Different types of doms

[FungiUg]

Some people don't use the labels-- but If the relationship is consensual, consent is there. Yes? No?

Sure is. I'm not sure where I even implied non-consensuality. In my opinion, whatever the label, if it's non-consensual then it's abuse.

Of course, it gets a bit... interesting when we look at parents and children, or the requirements of society and law.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Sure is. I'm not sure where I even implied non-consensuality. In my opinion, whatever the label, if it's non-consensual then it's abuse.

Indeed. And the thing that defines BDSM as it's currently practiced is a convention of deliberate consent. Not everyone achives this perfectly, or even very well. But nearly everyone who comes here for advice-- that's one of the first things they get told. We all try to spread that news.

Of course, it gets a bit... interesting when we look at parents and children, or the requirements of society and law.

Mmm... those things are not BDSM. By definition, by practice, by goals, they aren't.

 

[social_morality]

Damn...I'm surprised my little rant about different types of doms has turned into this. I do have a small question that moves away from the large discussion you all have created.

To you doms, have you ever (consciously or subconsciously) created a persona that contained your dominant qualities? Like myself, though it is cliche, has created "master" when being dominant but I go back to myself when being romantic. Has anyone done something similar?

 

[DVS]

Thank you. Please know that it is not my intent to label the people as much as I want to maybe label the concepts if you will... I too hate labels, and wiggle my way out of them as often as I can. I also cringe at the thought of someone belittling another persons experience in judgment or comparison of their own. I love the thought "we should always be kinder than necessary as everyone is waging their own kind of war." For me, the kind of war is irrelevant...the fact that we all war within is the resonance that breeds compassion and allows tolerance and hopefully celebration of our differences.

Hunger is a delicious word indeed, and I often use it with poetic license to describe my own sexual cravings. I considered the word hunger and did I consider the word craving...but then I chose "seeks" to allow the definition to be more moderate, less confining, and more generic..to reach a broader spectrum. Does that make sense?

Plus, for the more literal thinkers out there, hunger would be equivalent to the life sustaining need to eat...which none of us can deny as a required 24/7 lifestyle choice. Admittedly, the longings for kink can be life consuming but at the end of the day, some can, like you and I, choose to indulge in it at your whim and contentedly thrive.

Pictures?

Nothing you have said bothers me. I'm just voicing my opinion. Everybody has an opinion.

 

[DVS]

jeezuz, DVS, didn't you read any of the context?

Of course I did. Some I agreed with and some I didn't. You're all talking about labels and I think that's being too simplistic. It causes people to assume they must fit within those labels, if they are to be dom, sub, slave...whatever. Of course, I'm wrong and your right.

Here, make it easy on yourself.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Hunger is a delicious word indeed, and I often use it with poetic license to describe my own sexual cravings. I considered the word hunger and did I consider the word craving...but then I chose "seeks" to allow the definition to be more moderate, less confining, and more generic..to reach a broader spectrum. Does that make sense?

Plus, for the more literal thinkers out there, hunger would be equivalent to the life sustaining need to eat...which none of us can deny as a required 24/7 lifestyle choice. Admittedly, the longings for kink can be life consuming but at the end of the day, some can, like you and I, choose to indulge in it at your whim and contentedly thrive.

but then you have the difficult ones like myself and my Master, who cannot relate whatsoever to the idea of a "hunger" or "craving" related to our identities. my submissiveness is not defined by any particular desires, kinks, yearnings, hungers, etc. the concept implies a level of choice that just isn't there. this is just who i am, how i was wired from birth. i do not submit because it gives me the warm fuzzies to do so, but because it is my first instinct to do so...even when i absolutely do not wish to do so. i was extremely grateful to discover D/s, and then M/s, because it showed me a place in the world where i could potentially be accepted, valued and safe. it gave me hope that maybe someday i could have a life like other people, where i wasn't constantly being stomped upon by all and sundry and valued as much as a used dishrag. it was the idea of LIFE that drew me to this world. not orgasms, not fun and games, just life.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Of course I did. Some I agreed with and some I didn't. You're all talking about labels and I think that's being too simplistic. It causes people to assume they must fit within those labels, if they are to be dom, sub, slave...whatever. Of course, I'm wrong and your right.

Here, make it easy on yourself.

Nice article! it reiterates everything that I've said.
For example, Lauren says;

D&S has in the last 20 years become an increasingly popular term and an activity of interest in the popular press. Formally, the term emphasizes a pervasive subgroup of the psychological components of BDSM, most notably what is called power exchange. ...

Partners "exchange power" when one partner -- the submissive (or "sub") -- agrees to defer to the other partner -- the dominant (or "dom," and sometimes for females, "domme" or "femdom"; the term "dominatrix" is not generally used for female doms). Recall that the top is the leader of the action and the bottom is the follower or one who is done to (see above). That is, doms and subs are particular kinds of tops and bottoms -- ones who emphasize power exchange in their play. Some people use the terms dom and sub to be synonymous with top and bottom. Others use the terms top and bottom to refer to people who emphasize SM as opposed to DS in their play. Which exact definitions are being used is usually clear from the context, but it can be helpful to ask. ( http://sexuality.org/authors/lauren/AboutBDSM1.html )

Yes, we are talking about the labels that people use-- and misuse. You notice that last line-- "It can be helpful to ask?" That "popularisation" has become so pervasive that people don't even know to ask.

I completely agree that people make wrong assumptions about how they must fit themselves into those labels. That's why we are talking about this stuff. If they don't know that there are other labels, people will forever try to stuff themselves into the labels they have. If they think the labels mean one thing when everyone else thinks they mean something different-- well. Trouble and unhappiness ensue.

And not because we are talking about them in this thread.

Damn...I'm surprised my little rant about different types of doms has turned into this. I do have a small question that moves away from the large discussion you all have created.

To you doms, have you ever (consciously or subconsciously) created a persona that contained your dominant qualities? Like myself, though it is cliche, has created "master" when being dominant but I go back to myself when being romantic. Has anyone done something similar?

First of all, I apologise for completely hijacking your thread, s-m!

And-- yes, I think lots of people do that. It's like being "on" onstage, or getting your game on if you play sports... I know I do prefer to focus the set of qualities that I need for the scene, and jettison the other parts of my personality...

 

[ownedsubgal]

Really? So what were people experiencing before they called it "D/s"?

I think people may not be experiencing exactly what we do, but then do they ever? We all differ, after all. But on the other hand, there are aspects of commonality, and I don't think it's false to look for those.

No, I'm not wearing D/s coloured glasses. But dominance and submission are natural parts of human interaction, and not limited to BDSM practitioners. So sometimes the terminology can be useful.

i agree, Dominance and submission a natural part of interaction between all intelligent life, not just human. to deny that is to deny nature itself. the label of D/s is not necessary.

it is also why i have never referred to my particular relationship or way of life as BDSM, because i am aware that describes an entirely different culture/motivation/way of life/etc.

 

[seela]

but then you have the difficult ones like myself and my Master, who cannot relate whatsoever to the idea of a "hunger" or "craving" related to our identities. my submissiveness is not defined by any particular desires, kinks, yearnings, hungers, etc. the concept implies a level of choice that just isn't there. this is just who i am, how i was wired from birth.

Yes. This. There always seems to be something that gets left out, and that's why I don't like blanket definitions.

Lately I noticed, that the lack of dominant force in my life made me hunger the physical acts of bottoming, pain and bondage, which I normally don't care for too much one way or another. It was weird and confusing, but also very interesting an eye-opening for me.

(And OSG, I've missed your posts)

 

[Stella_Omega]

i agree, Dominance and submission a natural part of interaction between all intelligent life, not just human. to deny that is to deny nature itself. the label of D/s is not necessary.

it is also why i have never referred to my particular relationship or way of life as BDSM, because i am aware that describes an entirely different culture/motivation/way of life/etc.

Nothing like being a complete outrider to make you a better expert than the insiders, huh?

I think more about hetero assumptions than most hets do-- because I'm surrounded by hets, and their assumptions impact me all the time...

Sure interactions include the same things that we use in D/s. That's where we got them from. But D/s is more specific than that-- actually, might be more limited.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yes. This. There always seems to be something that gets left out, and that's why I don't like blanket definitions.

Don't I know it! But that's not really the definition's fault. Thge problem is that there aren't enough words, with enough subtle modulations. Language has its limitations. We are lucky actually that the English language is so incredibly flexible. There are always modifiers.

Lately I noticed, that the lack of dominant force in my life made me hunger the physical acts of bottoming, pain and bondage, which I normally don't care for too much one way or another. It was weird and confusing, but also very interesting an eye-opening for me.

(And OSG, I've missed your posts)

Yeah... that is interesting!

 

[DVS]

Nice article! it reiterates everything that I've said.
For example, Lauren says;

Yes, we are talking about the labels that people use-- and misuse. You notice that last line-- "It can be helpful to ask?" That "popularisation" has become so pervasive that people don't even know to ask.

I completely agree that people make wrong assumptions about how they must fit themselves into those labels. That's why we are talking about this stuff. If they don't know that there are other labels, people will forever try to stuff themselves into the labels they have. If they think the labels mean one thing when everyone else thinks they mean something different-- well. Trouble and unhappiness ensue.

And not because we are talking about them in this thread.
First of all, I apologise for completely hijacking your thread, s-m!

And-- yes, I think lots of people do that. It's like being "on" onstage, or getting your game on if you play sports... I know I do prefer to focus the set of qualities that I need for the scene, and jettison the other parts of my personality...

the bold text...yes and no. It's not an article. It's a whole web site of sexual orientations. The reason you found something that you agree with is because it lists, investigates and deciphers all sides of the topic of sex and it's many, MANY avenues, as well as the English language can. And what is the English language? Just another damn label. All of these fucking labels...

Why do we try to understand something that's so deep and so individual and then hash it out on a web site where nothing but words are seen? Oh, I guess it isn't hurting anything, as long as you don't condemn someone for mentioning he hates labels.

 

[Stella_Omega]

the bold text...yes and no. It's not an article. It's a whole web site of sexual orientations. The reason you found something that you agree with is because it lists, investigates and deciphers all sides of the topic of sex and it's many, MANY avenues, as well as the English language can. And what is the English language? Just another damn label. All of these fucking labels...

Why do we try to understand something that's so deep and so individual and then hash it out on a web site where nothing but words are seen? Oh, I guess it isn't hurting anything, as long as you don't condemn someone for mentioning he hates labels.

Sweetie, you linked directly to an article. And the article you linked to , which is pretty old in internet years BTW, made very similar distinctions to the ones I use, which was my point-- that there are distinctions and people would be better served by understanding them-- since they will use labels anyway.

I hate labels too. But I hate taxes and good luck with that... And having to buy toilet paper which my house simply tears through. Irritating and unavoidable.

In any case, it isn't the labels that are hurtful, but people's reactions to them. Myself, I refuse to allow anyone to judge me for the way I apply those labels-- a top but not a dom? How dare I! I'm doing it wrong! But I've been doing it long enough to know I'm best this way-- and I get my rocks off, for the ultimate proof.

You worry me, lately. You're sounding more and more passive aggressive. Journeys suck.

 

[DVS]

but then you have the difficult ones like myself and my Master, who cannot relate whatsoever to the idea of a "hunger" or "craving" related to our identities. my submissiveness is not defined by any particular desires, kinks, yearnings, hungers, etc. the concept implies a level of choice that just isn't there. this is just who i am, how i was wired from birth. i do not submit because it gives me the warm fuzzies to do so, but because it is my first instinct to do so...even when i absolutely do not wish to do so. i was extremely grateful to discover D/s, and then M/s, because it showed me a place in the world where i could potentially be accepted, valued and safe. it gave me hope that maybe someday i could have a life like other people, where i wasn't constantly being stomped upon by all and sundry and valued as much as a used dishrag. it was the idea of LIFE that drew me to this world. not orgasms, not fun and games, just life.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you are no different than anybody else here, you just define your feelings in a different way. I might say cravings or hunger, but it means the same thing as when you say it's just who you are. I couldn't be who I am without my cravings or my hungers. In fact, I'd be just a shell of a person, without any desires or goals or purpose. So, while I might call them cravings or a hunger, without them I have no identity.

I was wired this way from birth, too. But, because I grew up in a time when it wasn't possible to find answers to my feelings, I didn't know other people were the same and going through the same struggle. I tried to shut it down, because I was continually thought of as a pervert. You just don't bring up certain things, when you live in a mid-western town of less than 2,000.

Eventually, I found some answers and even later, I was able to meet up with others that I could relate to. But that was years after I knew I was different...years after I'd tried to shut it down. The warm fuzzies you mention didn't come about until I found others like me. Of course, I don't call it warm fuzzies. I call it having a purpose, a meaning to why I am like I am. It's kind of like a home, a place to belong.

You say it's instinct for you. There was no choice. You had a choice just like I did. But we both were glad to find out we had something that made sense of why we felt the way we did and were able to take THAT choice. You see it your way, and I see it my way. You felt like a used dishrag. I felt like an outsider, a weirdo, a freak and a loaner. We're no different. We just explain it in a different way.

When you mentioned it was life that drew you to this, not orgasms, not fun and games, just what were you trying to say? The orgasms, the fun and games you mention are just part of the life I found. Yes, it's a life for me, too. It has been for as long as I can remember. I didn't start this for the jollies I could get out of it. Don't diminish my life by limiting it to orgasms, fun and games. Just like you, I live this. Just like you, I wouldn't be the same person without it.

Unfortunately, all we have to explain how we feel are words on this page. These words are limiting...just more labels that someone else reads. They put their own feelings into our words so what we tried our best to explain means something to them, but it might not have meant what we intended. Hopefully, we are enough of a wordsmith to get our points understood. But I don't think any of us here are here only for the fun and games. We've found a purpose that fills a void inside. Because we're individuals, we express ourselves differently. But, when you break it down to the basics, we're all the same.

 

[DVS]

Sweetie, you linked directly to an article. And the article you linked to , which is pretty old in internet years BTW, made very similar distinctions to the ones I use, which was my point-- that there are distinctions and people would be better served by understanding them-- since they will use labels anyway.

I hate labels too. But I hate taxes and good luck with that... And having to buy toilet paper which my house simply tears through. Irritating and unavoidable.

In any case, it isn't the labels that are hurtful, but people's reactions to them. Myself, I refuse to allow anyone to judge me for the way I apply those labels-- a top but not a dom? How dare I! I'm doing it wrong! But I've been doing it long enough to know I'm best this way-- and I get my rocks off, for the ultimate proof.

You worry me, lately. You're sounding more and more passive aggressive. Journeys suck.

I don't care what you call anything. Just don't force me to understand you when you use a label. I don't fit into any labels. I "sort of" fit into a dom label, and I "sort of" fit into a top label, but "sort of" doesn't do it for me. That's all I'm saying. I couldn't care less how someone else defines their life, if they want to use labels. Yes, we need labels as a starting point but no more than that.

The article? That is a whole web site and a very large one. I just linked to the beginning of the BDSM section. I wasn't trying to point you to any specific paragraph or anything. It's a beginning, like BDSM 101.

Taxes? You pay taxes? And if your toilet paper is irritating, maybe you should consider a different brand. And I think I've been passive long enough. Maybe it's time for me to be more aggressive. I don't like arguments, because they never solve anything. But being passive has it's downfalls, too. Everybody has an opinion. Maybe I should express mine more often. I'm still thinking that one over.

And speaking of being aggressive...don't call me sweetie. We both know I'm not your sweetie. The name is Shirley!

 

[Stella_Omega]

I "sort of" fit into a dom label, and I "sort of" fit into a top label, but "sort of" doesn't do it for me

Same here. Also, I "sort of" fit into a bottom label, and I sort of fit into a sub label. I "sort of" fit into the female label, "sort of" fit into the dyke label, but not quite. I "sort of" fit into way too many things, and "sort of" sort of sucks. You're talking to the motherfucking champion of "sort of."

But that doesn't change the fact that the labels themselves are being misunderstood and misused, or not even used at all.

The key word in "passive aggressive" is "passive." Aggression is fruitless without a guide (and don't I know it! ). Mull over the word "Proactive," and see if it fits better.

 

[BiBunny]

You say it's instinct for you. There was no choice. You had a choice just like I did.

You've never been mentally ill, have you?

[Not saying OSG is. Me, now, I'm batshit motherfucking crazy.]

 

[midwestyankee]

You've never been mentally ill, have you?

[Not saying OSG is. Me, now, I'm batshit motherfucking crazy.]

We all have our different strengths, BB. No need to brag about yours.

 

[BiBunny]

We all have our different strengths, BB. No need to brag about yours.

Heh.

 

[intothewoods]

Don't take this the wrong way, but you are no different than anybody else here, you just define your feelings in a different way. I might say cravings or hunger, but it means the same thing as when you say it's just who you are. I couldn't be who I am without my cravings or my hungers. In fact, I'd be just a shell of a person, without any desires or goals or purpose. So, while I might call them cravings or a hunger, without them I have no identity.

I don't think hunger and craving necessarily connote choice, but they sound more like lusty, hot sexy in the moment stuff than everyday identity. I think D/s, and BDSM for that matter, can be both.

 

[FungiUg]

To you doms, have you ever (consciously or subconsciously) created a persona that contained your dominant qualities?

Not myself. I have "modes" where I focus on certain parts of my personality more than others, but it's all part of my one personality. On the other hand, for people who role play, I expect this wouldn't be uncommon.

 

[FungiUg]

I "sort of" fit into a dom label, and I "sort of" fit into a top label, but "sort of" doesn't do it for me.

Same here. Also, I "sort of" fit into a bottom label, and I sort of fit into a sub label. I "sort of" fit into the female label, "sort of" fit into the dyke label, but not quite. I "sort of" fit into way too many things, and "sort of" sort of sucks. You're talking to the motherfucking champion of "sort of."

I don't think of it that way. I prefer to think that those labels sometimes fit parts of me. Ego-centric much?

I agree that the stress shouldn't be on the labels themselves, but then... words are labels, and words are how we communicate. When you are socialising and finding a group of people to belong to, you need to be able to communicate with them, and thus labels are important. We just need to remember that the labels don't define us; rather, they describe us, or at least parts of us. It's an important distinction.

I don't see this discussion as a thread hijack either. The original question was around "different types of doms". And let's face it, there are as many different types as there are doms. We can come up with arbitrary groupings to associate onen dom with another, but in the end, they are still all individuals. And this is where the whole discussion around labels fits in.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't think of it that way. I prefer to think that those labels sometimes fit parts of me. Ego-centric much?

Young much? Privileged? Got choices?

On really good days, I get to do it that way. Other days, the bear bites me.

I agree that the stress shouldn't be on the labels themselves, but then... words are labels, and words are how we communicate. When you are socialising and finding a group of people to belong to, you need to be able to communicate with them, and thus labels are important. We just need to remember that the labels don't define us; rather, they describe us, or at least parts of us. It's an important distinction.

Now, this-- this is so very important. And so very yes.

 

[ChucklesNLovin]

Woo Hoo. Was that a breakthru?

Again, I was not trying to label anyone, just trying to learn the proper adjectives needed to accurately describe various characteristics of a persona that is related to B/d, D/s and SM?
The end goal for me is to identify what this dark little monster inside me is, so I know how to feed it properly, in hopes that I can live in harmony with it, and not be eaten alive by it. (A little over-dramatic, just because)...

Here's what I learned on this journey...
1. Labels Suck.
2. Even if they didn't suck there aren't enough Labels to describe the number of Different people in the world.
3. There never were enough words to properly describe the individual feeling of a person. Whether they are falling in love for the first time, or submitting to their partner for the first time. In either case, it's a beautiful thang.
4. BDSM today, contains D/s, but didn't use to, and some people don't like the new definition so we should be clear as to whether we are talking about B/d, S/m or D/s and skip the entire acronym to start with.
5. Top/bottom and Master/slave are still confusing, but I plan to never use the terms because they can be adequately described using various levels of B/d, D/s and/or SM.
6. AND, Yes, there are an infinite number of different Dominant Partners who Dominate in many different ways. I can tell that by the different posts in this thread alone.

 

[FungiUg]

Here's what I learned on this journey...
1. Labels Suck.

No, they don't suck. Well, sometimes they do (particularly vacuum sealed labels.) Anyway, the point is that labels describe, and they are useful as such. You just have to be careful what you apply the label to (because peeling labels off body hair really does suck!)