"What is it that a Dom does?"

[Irreverent1]

I was in a poly relationship with a guy who convinced me honesty was the way this could work. All of us in the relationship would meet monthly to discuss goals, what was working, yada yada. We had a shared calendar so we knew who was doing what with the other when.

I was to jump through agreed upon hoops to prove I could be fluid bonded with the group. It felt like everything a D/s relationship should be: clear communication, understood roles, shared goals.

He cheated on me with a friend. That made me realize for all the ooey gooey good stuff D/s "should" be - and I love all that stuff - it's still just two (or three or four) people trying to make things work.

This is the fundamental truth of D/s. It all depends on people that are just as flawed as "vanillas". D/s confers no greater incite into relationships or some form or sexual superpowers. Too many people think that "living the Lifestyle" somehow makes them sexual gods or something more attuned to life than others that don't live that way. It's a myth. I'm sorry that he cheated on you. That hurts across the board. No one is immune to that.

 

[Irreverent1]

Thanks. It made me more cynical and it broke up a friendship. I was more heartbroken over that than I was him.

In hindsight, the poly relationship was the lure; I was interested in exploring it and I genuinely liked the two other women in the "family."

Mostly, it opened my eyes to the fact the letters D and s don't elevate us to a more connected plane. And, it cemented the reality being the s doesn't absolve me from responsibility.

It doesn't seem like poly was the lure as much as he was simply a dick. If you had fun with the others and enjoyed or even loved the others then it is more about him than about being poly. Granted, I have limited information but if the others were faithful to you and it was just his transgression I would say don't be so quick to think of the polyamory negatively. There are a LOT of people that Love kink simply because they want to bang a bunch of people with an excuse.

 

[Irreverent1]

Right. I think it's sometimes forgotten that a d/s relationship, control is shared. The dom is able to have as much control as the sub allows. And then as their trust builds, the dom can help the sub expand boundaries.

Pushing or exploring boundaries is something that Doms/Dommes do more than anything else I've seen happen. Knew a Dom that always took His subs skydiving just for the rush. It isn't always sexual in nature but usually has a direct connection.

If I had to give a one sentence answer I'd say that a Dom/Domme helps (a) submissive(s) explore themselves through intimacy.

Depends on skill and level of trust and intimacy isn't always sexual. My caveats to that sentence. That is my take on it.

 

[Primalex]

First, that's utterly ridiculous. If the submissive DOESN'T ALLOW IT then there is not part where the submissive "might 'allow' something". How in God's name did you attempt to circumvent the "doesn't allow" rule by saying the sub "night allow" it? If the sub says it's a hard no then it's a HARD NO.

I wonder if it's just coincidence that these days people can't follow a simple train of thought or if maybe there is some bigger thing going on.

I will try to simplify it for you:
Scenario: Person A allows person B to do something, but not person C.

This is a fairly common scenario, i.e. the wife might allow her husband to fuck her, but not his friend.

Now, person B does something and person A changes her mind and allows person C to do the same thing. This is something that happens - at least in my universe.

There are versions of "does something" that are considered bad by our society, for example "beating up". There are versions of "does something" that are considered good or healthy by our society, for example "talking".

Now we approach your error:
You state that a dominant person has no variant of "does something" in his/her repertoire that would change person A - which is the real ridiculous part, after all, why would a dominant have less options than a vanilla person?

There are no magical Dom/Domme superpowers.

Maybe. But if this is the case, why do so many submissives have trouble to submit to the next best horny guy?

I'm sensing you don't have a lot of experience with this.

I'm sensing you prefer to attack people instead of arguments.

 

[SalvDali]

I know i am new here and frankly prim comes across to me as the type of person I was afraid everyone on these forums would be but isnt the concept of turning a "hard no" in something the sub may consider just a matter of renegotiation? I mean surely dynamics and trust change and something you are either just intimidated by or tried with someone else and didn't like might be something you would be willing to at least try? I didnt see him say "force" (even if I half expected him to). I have been with my wife for 18 years. There were things she said she would never try that she loves now. Granted this was before we had ever openly discussed bdsm and negotiated limits in that sense but in the spirit of no means no. Somtimes no means ask me again later

 

[MastersDelight]

I know i am new here and frankly prim comes across to me as the type of person I was afraid everyone on thes forums would be but isnt the concept of turning a "hard no" in something the sub may consider just a matter of renegotiation? I mean surely dynamics and trust change and something you are either just intimidated by or tried with someone else and didn't like might be something you would be willing to at least try? I didnt see him say "force" (even if I half expected him to). I have been with my wife for 18 years. There were things she said she would never try that she loves now. Granted this was before we had ever openly discussed bdsm and negotiated limits in that sense but in the spirit of no means no. Somtimes no means ask me again later

For YEARS, anal or anything involving that area was a hard absolute NO. I didn't understand how it could be pleasurable for the bottom, and the thought of his cock having been there disgusted me.

I spent some time here, did some reading, and voiced that I was curious, but not entirely sure. We explored and tested the waters with fingers and toys. Eventually we progressed to sex and my opinion changed. I now very much enjoy anal sex and wearing plugs.

This is just one example, but over time tastes change. But I don't feel like its something for the PYL to push. If the pyl decided it's something they're curious about they'll voice it.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

I was really curious about the d/s relationship, not because I live it, but because there's a part of me that can understand it, and can understand the role of power in sex. And I was really curious about exactly what a Dom does. I would like to think there is more to it than one person controlling all aspects of the relationship while one person submits. Granted, it appears that there are those who are happy with one partner having all, or most, of the control. So, what about the Dom's who switch? Or is that a naive question?

Here's how it works at my house.

We each do our duty. Every payday I handover a pile of money she uses to pay bills and add to the savings kitty. She cooks and I eat what's on my plate. We don't quarrel and struggle over our respective duties.

I believe real dominance is simply getting out of the way while your other does her duty.

A week ago my grandson drove up here to see us. He hadn't eaten, he had no money for gas, and he locked his keys in his truck. So I said...lets take him to McDonalds, call AAA to unlock the truck, and give him $40 for gas. Then I got outta the way so things could happen.

 

[EllAyyBee]

I am seriously NOT going to put a former lovers issues on blast. THAT is ALSO part of the trust. The point was I made a mistake. I had to apologize for the mistake and then repair the breach in trust. That is what D/s is built upon, Trust. First and foremost.

Love the integrity. That's hard to come by.

 

[Irreverent1]

I wonder if it's just coincidence that these days people can't follow a simple train of thought or if maybe there is some bigger thing going on.

I will try to simplify it for you:
Scenario: Person A allows person B to do something, but not person C.

This is a fairly common scenario, i.e. the wife might allow her husband to fuck her, but not his friend.

Now, person B does something and person A changes her mind and allows person C to do the same thing. This is something that happens - at least in my universe.

There are versions of "does something" that are considered bad by our society, for example "beating up". There are versions of "does something" that are considered good or healthy by our society, for example "talking".

Now we approach your error:
You state that a dominant person has no variant of "does something" in his/her repertoire that would change person A - which is the real ridiculous part, after all, why would a dominant have less options than a vanilla person?




Maybe. But if this is the case, why do so many submissives have trouble to submit to the next best horny guy?




I'm sensing you prefer to attack people instead of arguments.

I'm supposing because if we're going to do the Boolean algebraic method Dom/Domme = A and submissive = B how does what arbitrarily random Person C is or isn't allowed to do help in answering the question posted? The question was what does a Dom/Domme do. The relationship between B and C, D, E, F, G, etc... has nothing to do with what a Dom/Domme does or doesn't do, which would be the question I was responding to. And if you want to say Person C is another Dom/Domme then THEY become a NEW A and the logic STILL applies perfectly. So I fail to see the point of adding a third party that in ZERO ways applies to the A to B dynamic. Completely off topic.

My error? Feel free to quote where I said a Dominant has fewer options than a "vanilla"? Dying to see you quote that. In fact, where did I mention limiting options in any way? Quote THAT for me also, please.

Why "...submissives have trouble to submit to next best horny guy". Not really sure what that means, frankly. I have no idea. You would literally have to ask those submissives since they are each individuals and not part of some party fun pack in which they are all the same. I honestly don't know what to tell you there.

I didn't attack you. I stated my opinion about your experience because you said some things that make me think you haven't spoken to a many submissives in regards to Likes and Dislikes or most especially about Hard and Soft limits.

 

[removed9556]

 

[NOIRTRASH]

I think you are making this needlessly complicated.

The point, as has been well made by more than one person, is that limits and desires change over time as well as in different contexts and with different personalities. For every submissive who feels safe in the knowledge that his/her Dom/me will respect limits without question, there will be another hoping for some push-back, discussion, persuasion, give and take.

More simply and crudely still:

A: I really want to do X.
B: I don't want you to.
A: Oh, OK.

Where is the Dominance here?

None of that is to say that you force limits there and then. Obviously you don't do that, and that is a profound breach of trust. But you can discuss, understand the reason for limits, find out what other things may have similar effects but be less frightening, try cautious walk-throughs, etc, etc. To simply say that a limit is a limit and never examine it again is, so to speak, somewhat limiting.

You don't get any of it.

 

[removed9556]

 

[NOIRTRASH]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6Gv3A8Nypc

Prince Escalus is dominant.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Well, we can agree to disagree, Jimbob. It's always nice to know a feeling is mutual, though, so thank you for that.

Its in my blood from the start. While your people were sleeping upon dungheaps mine were creating West Civilization....at the top.

 

[LadyVer]

As a Dom who does sometimes switch (usually for self-education), I guess I might have something useful to add.

However, having seen the history of this thread (and others nearby), I'm sayin' nothing more.
.

I know what you mean, you harpy bastard. jk. I hope you comment more. I'm interested in what you have to say.

I understand you I think. But, it's just a narrowing of scope of 'what does a couple 'do'' .

I do NOT think its a naive question in anything other than the truest sense....and thus should be welcome here.

What do husbands do? It's hard to answer, right? Because relationships have different functions and wants for the people in them and the environment they are in.

May I suggest going back into OLD threads, older than my start date certainly, and looking at some of the older threads about relationships. I would also recommend exactly the same threads most people are directed to....Meek Me's thread on what is your relationship ( probably near the top) and Stella Omega's term exploration. ( I cannot remember thread title to give it to search for, but it's recommended ALL the time because it is insightful) .

No one, should feel put off answering a question they feel might be 'naive'. I am amoung the very least Equipped bdsm regulars to help . Do you feel any of this is getting near your answer? What are we missing in providing you with explanation?

To be honest, I really was curious about dom's, and those who aren't in control all the time. If I had the time (and didn't have ADD, and wasn't one foot in the grave) I would look up the threads you mentioned. And I wasn't really thinking about what husbands would do since I'm assuming d/s crosses all categories of relationships. I appreciate your input.

You are mixing up two separate issues:
1) the motivation and reasons why we do the things we do
2) how dominance is achieved in a social setting, like a relationship, at work, ...


For the "what is dominance" part, I would also suggest this thread:
Dominance | ecnanimoD

I'm not sure I'm mixing up anything. I'm just trying to learn about d/s relationships, and I think most people would agree that relationships of any kind are extremely varied.

Here's how it works at my house.

We each do our duty. Every payday I handover a pile of money she uses to pay bills and add to the savings kitty. She cooks and I eat what's on my plate. We don't quarrel and struggle over our respective duties.

I believe real dominance is simply getting out of the way while your other does her duty.

A week ago my grandson drove up here to see us. He hadn't eaten, he had no money for gas, and he locked his keys in his truck. So I said...lets take him to McDonalds, call AAA to unlock the truck, and give him $40 for gas. Then I got outta the way so things could happen.

Thanks, JBJ. Sounds like you're a good grandfather. (Don't forget to send me the link we talked about earlier).

I hope this post didn't send anyone into ADD land. If I was the one reading it, my brain would have already misfired and shut down.

 

[Penuche]

<snip> limits and desires change over time as well as in different contexts and with different personalities. For every submissive who feels safe in the knowledge that his/her Dom/me will respect limits without question, there will be another hoping for some push-back, discussion, persuasion, give and take.

<snip>None of that is to say that you force limits there and then. Obviously you don't do that, and that is a profound breach of trust. But you can discuss, understand the reason for limits, find out what other things may have similar effects but be less frightening, try cautious walk-throughs, etc, etc. To simply say that a limit is a limit and never examine it again is, so to speak, somewhat limiting.

Agreed - I have very good reasons to never allow hands around my throat, but an arm around it? That's something which might give the same feel of power to somebody else, but would feel far less threatening to me.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

Just like being in a booth at a restaurant and eavesdropping on the exact discussion you wanted to hear.

So thank you, and I'm just gonna keep sipping my beer and taking it all in.

 

[Primalex]

My error? Feel free to quote where I said a Dominant has fewer options than a "vanilla"? Dying to see you quote that. In fact, where did I mention limiting options in any way? Quote THAT for me also, please.

Oh, okay. So you are saying that a dominant has indeed options to make the submissive allow certain activities?

 

[Irreverent1]

I think you are making this needlessly complicated.

The point, as has been well made by more than one person, is that limits and desires change over time as well as in different contexts and with different personalities. For every submissive who feels safe in the knowledge that his/her Dom/me will respect limits without question, there will be another hoping for some push-back, discussion, persuasion, give and take.

More simply and crudely still:

A: I really want to do X.
B: I don't want you to.
A: Oh, OK.

Where is the Dominance here?

None of that is to say that you force limits there and then. Obviously you don't do that, and that is a profound breach of trust. But you can discuss, understand the reason for limits, find out what other things may have similar effects but be less frightening, try cautious walk-throughs, etc, etc. To simply say that a limit is a limit and never examine it again is, so to speak, somewhat limiting.

I'm going to say that you've completely lost the plot here. No means no. Always and forever. Some of the people writing on this thread are frightening me with how close they feel they're able to get to committing felonies simply because they feel Dominants are somehow immune to the word No. This is all completely off topic but I'll address it.

There are Hard and Soft limits to every subs boundaries. Hard limits are a flat out no. These limits may evolve or change over time but unless stated otherwise they are an immediate no. Soft limits might have criteria to be met or a lengthy discussion or, most often, an "it depends on how I feel" attachment to the limit. Those tend to fluctuate. But unless the sub says it's ok then it's STILL a No. That is to say, the sub has to still give permission and unless that is given the Dom/Domme can proceed no further without committing a felony. Please, note that the sub is granting or denying permission to the Dom/Domme. It doesn't matter one iota if you cajole, persuade or even blackmail the sub to change their mind, as long as the no is in place then it's a no. End of story.

Your example: Yeah. That's how it works. Where is the Dominance in that? It's in respecting the Limits that SHOULD have been discussed long before then, thus coming as no surprise, Dom/Domme. What? You think there is some special Dom/Domme power that states that just because you really, Really, REALLY want to then the sub should just say "OK"? If it's a problem that can't be resolved via discussion then perhaps that sub isn't the one for you. subs are not one size fits all. If you don't like the Limits then maybe you should find another sub.

Let's recap. No means NO. If you can get the sub to change their mind then fine. But unless the no becomes a yes then the no is in place and that sets a Limit on what the sub ALLOWS the Dom/Domme to do. This isn't rocket science. I wasn't speaking metaphorically before. I, in no way, complicated anything. It doesn't matter how badly you want to spank the subs ass, if they say no then you aren't allowed. Period.

One last thing, I'm a bit concerned that you think "pushing boundaries" means pushing a sub to do things on their Limit list. There are thousands of ways to push boundaries that have nothing to do with Limits. If the sub likes being tied up you can see if they like suspension. That is a boundary that has nothing to do a Limit unless the sub makes it one.

 

[Irreverent1]

Oh, okay. So you are saying that a dominant has indeed options to make the submissive allow certain activities?

If you can "MAKE" (i.e. Force) anyone, sub or otherwise, do something they don't want to do without violating coercion, blackmail, assault, or rape laws then, please, teach me, Sensei.

 

[SalvDali]

Oh, okay. So you are saying that a dominant has indeed options to make the submissive allow certain activities?

This is a question. Not a statement. Sorry to be the grammer police but it really affects to context.

 

[Primalex]

If you can "MAKE" (i.e. Force) anyone, sub or otherwise, do something they don't want to do without violating coercion, blackmail, assault, or rape laws then, please, teach me, Sensei.

First of all, if you think that you cannot make a human do things they don't want to do without violating the law, you obviously never had to make kids tidy up their room.

Second, you are again changing the premise and taking a subset of possibilities of 'make', just so you can go ballistic on something nobody said.

I would repeat my question, but as far as I can tell, your mind is like a broken record, repeating the same part of the track over and over. Such strong fanatism is often shown by people who changed the side - the person complaining loudest about cigarette smoke is usually not a concerned mother, but an ex-smoker.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

This is a question. Not a statement. Sorry to be the grammer police but it really affects to context.

Did you mean grammar? Spelling counts, too, particularly to the grammar police.

ETA: I don't normally do that, but you hit on my big internet pet peeve: making a spelling, grammar, or mechanical error in a post or comment that's sole purpose is to criticize another's usage.

 

[SalvDali]

Did you mean grammar? Spelling counts, too, particularly to the grammar police.

ETA: I don't normally do that, but you hit on my big internet pet peeve: making a spelling, grammar, or mechanical error in a post or comment that's sole purpose is to criticize another's usage.

Touché

I can laugh at myself when when I make a stupid mistake. I do not usually correct people myself because grammar is not my favorite subject combined with the fact that half of the time i am typing from my phone.

 

[SalvDali]

First of all, if you think that you cannot make a human do things they don't want to do without violating the law, you obviously never had to make kids tidy up their room.

As a father of 2 this made me laugh pretty hard.