Different types of doms

[social_morality]

It really occurred to me how different doms can be. Myself being the type that respects my sub's limits, fears, and respects her as a person. I see my sub as a partner, some that is by my side.

There are others that consider their subs to be below them. They are more strict on "orders". I see no problem with these doms as they are still people that I respect.

Then there are the ones that DEMAND respect and obedience from their subs. They are more interested in having a slave/toy than partner or "pet" and are concerned more with their own pleasure. These seem to be the stereotype and the ones that answer to the bdsm personals.

I would like to hear your opinions on this.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

It really occurred to me how different doms can be. Myself being the type that respects my sub's limits, fears, and respects her as a person. I see my sub as a partner, some that is by my side.

There are others that consider their subs to be below them. They are more strict on "orders". I see no problem with these doms as they are still people that I respect.

Then there are the ones that DEMAND respect and obedience from their subs. They are more interested in having a slave/toy than partner or "pet" and are concerned more with their own pleasure. These seem to be the stereotype and the ones that answer to the bdsm personals.

I would like to hear your opinions on this.

I think there's as many different types of dominants as there are different kinds of people.

 

[eastern sun]

There's a lot of role-playing going on.

 

[gfun9876]

I agree the most common seem to be the controllers. But that may be because the others are in relationships and not out looking for subs. The controllers in my opinion are borish and totally missing the mark....so to speak. Of coarse this is only my opinion. To me there is a difference between domination submission and controllers.

 

[BringIt69]

I agree with gfun here. Domination and controlling seem to come off, at least to me, as two completely different activities, and they seem to require two very distinct sets of mind.

I've always had the impression that controllers are really only interested in...well...controlling (duh), in having an obedient puppet for the sake of feeling dominant rather than being dominant. They only seem interested in obedience, and their vision of themselves as badass.

A dominant, on the other hand, is not only more invested in his partner, he also seems to know her better. Rather than being about having demands met, dominant ion is about being able to manipulate your partner's body and mind to respond they way you both want, without going too far. It requires, in my opinion, a great deal more skill and subtly. I've never found controllers very sexy.

It's just two easy to demand orders be followed and a lot more difficult to "encourage" a sub to want to follow orders.

 

[sereneone4u]

It really occurred to me how different doms can be. Myself being the type that respects my sub's limits, fears, and respects her as a person. I see my sub as a partner, some that is by my side.

There are others that consider their subs to be below them. They are more strict on "orders". I see no problem with these doms as they are still people that I respect.

Then there are the ones that DEMAND respect and obedience from their subs. They are more interested in having a slave/toy than partner or "pet" and are concerned more with their own pleasure. These seem to be the stereotype and the ones that answer to the bdsm personals.

I would like to hear your opinions on this.

I am not in the BDSM lifestyle, but it seems to me that respect is something you earn not demand.

A couple of doms I know and who I respect tremendously, being dominant is WHO they are, not something they have to manipulate someone to get.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Once again I am irritated and baffled by the lack of vocabulary in hetero BDSM.

Not every BDSM partnership is D/s. Not even the ones that call themselves so. MOST partnerships are what the old guard calls "top/bottom," meaning that one person issues orders or ties their partner up, or spanks them, during times of play, and the couple is more or less normally "equal" other times. This is true in hetero as well, but you'd never know it by the common terminology.

Hets seem to expect a 24/7 lifestyle. They seem to expect a never-ending power exchange. They seem to expect a relationship as a prerequisite for play. I figure it's something they all read in some grocery store romance paperback, personally.

If you notice a dom that "controls" his (or her) sub, you are looking at an actual dom. If you're someone who loves to be the active party during sex, control your partner's experience, if you have a highly developed sense of empathy that gets you off because your partner is getting off-- because you made them get off-- you're a top.
If you have a need to "own" someone, have them in your care and dependent on you, you might be a master(of a slave). But even a master needn't dom their slave all the damn time.


</rant>

edit to add;

I agree with gfun here. Domination and controlling seem to come off, at least to me, as two completely different activities, and they seem to require two very distinct sets of mind.

I've always had the impression that controllers are really only interested in...well...controlling (duh), in having an obedient puppet for the sake of feeling dominant rather than being dominant. They only seem interested in obedience, and their vision of themselves as badass.

A dominant, on the other hand, is not only more invested in his partner, he also seems to know her better...

All you are seeing here is a difference in skills. You've awarded the paperback Romance Perfect Gentleman type with the title of "dominant" and demoted the less-skilled ordinary nebbish guy with the epithet of "controller."

You might as well say that only Perfect Gentlemen can be called "husbands."

And of course, you've assigned gender to your characters, darling. Never ever consider "dom" as another word for "man" or "sub" as just a word meaning "woman." The one goddamn thing about BDSM that we can begin to learn here, is that a penis does not automatically mean that person wants to be on top, or that a pussy means someone must be subjugated.

</rant the second>

 

[ownedsubgal]

If you notice a dom that "controls" his (or her) sub, you are looking at an actual dom. If you're someone who loves to be the active party during sex, control your partner's experience, if you have a highly developed sense of empathy that gets you off because your partner is getting off-- because you made them get off-- you're a top.
If you have a need to "own" someone, have them in your care and dependent on you, you might be a master(of a slave). But even a master needn't dom their slave all the damn time.


</rant>

*stands and applauds* thanks for that rant Stella, now i don't have to do it, lol. i too am constantly astonished at the lack of vocabulary used by those in the "mainstream" (for lack of a better term) D/s and BDSM worlds. i am also amazed by the way so many seem to happily hurl webster's out of the window when it comes to lifestyle terminology.

a dominant person is a dominant person. it is a personality trait, not some title bestowed upon them by the holy council of castlerealm proper domliness. if one has no desire or propensity to control, but rather just really really digs it when their sexual partner happily quivers like jelly under their touch, then you may be describing a Top, but just may as well be describing a perfectly normal "vanilla" person. but that person is absolutely not "dominant."

but then what do i know, i've just been one of those mindless puppet slaves for 11 years.

 

[Stella_Omega]

the holy council of castlerealm proper domliness

MASTER LORD DOMLY DOM OF CASTLEREALM PROPER DOMLINESS!

The third.

Of five.

 

[welkin]

All you are seeing here is a difference in skills. You've awarded the paperback Romance Perfect Gentleman type with the title of "dominant" and demoted the less-skilled ordinary nebbish guy with the epithet of "controller."

You might as well say that only Perfect Gentlemen can be called "husbands."

I like!

To each their own, I've definitely seen subs who crave debasement beyond what I'd feel comfortable, they seek the type of doms that may be seen by others as controlling and selfish.

I think we can stand to be a little tolerant. You might think certain "evil" doms are damaging the sub, but the vanillas may equally find the type of relationship you want appalling.

In the end, it's an individual choice.

 

[welkin]

Though, I am not so sure why "control your partner's experience" falls under top but not dom. There is so much overlap.

 

[BringIt69]

Whoa, whoa! Let's back up for a second. I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone, and it appears I've pushed some buttons, so I apologize.

Stella, you are right. I don't understand the terminology very well at all. I always thought "dom" was equivalent with "top" and "sub" with "bottom." The most sophisticated distinction I can make is to know that "doms" are different from "Masters" and "slaves" are not equivalent with "subs". My minute understanding of the whole bdsm, power exchange world comes from what I read off the internet, have gleaned from a few books off amazon.com, and am trying to deduce from these forums. I'm not part of a community; I've never been in a club. I'll openly admit that I know jack squat, but I am here to express my opinions all the same, and to learn. Sorry if I offended anyone.

As for the whole gender issue, I am well aware that men can be bottoms, woman can be tops, etc. I wasn't trying to be offensive, I was just being lazy. But from now on, I'll be sure to use "he/He/she/She/It/boy/boi" and other such extensive dashes, if it will make everyone happy.

As for what I meant by "controllers," I meant men/women who see their bottoms (?) not as people, but as puppets, who take little to no interest in the needs or responses of their partners, play or otherwise, and are really just interested in having an obedient puppet, never really caring about the puppet's personality, feelings, etc. There ARE people like this, and they are fairly plentiful. In other words, I am describing tops (?) who want a one sided relationship. And some people may find this sexy, but I don't, and I merely wished to express my own opinion.

Again, sorry for the confusion. I understand that idiots like myself can be frustrating for the experts on the board but, really, I didn't mean any offense.

 

[Dr_O]

Why is everyone so interested in what is "correct" behavior for a dom or a sub? As another poster said, every dom is different because every person is different. And the same dom may act one way with one sub and another way with another. (OMG a dom can't have more than one sub!!)

Some doms love women and some don't. Some want an equal partner except in bed, some want a 24/7 pet or slave. If the sub enjoys the arrangement, it will work. If not, they can find other people.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Though, I am not so sure why "control your partner's experience" falls under top but not dom. There is so much overlap.

Sorry, I meant "controls the physical experience during play." I too am plenty guilty of vagueness...


BringIt69, I do not mean to yell at you in particular. I apologise for that, sincerely. The problem is endemic, IMO:

I always thought "dom" was equivalent with "top" and "sub" with "bottom."

Of course you did! Because for the hetero crowd, they are considered equivalent. But they aren't, really, and the semantic differences are very telling-- to me, at least.

Dominance IS about control. Submission really does mean having no control. That's what those words mean. "D/s" exactly describes the one-sided relationship you are decrying. Although most hets don't think much about it, anyone with a highschool education knows what those words meant originally, and those original meanings color your understanding of them now.

ownedsubgal is a wonderful example of a true submissive. She has, really-truly, genuinely, no control in her life. She lives with a really-truly, genuinely, dominant Master. They each, really-truly, genuinely fill each other's needs. You'd hate it. I'd hate it. He is not a Perfect Gentleman, and sometimes her stories nauseate me. But my discomfort has nothing to do with the genuineness of their D/s dynamic.

As for gender-- "they, them" would suffice for me.

 

[midwestyankee]

Why is everyone so interested in what is "correct" behavior for a dom or a sub? As another poster said, every dom is different because every person is different. And the same dom may act one way with one sub and another way with another. (OMG a dom can't have more than one sub!!)

Some doms love women and some don't. Some want an equal partner except in bed, some want a 24/7 pet or slave. If the sub enjoys the arrangement, it will work. If not, they can find other people.

I don't think the problem is with the "correct" behavior. Rather, I think what Stella is pushing for is a cleaner distinction in the terms so that we can talk more clearly with one another.

Example: if we were discussing cars and I used the term "sports car" to describe a Corvette, a Mazda Miata and a Honda Accord Coupe, someone might rightly complain that, as a result of my use of the terms, they didn't really know what I meant to say. It's much the same here. When we use "dom" and "top" interchangeably, we lose a certain amount of important detail that makes the conversation easier to understand.

 

[welkin]

Though Dom and sub aren't so one-sided, I'd think it's a gradient... I'd like to give up some control, and I do want to control exactly which part is it that I give up. You can certainly say I'm less submissive than ownedsubgal, but I reckon I'm still more submissive than the average woman. So what am I, a half-sub?

 

[CutieMouse]

Though Dom and sub aren't so one-sided, I'd think it's a gradient... I'd like to give up some control, and I do want to control exactly which part is it that I give up. You can certainly say I'm less submissive than ownedsubgal, but I reckon I'm still more submissive than the average woman. So what am I, a half-sub?

Technically, a bottom - someone who enjoys giving up control in a specifically, negotiated upon, controlled sort of way. [pun intended]

 

[Stella_Omega]

As long as you know what the words mean-- if you say you're a sub, I, and everyone else, will believe you. But cutiemouse might be right:

Technically, a bottom - someone who enjoys giving up control in a specifically, negotiated upon, controlled sort of way. [pun intended]

The problem is when someone doesn't know what the words mean, and uses them-- because people will believe them... Then bad things start to happen and someone doesn't get their rocks off...

I go off on these rants because I want people to think more carefully about what it is that they actually want-- and more accurately explain what it is that they actually want... I mean no harm!

 

[welkin]

Technically, a bottom - someone who enjoys giving up control in a specifically, negotiated upon, controlled sort of way. [pun intended]

My distinction between bottom and sub have always been a physical vs mental one, and I think this is what I heard at a bdsm newbie meeting... Is this just how this forum uses it for sake of clarity among one another?

 

[midwestyankee]

My distinction between bottom and sub have always been a physical vs mental one, and I think this is what I heard at a bdsm newbie meeting... Is this just how this forum uses it for sake of clarity among one another?

It is impossible to bottom/submit (or top/dominate) either only physically or only mentally.

How do you (or those to whom you listened at that meeting) mean to distinguish between people using this criterion?

 

[Stella_Omega]

My distinction between bottom and sub have always been a physical vs mental one, and I think this is what I heard at a bdsm newbie meeting... Is this just how this forum uses it for sake of clarity among one another?

Good point!

Hmm...

I'm thinking that the slightest touch of "follow orders" is like the "one drop of blood" rule for some folk-- makes it into D/s. I just don't see it that way.

We are, all of us, both physical and mental at the same time. The physical has mental elements, and vice versa.

When I spank someone, they are "submitting" in the sense that they aren't arguing that they are getting a spanking. They'll hold still for it, sometimes with some bondage to help them out. But I don't consider that a D/s activity in itself. When I spank someone, I'm topping them. When I haul out the strapon, I'm topping. Sure I'm imposing my will for a short time. But I don't consider myself a dom for doing that. Sure, they totally give themselves to the moment-- but I don't consider them subs for that. Sure, they do what I tell them to, but that's because doing as I order will get them off even harder...

This forum uses "PYL/pyl" a lot-- "pick your label." Which is handy in many cases, but I do like to stir the pot some.

 

[Curious_in_Cali]

Though Dom and sub aren't so one-sided, I'd think it's a gradient... I'd like to give up some control, and I do want to control exactly which part is it that I give up. You can certainly say I'm less submissive than ownedsubgal, but I reckon I'm still more submissive than the average woman. So what am I, a half-sub?

Why can't you be ALL sub or ALL Dom that simply chooses to express yourself in the ways that you do, or selectively plays with these parts of yourself due to whatever reasons you have to do so? Similar to the way that people here on Lit wear the label "writer" but do not pursue it as a full time career. That more or less submissive/dominant than someone else part makes me cringe. Your experience of submissiveness is not lessened by the experience of others, it is unique unto you, and it is a treasure whose value is determined only at the point of purchase in the currency of exchange itself. Please don't measure your worth and depth against someone else, or deny yourself a label or identity that resonates with you. I agree that categories and labels provide a fluency for debate and communication...but that they can be limiting and hurtful when we apply these hard coded definitions within ourselves.

 

[welkin]

It is impossible to bottom/submit (or top/dominate) either only physically or only mentally.

How do you (or those to whom you listened at that meeting) mean to distinguish between people using this criterion?

The common example seems to be a Dom asking a sub to flog him while being very specific on what flog to use or how to swing it... And that's been described as a bottom dom to me.

 

[midwestyankee]

The common example seems to be a Dom asking a sub to flog him while being very specific on what flog to use or how to swing it... And that's been described as a bottom dom to me.

I don't see your point. How does your example use the mental/physical dichotomy to distinguish between the actors in your example? It's not at all clear to me how there can be only mental or only physical action.

 

[Primalex]

It is impossible to bottom/submit (or top/dominate) either only physically or only mentally.

Hmmm...

*scratches chin*

I would rate true rape as physically only activity and mind fuck as mentally only.

Not sure where I would put true blackmailing for sex.