What is a fake Dominant?

[Marquis]

It seems that almost as soon as you hear about the existence of Dominant's you hear about the existence of their supposed doppelgangers.

From the self appointed watchdogs of Internet messageboards like this one to books like John Warren's The Loving Dominant, newbie subs are warned of the dangers of succumbing to the false Dominant.

It's been used to explain why female subs on sites like collarme get a few hundred messages a day and male Dominants are lucky to receive any messages at all. It's been used to explain the plethora of hurt, broken and abused subs and it's been used to elevate a select few (often fraternal groups) Dominants to god-like status.

But what power does a Dom have other than that which is surrendered to him?

Doesn't a "fake" Dom automatically become a "real" Dom when he has a submissive at his feet?

 

[SirFace]

Shit, I just ordered that book. What are you saying about it?

 

[Marquis]

It's a good book, a little on the snooty and PC side though.

John Warren puts on a great demonstration in person though, if you ever get the chance to see him.

 

[SirFace]

I also ordered the "screw the roses, send me the thorns" or somthing like that. And a book on bondage. Well, Ive always been fond of a good library and take what I can use from it.

 

[Marquis]

Every good BDSM library deserves a copy of Different Loving

 

[Luna_Wolf72]

But what power does a Dom have other than that which is surrendered to him?

Doesn't a "fake" Dom automatically become a "real" Dom when he has a submissive at his feet?

Hmmm I read this and then reread it... and I think just a bit differently. Saying that an idiot becomes a trust worthy person simply because a submissive decides he/she/it wants to give control over to that person does not a real *dominant* make.

The only thing it does (IMHO) is place an idiot in charge of someone who doesn't know how to protect themselves from that particular person's idiocy.

 

[Marquis]

Hmmm I read this and then reread it... and I think just a bit differently. Saying that an idiot becomes a trust worthy person simply because a submissive decides he/she/it wants to give control over to that person does not a real *dominant* make.

The only thing it does (IMHO) is place an idiot in charge of someone who doesn't know how to protect themselves from that particular person's idiocy.

Look at all the definitions offered in the Labels thread, since when does being a responsible person become a prerequisite to being a Dominant?

 

[Luna_Wolf72]

Look at all the definitions offered in the Labels thread, since when does being a responsible person become a prerequisite to being a Dominant?

To me, one HAS to be responsible...

not perfect ..no one is...but responsible to handle the kind of pressure that Dominants live with. To say that responsibilty isn't needed is like saying (to me) that it's ok for any asshole to decide he/she wants to dominate someone with no knowledge of what that entails beforehand.

I just don't *feel* the statement that because one has a submissive, that makes the person a *real* dominant.

But it's only my opinion...

 

[Xelebes]

A fake dom is simply someone who jumps in too far into a deep pool.

 

[O'Mac]

What's a "fake" Dominant? Well, to me "fake" Dominants make up a good portion of the advertised Doms out there.

I don't happen to think that being an asshole makes anyone particularly dominant. To me, that just makes them an asshole. Unfortunately I've seen so many get away with it all too often. As mentioned before, to me Dominance and Responsibilty go hand in hand. I think you can't have one without the other, so in my opinion, an irresponsible Dom isn't a Dom at all.

Does this mean I have a smug sense of superiority because I give a shit about those under my authority/protection? You betcha!

I don't think having a submissive under they're control automatically makes anyone a Dominant.

 

[lne_iii]

What's a "fake" Dominant? Well, to me "fake" Dominants make up a good portion of the advertised Doms out there.

I don't happen to think that being an asshole makes anyone particularly dominant. To me, that just makes them an asshole. Unfortunately I've seen so many get away with it all too often. As mentioned before, to me Dominance and Responsibilty go hand in hand. I think you can't have one without the other, so in my opinion, an irresponsible Dom isn't a Dom at all.

Does this mean I have a smug sense of superiority because I give a shit about those under my authority/protection? You betcha!

I don't think having a submissive under they're control automatically makes anyone a Dominant.

Well, I have to disagree I think.

Anyone who really has a submissive under their control is by some standards a dom/domme.

But, like everyone else, there are good ones, bad ones, great ones...and schwat the HELL do you think you're doing idiot?!?! ones...

Then again, everyone has an opinion.

LNE

 

[Pure]

to Marquis and Luna,

Originally Posted by Luna_Wolf72
LW //Hmmm I read this and then reread it... and I think just a bit differently. Saying that an idiot becomes a trust worthy person simply because a submissive decides he/she/it wants to give control over to that person does not a real *dominant* make.//

The only thing it does (IMHO) is place an idiot in charge of someone who doesn't know how to protect themselves from that particular person's idiocy. //

Marquis: Look at all the definitions offered in the Labels thread, since when does being a responsible person become a prerequisite to being a Dominant?

Pure: Exactly right, marquis-- "dominant person", "sadist", "hetero-fucker", "sodomist," "cocksucker," and "skull fucker" are simple descriptors for people doing weird sexual things. whether they be 'responsible' 'loyal' 'god fearing' or 'citizen of the month' or 'most wanted by the FBI' is entirely different.

But let me put what I think is Luna's point a little differently:

When some scammer, or person of unknown provenance, advertises himself in a 'personal' as 'a most trustworthy guy' AND some deferential wimp(ess) answers with 'i love that, and trust you completely', and proceeds to turn over his or her bank account numbers, that does NOT make the guy trustworthy.

The fellow who can forcefully lead his two-year-old son to the washroom, is not a forceful leader (assuming the term has any meaning outside of the world of one's own dreams).

That is how i would put the point.
====

marquis further said,

M: From the self appointed watchdogs of Internet messageboards like this one to books like John Warren's The Loving Dominant, newbie subs are warned of the dangers of succumbing to the false Dominant.

It's been used to explain why female subs on sites like collarme get a few hundred messages a day and male Dominants are lucky to receive any messages at all. It's been used to explain the plethora of hurt, broken and abused subs and it's been used to elevate a select few (often fraternal groups) Dominants to god-like status.

Pure: For me, it's an open question whether 'dominant' as used by most forum frequenters has any meaning at all. Rather it's more like 'cool guy.'

But, the question of 'falsity' (fakery) is rather confused in the above statement, and likely the confusion is in the persons whom you criticize.

A 'false' something may or may not be a danger. That is the confusion.

I heard of a fellow advertising "Mustang for sale" and when the 'right' woman showed up, he took her out in the car, and raped her.
That fellow is not only a false(fake) advertiser, but a rapist.

Women rightfully should fear that kind of 'false advertising.' It is proper to caution them about how they respond.

However, a second person advertises "Fine mustang for sale, excellent condition." And the responder finds it's a piece of crap. The second person is merely a fraudster, a false(fake) advertiser, an annoyance. Here, the responder need to get some knowledge of cars or hire a mechanic, but she doesn't need to be warned about rape.

Coming to something more directly analogous: If someone advertises as 'experienced piano teacher with performance experience', that may be true or false. the new student will likely figure out in time if the teacher never got past the beginner stage, i.e. is a 'fake.'

The student may have lost some time and money, in the learning experience, but only that (if the teacher is otherwise law abiding).

I propose that 'experienced sadist who's had 'playrooms' on four continents' can similarly be true or false. If it's my 14-year-old neighbor kid advertising, he can indeed be called a 'false (fake) sadist' or better, 'not a genuine sadist'.

best,
j.

 

[Emma_Ray_Garrett]

What's a "fake" Dominant? Well, to me "fake" Dominants make up a good portion of the advertised Doms out there.

I don't happen to think that being an asshole makes anyone particularly dominant. To me, that just makes them an asshole. Unfortunately I've seen so many get away with it all too often...

I don't think having a submissive under they're control automatically makes anyone a Dominant.

Agreed. This is the way I would define this type of person: if they have someone submitting themselves to them, then they are the dominant in the relationship. That doesn't make them Dominant.

When I first started making forays into sexuality, I didn't call myself anything. I took charge in the bedroom, sure, but I just thought, "Well, I know what I want and I'm not going to be shy about getting it." As I matured, though, I realized that it wasn't just about getting what I wanted, that I needed submission from my lover, I needed that power, control, what ever you like to call it. And I also realized that this need to be the one in charge, directing the action, disciplining those who would not obey, being cruel and sadistic, extended beyond my sex play.

By pure luck I met a well know Dominatrix, though I didn't know it at the time. It didn't take her long to get me to open up, and she helped me understand that there wasn't anything wrong with me. I was still young, living at home no less, and I'm very grateful that she actually took pity on me and helped me through that rough time, recognizing in me much of herself. It's only now that I realize how 'rare' that can be, how lucky I am that she treated me as an equal and taught me as such. She did a hell of a lot more good than any doctor my parents sent me too, that's for damn sure.

LOL, went a bit on there.

 

[Pure]

very interesting, emma,
you found your way, and chose yourself, and became aware of general terms.

i like your statement,
this need to be the one in charge, directing the action, disciplining those who would not obey, being cruel and sadistic, extended beyond my sex play.

which shows you recognize many of the the issues. some i've tried to bring out in the Theory A or Theory B thread, i.e. general or 'bedroom-specific'. drop in if you like.

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=434289

and as you say, the question of 'type' of 'category' should never be confused with worth, any more than for being 'queer' or straight. negative terms can, as they say, be re-appropriated: "fine, i'm a perv. and proud of it."

Btw, if i may ask--you don't have to answer. did you ever act as a 'pro', i.e. carry out your role with a relative stranger, for money?
if so, how does that impinge on what you do, i.e. is to 'dominate' for a fee the same as 'play acting domination,' or 'not genuine [sham] domination'?







=====


Emma r.g. said, When I first started making forays into sexuality, I didn't call myself anything. I took charge in the bedroom, sure, but I just thought, "Well, I know what I want and I'm not going to be shy about getting it." As I matured, though, I realized that it wasn't just about getting what I wanted, that I needed submission from my lover, I needed that power, control, what ever you like to call it. And I also realized that this need to be the one in charge, directing the action, disciplining those who would not obey, being cruel and sadistic, extended beyond my sex play.

By pure luck I met a well know Dominatrix, though I didn't know it at the time. It didn't take her long to get me to open up, and she helped me understand that there wasn't anything wrong with me. I was still young, living at home no less, and I'm very grateful that she actually took pity on me and helped me through that rough time, recognizing in me much of herself. It's only now that I realize how 'rare' that can be, how lucky I am that she treated me as an equal and taught me as such. She did a hell of a lot more good than any doctor my parents sent me too, that's for damn sure.

 

[waynerobertson]

For me

a fake dominant is expressly interested in his desires and if the sub benefits okay but its not his concern or goal.

The fake dominant doesn't respect the "safe" word nor cares about leaving mental or physical pain on the sub.

The fake dominant doesn't care about the sub or the sub's gift of submission nor realize it should be cherished.

The fake dominant doesn't understand nor realize that happiness or true pleasure comes from the subs gift of giving her submission to him.

For me, if her cravings and desires are met through my bringing those to fulfillment then I receive great pleasure and satisfaction.

 

[Emma_Ray_Garrett]

very interesting, emma,
you found your way, and chose yourself, and became aware of general terms.

i like your statement,
this need to be the one in charge, directing the action, disciplining those who would not obey, being cruel and sadistic, extended beyond my sex play.

which shows you recognize many of the the issues. some i've tried to bring out in the Theory A or Theory B thread, i.e. general or 'bedroom-specific'. drop in if you like.

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=434289

and as you say, the question of 'type' of 'category' should never be confused with worth, any more than for being 'queer' or straight. negative terms can, as they say, be re-appropriated: "fine, i'm a perv. and proud of it."

Btw, if i may ask--you don't have to answer. did you ever act as a 'pro', i.e. carry out your role with a relative stranger, for money?
if so, how does that impinge on what you do, i.e. is to 'dominate' for a fee the same as 'play acting domination,' or 'not genuine [sham] domination'?

Here's my take on Domination for fee: Just like anything else you have those who do it because they love it, because it's a way to incorporate their wants, needs, and desires into something they can do for a living.

And then you have those who do it just to make money. Who don't really care beyond the buck. That's not to say they can't be good at the mechanics, but without the will behind it, they leave me flat. When I am dominating, in the bedroom, I'm totally into it. There is a fire inside of me that ignites everyone involved. Without that passion, or what ever you call it, it's just mechanics.

Take a phone sex operator, for a relevant example. Sure they sound like they are totally into it, breathing hard and moaning. But in truth, nine times out of ten, the man or woman is reading a book, filing their nails, etc. A performance is only as good as it is believable. So for some, phone sex is a real, solid, vivid experience. But for others, they call in and they're left unsatisfied.

As to whether I have dominated for pay, well, technically no, not at the start. But in order to receive proper guidance, I learned things like whipping, bondage, and humiliation techniques under The Mistress's watchful eye. So, I did the work, LOL, but she got the pay until I mastered myself and my tools. Then, yes I did do it for a while. But eventually, I was left unsatisfied. I didn't want a submissive who visited when they chose. I wanted one, or more, who were wholly my own.

 

[RJMasters]

The term dominant is neutral in and of itself, meaning simply that a both an evil person or a good person can be dominant.

A dominant is a person who pushes their own agenda, first in foremost in their own life and also selectively upon those they choose to expend the energy to influence.

It is clear to me that if there is so much debate as to what makes a Dom or Domme genuine, it stands to reason that it will be just as impossible to define what is fake.

I know in my own mind what I believe make a person a genuine Dom/Domme and what makes them fake. Notice I didn't say dominant...I said Dom/Domme.

Often when warnings are given about fake dominants, it really is implying Dom/Domme/Master/Mistriss. When this is the case, it must be understood that the warning comes with the idea of it speaking in context to "relationships". Specifically D/s and M/s. These warning are basically to say that there are those who may be dominant, however a relationship with them is dangerious as they do not possess enough character to exercise their dominance within some kind of SSC or do not possess enough maturity in knowing what makes a relationship work.

Obviously SSC is as vague as trying to pin down real or fake, however I think the above is stated well enough to understand the point I am trying to make.

I think there is a huge difference in seeking a fuck/play partner and one whom you wish to have deeper relationship with. Often the term fake Dom is applied to those individuals who really only want a fuck/play partner but put forth the guise of relationship intentions to get what they want.

 

[Oblimo]

A fake dominant does not give the submissive what the submissive wants (and vice versa).

 

[Pure]

A further question

Hi Emma,
you said,

And then you have those who do it just to make money. Who don't really care beyond the buck. That's not to say they can't be good at the mechanics, but without the will behind it, they leave me flat. When I am dominating, in the bedroom, I'm totally into it. There is a fire inside of me that ignites everyone involved. Without that passion, or what ever you call it, it's just mechanics.

Take a phone sex operator, for a relevant example. Sure they sound like they are totally into it, breathing hard and moaning. But in truth, nine times out of ten, the man or woman is reading a book, filing their nails, etc. A performance is only as good as it is believable. So for some, phone sex is a real, solid, vivid experience. But for others, they call in and they're left unsatisfied.

As to whether I have dominated for pay, well, technically no, not at the start. But in order to receive proper guidance, I learned things like whipping, bondage, and humiliation techniques under The Mistress's watchful eye. So, I did the work, LOL, but she got the pay until I mastered myself and my tools. Then, yes I did do it for a while. But eventually, I was left unsatisfied. I didn't want a submissive who visited when they chose. I wanted one, or more, who were wholly my own.

i understand this perfectly, indeed i've known a couple phone sex persons. nonetheless, they could give good phone.

but i know many things are going on on the the phone that are not apparent. ever had a friend pouring out his/her heart on the phone, and you take off your shoe and scratch your foot, and with cordless, towards the end of the call, move towards the door to get your coat?

i understand about 'passion', but what's odd is that this is not applied to surgeons or concert pianists, only to sex workers.

lastly, on the 'subs'. that's very interesting stuff. in effect you want 24/7. why is someone who comes every tues not real? maybe they're more of joy because they're out of your hair the other days.

 

[FurryFury]

I just wanted to say, I see at least three issues here.

This first list of non "True Dom-ness" is based on my online experiences only.

A fake Dominant says things like this: "If you were a real submissive you'd
do _________."

Also says things to knock you down, attempt to take control or make you respond in ways desired by the so called Dom not because you've agreed to be that Dom's sub, or to wanting or liking that sort of thing, but just to see if he or she can.

They also often have NO real ideas of their own and look to you to come up with all of the ideas. IMO a Dom has to be creative in their own right to be "real." I entertain for a living. I don't mind doing what it takes to make a Dom I willingly take on happy, within my limits, but I am not going to do all the heavy lifting on the ideas end of the bargain.

A fake Dom claims experiences it becomes clear he or she doesn't actually have, because sooner or later, usually sooner, you see the holes in the fabric of the fiction they've created about themselves and the continuity problems.

A fake Dom wants to have cyber sex but forgets to put in the BDSM. Doh!

A fake Dom wants to jump right into you being "owned" by them that instant. Yet doesn't really seem to understand what that truly means to you. Furthermore he or she doesn't bother to ask or remember any volunteered information. In fact, he or she doesn't try to get to know you at all because, to them, you are just one of 20 or so they e-mailed or PM-ed that night hoping to get some cyber action and/or just an exchangeable set of fingers on a keyboard or a cyber cunt.

Also, I often get a "read" off a person by how they post. If they post in a submissive tone or something I will never be able to see them as a Dom.

These are just some of my thoughts on the matter for me. I expect disagreement from and for others.

Now as to if someone has a person kneeling at their feet doesn't that make them a Dom?

No, not necessarily because IMO what makes one a Dom is something inside them not someone else's quite possibly misguided behavior. I don't care how many times someone kneels at my feet or even how many times I top them, I'm not a Dom and I very likely, won't ever be, because it's not how I feel inside.

Then there is the matter of who is a SAFE or worthwhile Dom to give yourself over to. I won't get into that ATM.

Also the public play partner, who may or may not be a Dom or even someone you know, is to me a different thing altogether. They have a toy or technique, I want to experience it, I ask, they agree and bingo, we hit it. It's not the same thing to me though as what I want from a "Real Dom."

Fury

 

[Emma_Ray_Garrett]

Hi Emma,

i understand this perfectly, indeed i've known a couple phone sex persons. nonetheless, they could give good phone.

but i know many things are going on on the the phone that are not apparent. ever had a friend pouring out his/her heart on the phone, and you take off your shoe and scratch your foot, and with cordless, towards the end of the call, move towards the door to get your coat?

Sure, we probably all have from time to time. Are we less of a friend/confidant/what have you for doing this: not on the whole, no. In that moment, perhaps.

i understand about 'passion', but what's odd is that this is not applied to surgeons or concert pianists, only to sex workers.

LOL, well, you didn't ask me about concert pianists or surgeons. IMO, if you don't have passion for your job, you probably don't enjoy it much. Passion isn't just sexual. It's emotional, it's visceral, it's alive - regardless of what it may be for.

lastly, on the 'subs'. that's very interesting stuff. in effect you want 24/7. why is someone who comes every tues not real? maybe they're more of joy because they're out of your hair the other days.

That isn't it exactly. I'm not sure precisely how to explain this. Those who came to me every week were a delight. I enjoyed them and they me. But they could only come to me when they could afford it, or had time, or what not. My comment had nothing to do with their 'real'-ness at all. Of course they were real, but they weren't mine, not wholly. They went home to wives, or families, or what have you. Is that any clearer, LOL? I'm not sure it is.

 

[gypziedoll]

very interesting thread

 

[RJMasters]

But what power does a Dom have other than that which is surrendered to him?

Tried to start a thread on this a while ago which failed badly. The question you pose is a simple one and yet the understanding of it seems a bit hazy.

What is power?

As I see it, many under value or under estimate the importance of having power over themselves. Another fancy way of saying being mature or being in control of themselves.

What makes up a person's power IMO is their strength of character, the resolve of their will, the confidence in who they are and what they believe, their humor, their personality, their common sense, the sexual attraction. In most cases one need not exert dominance over another in a willful manner as much as moving, speaking, doing, being who they are.

More on this later.

 

[Emma_Ray_Garrett]

What makes up a person's power IMO is their strength of character, the resolve of their will, the confidence in who they are and what they believe, their humor, their personality, their common sense, the sexual attraction. In most cases one need not exert dominance over another in a willful manner as much as moving, speaking, doing, being who they are.

More on this later.

This is an interesting perspective and quite mature, IMO. In part, at least, you're right. I had to learn mastery and control of myself before I was ever ready to dominate another. Volatility and unsteadiness are NOT things that should rule anyone in a dominant position. Again, IMO.

 

[Xelebes]

A fake dominant is someone who simply tries to be something more than he already has made himself familiar with. That is, he pretends to know things and pretends to have a deep undestanding of what the sub is going through. This results in an aggressive setting where it may lead to dangers to the submissive is putting trust into that person's hands. Same could be said with submissives.

It's all about humility. Some people just have too much pride.