"What is it that a Dom does?"

[barefootgirl69]

A Dom is a member of a two-person group project, and has been elected by the members of that group as its leader.

And the project moves on from there, based on the desires of the members. No good leader simply kicks the door in and states 'I'm here, obey my every command.'

I elect you... something good, I'll have to get back with you.

Which boot is next?

 

[Misshotndeep]

Doesn't any accurate definition of a dom necessarily have to be vague to actually be correct?

In this instance, if the fundamental premise doesn't potentially apply to literally every single person on Earth, then it can't be a correct definition because then you're arbitrarily quantifying combinations of personality traits that at least a handful of people won't meet or won't be able to meet. Regardless of how much of a basic requirement you consider any given trait to be.

I am sorry but I must disagree. There are general rules to being a Dom. Just as there are terms such a topping from the bottom and so forth. There are basic's that without one is not a Dom. It has a definition as a term. In practice it varies per the subs needs. As I have already stated.

 

[RubenesqueAphrodite]

"Dom' is a relatively fluid term typically used to denote the holder of the power in a dichotomous relationship. The extent to which the "Dom" or "PYL" holds that power is entirely dependent upon how much power is given to Him/Her by the "'pyl'".

Sometimes the power is tangible as in the power to exert physical pain. Other times, that power is less obvious and stems from the complete adoration and trust a 'pyl' has for the PYL to be a guiding force in their lives. Not to mention the endless combinations found in between...

I agree there is a general and universal concept about what a "Dom" is, but in actuality, the expression of said role in each relationship is as unique as the fingerprints on the participants hands.

Just my opinion.

 

[Misshotndeep]

"Dom' is a relatively fluid term typically used to denote the holder of the power in a dichotomous relationship. The extent to which the "Dom" or "PYL" holds that power is entirely dependent upon how much power is given to Him/Her by the "'pyl'".

Sometimes the power is tangible as in the power to exert physical pain. Other times, that power is less obvious and stems from the complete adoration and trust a 'pyl' has for the PYL to be a guiding force in their lives. Not to mention the endless combinations found in between...

I agree there is a general and universal concept about what a "Dom" is, but in actuality, the expression of said role in each relationship is as unique as the fingerprints on the participants hands.

Just my opinion.

That was my point exactly. I wanted to know what Ol Green Eyes saw as his part as a Dom? Being part of a partnership is a given. Being the leader in that partnership is a given. What else?

 

[RubenesqueAphrodite]

That was my point exactly. I wanted to know what Ol Green Eyes saw as his part as a Dom? Being part of a partnership is a given. Being the leader in that partnership is a given. What else?

I understand what you were getting at, but I could also appreciate DGE's broader, but nonetheless applicable, definition.

That said, I don't believe DGE was intending to oversimplify, rather I got more of a putative feel to his definition.

 

[Misshotndeep]

I understand what you were getting at, but I could also appreciate DGE's broader, but nonetheless applicable, definition.

That said, I don't believe DGE was intending to oversimplify, rather I got more of a putative feel to his definition.

Which is fine. Like I said, I am not dismissing his definition at all. I just wanted a bit more detail as to what he views. I was a Dom but am no longer interest in the scene anymore. I wanted to hear what a fellow Dom see's as his place in the partnership.

 

[Wyldfire]

Can we get a dictionary definition compared to what dominates of either gender perceive?

 

[HisArpy]

I actually like DGE's definition though I quibble over 'elected' and would, possibly, change it to 'appointed'. Nor does it have to be limited to a 2-person group. Poly relationships can have 1 Dom and multi-subs.

The thing that seems to be getting lost here isn't what the definition of a Dom is, the question is what does a Dom DO?

I'd think, that for subs, a Dom creates the environment which the sub needs to be the best person the sub can be. Whatever that environment is or how it's structured, without the Dom the environment is missing/lacking/incomplete and the sub suffers for it. Usually without understanding why or how to correct the problem.

For the Dom, he/she creates the space for the sub in his/her life. The attention, time and energy to be devoted specifically to this submissive and no other. In exchange the Dom gets physical and emotional fulfillment from making this effort.

ALL of this comes from the Dom. Not the environment, or the job, or the homestead, or anything else. The Dom creates this using the tools at hand for the benefit of both the D and the /s. To get it right, the D communicate with the /s so that both understand what is wanted and required. And, if modification in the future is necessary, BOTH have a say in whether the modification is allowed or if the relationship cannot continue based on the needs of either partner.

GOOD Doms are selfless. They give themselves to their subs. GOOD subs are selfless. They give their Doms their all. That is what a Dom does IMO.

Bleah! Too wordy. Again.

 

[SpunThings]

In response to the concept suggested of a Dom delivering what the sub needs outside of sex ...

I think the most powerful thing a stronger person can provide a weaker person in life is the knowledge, confidence and self-esteem to grow stronger themselves. So perhaps in the perfect D/s relationship, DOm provides the support, wisdom and strength to help the sub grow to be a more confident and emotionally intelligent person in her day to day life. The Dom takes great pleasure from this and admires the person the sub becomes. In return, the sub respects the Dom completely and thus submits to his desires out of a mutual sense of admiration.

I think this is perhaps a more specific example, but I certainly get immense satisfaction from helping people grow in themselves, and find myself very drawn to that in a relationship (bit of a rescue complex). So my ideal relationship would be one where I could assist a my sub in becoming the best person she can be, investing all my energies and emotions, and in return she provides me with the affection, pleasure, and emotional connection that I seek.

This is definitely a specific example. I am not the sub/ply because I'm weaker. Do you think it a weakness to submit to another? Or do you look for partners who you see as weak?

 

[Wyldfire]

I see. My question is too close to the real egos. Face it all doms/Dommes serve the subs..... But we'll save their egos..... Doms/Dommes are in control..... *snort* Sure they are.....

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

Thank you for all the interesting comments about my post. Forgive me for not commenting and quoting each of you, but please know that you will get bagels and cream cheese in the break room, even if you hate my statement. That's just who I am.

But how can such a statement encapsulate both an overview and a detail?

Detail will vary, using Dge's parrallel, according To team members and the details of the project. The project itself might change direction, reflecting research / information gathering as the project is undertaken.

A project G and I undertake might be different to a project DGE might strive to complete with someone, AND the same players, say for sake of argument, and be still my beating heart, the project DGE and I might explore, because we bring different aptitudes and experiences to the table.

One pyl ( I do not identify with 'sub' right now) is not interchangeable for another in many a relationship, more than one man is the same as another.

DGe's phrasing suggests to me, respect for the team member, with leadership and direction.....biased by my enjoyment of his humour and soul. But we probably all know about really unreasonable bosses, and the people who still stay at their jobs, even get fulfilment from working from corporate sadists.

( DGE, may i be excused boot licking tonight?)

This is why it's better to wait for people smarter than oneself to weigh in on one's ideas.

Yes, no boot licking for you.

Doesn't any accurate definition of a dom necessarily have to be vague to actually be correct?

In this instance, if the fundamental premise doesn't potentially apply to literally every single person on Earth, then it can't be a correct definition because then you're arbitrarily quantifying combinations of personality traits that at least a handful of people won't meet or won't be able to meet. Regardless of how much of a basic requirement you consider any given trait to be.

Edit:
e.g Even if your measurement for working out whether somebody is a dom is as apparently agreeable as:
"They must consider power exchange to be a part of their sexuality"
Even that doesn't apply to some people who would consider themselves doms. E.g partners who 'go with it' for the benefit of their pyl partner.

Am I explaining this right?

Yes, this is exactly right. This is why it's better to wait for people smarter than oneself to weigh in on one's ideas.

And the project moves on from there, based on the desires of the members. No good leader simply kicks the door in and states 'I'm here, obey my every command.'

I elect you... something good, I'll have to get back with you.

Which boot is next?

That. As with Elle's point, you and everyone you know will create a different project.

I actually like DGE's definition though I quibble over 'elected' and would, possibly, change it to 'appointed'. Nor does it have to be limited to a 2-person group. Poly relationships can have 1 Dom and multi-subs.

I just used "elected" because I think the picture of a two-person election that results in a winner is fun.

Your other point is excellent. Thank you.

After rethinking my position, I think I have missed his point because the statement was not meet for me. It was meet for a sub to understand. That is not meant to upset any tinder sub skin either. I just don't get vague. I am a detail person.
If you read my first statement in this thread, I gave a general over view according to my opinion that was not specific either.

It really wasn't meant for a sub. It was just meant. There are various word-containers for ideas. Mine was short. I've thought about this idea for years and it says everything I wish to say, and encapsulates what is important to me about D/s. I believe it is a flexible enough idea to accomodate a variety of applications and relationships and still hold its shape.

It doesn't resonate with you, and that's fine.

 

[Cakecups]

Thank you for all the interesting comments about my post. Forgive me for not commenting and quoting each of you, but please know that you will get bagels and cream cheese in the break room, even if you hate my statement. That's just who I am.

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/54301190.jpg

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

[CAKECUPS MILTON]

Doms, what would you say that you do around here?

Maybe what a Dom does should be bagel-related. I don't care for the ones that come from chains, but they do involve lox. And sometimes the cream cheese is whipped.

 

[Misshotndeep]

This has evolved into a very interesting topic. I hope more will share their thoughts.

 

[RubenesqueAphrodite]

This has evolved into a very interesting topic. I hope more will share their thoughts.

topic?

I've learned so far that Doms think that the mention of bagels snd cupcakes bring subs to their knees....

Phhft..

We all know that's not true.

It's really the cream cheese and icing we love.

 

[Misshotndeep]

topic?

I've learned so far that Doms think that the mention of bagels snd cupcakes bring subs to their knees....

Phhft..

We all know that's not true.

It's really the cream cheese and icing we love.

I thought it was apple pie and whip cream. Shows what I know.

 

[Collar_N_Cuffs]

[CAKECUPS MILTON]

Doms, what would you say that you do around here?

Maybe what a Dom does should be bagel-related. I don't care for the ones that come from chains, but they do involve lox. And sometimes the cream cheese is whipped.

I looked your posts. Y0u interested me. We will get acquainted?

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Hazardo]

This is definitely a specific example. I am not the sub/ply because I'm weaker. Do you think it a weakness to submit to another? Or do you look for partners who you see as weak?

There's a difference between the meanings of 'weaker' and 'weak'. I am 'weaker' than some people I know, in different ways, but I am not 'weak'. I know it's a word that sounds derogatory, but it isn't. I have yet to meet a girl who isn't physically weaker than me, but I know plenty of girls who could knock me out if they caught me off guard.

I know my strengths. I have a lot of emotional intelligence and life experience. I never anger. I don't hate. I take life as it comes. I help people. I've suffered a lot of trauma, and I've developed a lot overcoming it. If I didn't do what I do, I'd like to do some form of counselling. I know from lots of experience that I can offer people (male or female) that I meet perspective, patience and advice that can help them grow. Most people I meet are 'weaker' than me emotionally and don't see behaviours, motivations, life challenges, and the bigger picture as clearly as I do. Yet, I am still 'weaker' in this regard to a few people I know, and enjoy being so, because I get to learn from them and grow.

That is said in my defence to help flesh out my point.

To answer your question specifically, submitting to someone is not weakness, unless it is done out of fear. Submission by placing trust when it would be easier not to submit is most definitely a strength. But why submit? What have you got to gain? In my example, and in my desired dynamic, someone chooses to submit to me because they see my strengths (and thus them being 'weaker') and want to experience those strengths and grow.

It's also worth noting that I genuinely do think the desire for control is a weakness. In that specific regard, in not needing control, a sub is stronger than a dom.

Edit: Oh and I missed your other question. No, I date all sorts. I don't look for a weakling to make me feel good, if that's what your assumption was.

 

[HisArpy]

I thought it was apple pie and whip cream. Shows what I know.

Actually, it's just pie and whipped anything.



Did I miss out on the bagels? AGAIN? Damn.

 

[Miasorrow]

What the f**k does PYL stand for?

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[MeekMe]

What the f**k does PYL stand for?

PYL/pyl

Pick Your Label - it's a generic term used to replace calling all either doms or subs. This allows the reader to put in whatever suits them.

 

[Miasorrow]

PYL/pyl

Pick Your Label - it's a generic term used to replace calling all either doms or subs. This allows the reader to put in whatever suits them.

Thank you. I love it.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]