personality traits. This isn't about personalities. It's about a dynamic in a personal relationship.

 

[Miasorrow]

Yes, that's an absurd assertion. And your examples are apt. Does an artist stop being an artist because she isn't currently working on a painting?

No, he doesn't but I wonder though, why is it that in most cases when I talk with men who are supposed to be dominant, I do not feel them being dominant? Is is because probably I am not their submissive so they are not trying to dominate me yet or because they try to be careful? I sometimes even feel that I am more dominating them than the other way around. I am even beggining to wonder if I am more dominant than submissive, since it seems like I am ruling the game we play.

I am editing my post to add that in other cases, I can sense a man's domination even if we haven't talked at all.

 

[Miasorrow]

I add my voice to the many who find this an interesting viewpoint - this seems to have been my experience, on the whole. I cannot agree with Primalex that I find it surprising, though, since I know how deeply you think about such matters.

You are the exception to the rule.

When I first read this I rolled my eyes. Flowery language always rubs me the wrong way (that's my flaw I suppose). But I have given this thought. The idea that someone can inspire me to be submissive. I've felt this in different ways. It's not with everybody that identifies with being dominant. Most do nothing for me. Actually, most are laughed at, because most would not be compatible with me. There are those I respect, admire and like, but I would never submit to them.

The idea that there is one set thing that a d-type can do is silly to me. There's not one thing that I could pinpoint what it is that attracts me, other then I like them as a person. When I like a person and I feel like they are the person I could follow, that's it. That doesn't mean I won't ask questions or look after my own wellbeing, I'll never stop doing that. But I will want to please that person, and as long as I've thought through what is being asked/demanded I will do it if it means I will be ok after (mentally/physically), even if it was something I originally thought (even said) I would never do. I see the human part, and the label is just how I get along with that person.

And for those frightened by the idea that you can make someone do something they said "no" to originally... I've done things I have said "no" to. I've done them with someone that inspired me to say "yes." I didn't say "yes" without thought for my own wellbeing, but I did those things and I walked away without the scars I would have originally expected. Force? Maybe. I felt a need to live up to that person's expectations. When I have, I've not felt terrible, just very fulfilled.

Disclaimer: views subject to change based on life experiences.

I hate flowery language also. You should forgive me using one at times since English is not my first language so while studying it I have been taugh to always enhance enhance enhance...(for better marks obviously!)

THIS! So much of it is how He makes me want to submit, to please Him because of who He is as a person, the way He thinks, speaks, is. He has captured my mind, and I couldn't help but feel pulled to submit to Him. The way He leads and encourages, inspires me to trust in ways I never imagined.

A Dom is an individual just as a submissive is, not all are the same, which is a good thing. Like any relationship, you want to find one that suits you best.

Or you want him to find you but you should both be looking as a wise friend said.

This is surprisingly accurate.

I am surprised too.

 

[MeekMe]

I hate flowery language also. You should forgive me using one at times since English is not my first language so while studying it I have been taugh to always enhance enhance enhance...(for better marks obviously!)

It was not really a dig at you (more the way I see every thread like this). Sorry if that's how it came off. I'm more of the mindset that we overthink these things. I've got a million other things to think about and over analyze and worry about. When it comes to stuff like this I just like getting off the way that works best for me. I would not have known this wasn't your first language.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Real dominants come forward when the shit is in the wind. They naturally attract lesser mortals obedience at such times. Subs cant resist them.

 

[Mindfondler]

Real dominants come forward when the shit is in the wind. They naturally attract lesser mortals obedience at such times. Subs cant resist them.

I've learnt to blank out any assertions that begin with "Real dominants...".

*hits "ignore" button*
.

 

[HisArpy]

There are people who have dominant personalities that don't want authority over their partner. I think it's helpful to separate the concept of BDSM dominants from personality traits. There are submissives who have very dominant personality traits. There are dominants who are neutral or have more submissive personality traits. This isn't about personalities. It's about a dynamic in a personal relationship.

Then, in just the BDSM context, doesn't that reduce all Dom's to being only Service Tops? I think it's more complex than that.

There are many different personality types. Not all of them equate to being alpha. That doesn't mean that Omega, Beta, or Zeta can't be dominant with the right partner. Nor does it mean that the submissive is 'lesser' than the D/. In these situations, it is the trust / control aspect more than the hierarchy ranking which determines dominance.

SHE is generally more aggressive than I am. I have that 'I don't care...' thing going on in my head all the time. However, SHE trusts me to protect her and keep her safe. In return I make the decisions which keep her safe and happy. SHE submits to the decisions I make because she knows I'm smarter, stronger, and more experienced in those areas. If I get a bit rough when we play, then that's a natural consequence of her submission. SHE's ok with all of that because she knows that together we are better off than either alone.

 

[SpunThings]

Then, in just the BDSM context, doesn't that reduce all Dom's to being only Service Tops? I think it's more complex than that.

There are many different personality types. Not all of them equate to being alpha. That doesn't mean that Omega, Beta, or Zeta can't be dominant with the right partner. Nor does it mean that the submissive is 'lesser' than the D/. In these situations, it is the trust / control aspect more than the hierarchy ranking which determines dominance.

SHE is generally more aggressive than I am. I have that 'I don't care...' thing going on in my head all the time. However, SHE trusts me to protect her and keep her safe. In return I make the decisions which keep her safe and happy. SHE submits to the decisions I make because she knows I'm smarter, stronger, and more experienced in those areas. If I get a bit rough when we play, then that's a natural consequence of her submission. SHE's ok with all of that because she knows that together we are better off than either alone.

I don't think you and I will ever come to a consensus because I reject the very idea of alpha, beta, and omega. I'll just chalk it up to looking at the world through different lenses.

 

[Conager]

Then, in just the BDSM context, doesn't that reduce all Dom's to being only Service Tops? I think it's more complex than that.

There are many different personality types. Not all of them equate to being alpha. That doesn't mean that Omega, Beta, or Zeta can't be dominant with the right partner. Nor does it mean that the submissive is 'lesser' than the D/. In these situations, it is the trust / control aspect more than the hierarchy ranking which determines dominance.

SHE is generally more aggressive than I am. I have that 'I don't care...' thing going on in my head all the time. However, SHE trusts me to protect her and keep her safe. In return I make the decisions which keep her safe and happy. SHE submits to the decisions I make because she knows I'm smarter, stronger, and more experienced in those areas. If I get a bit rough when we play, then that's a natural consequence of her submission. SHE's ok with all of that because she knows that together we are better off than either alone.

So, she allows you to wear the pants, this makes you alpha-dom.

Got it.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

I've learnt to blank out any assertions that begin with "Real dominants...".

*hits "ignore" button*
.

That is an outstanding criterion for weeding people and eliminating not-fun kinds of silliness.