What is the purpose of a Dom?

[Richard49]

"Richard, what is the purpose of a dominant?
Can a dominant dominate in the absense of a submissive? (what changes about a dominant when there is no one around to dominate?)"

 

[bunny bondage]

well, i'm just one voice here, but i guess i'll speak up anyway.

for me, the "purpose" of a dom in my life is zillion-fold. friend, teacher, advice-giver, companion, lover (in that most sadistic dominating way), someone to whom i can devote myself, trustworthy mentor, and yes, something of a father figure. someone i can look up to, learn from their mistakes and know that when they tell me i'm doing something wrong, they probably know what they're talking about. someone who values me and truly cares about my well-being, appreciates all i do for them. any jackass could tie me up and spank me, but that does not make them a dom. and yes, i do want to be tied up and spanked (another purpose for a dom) but it has to run deeper, i need to feel loved, cared for.

i hope i'm making sense here.

 

[Azalea]

Makes perfect sense to me, bunnybondage.

 

[FungiUg]

"Richard, what is the purpose of a dominant?
Can a dominant dominate in the absense of a submissive? (what changes about a dominant when there is no one around to dominate?)"

Not sure if a dominant has, or needs, a "purpose" as such. Being dominant is not a goal driven thing. It's just the way a personality/sexuality fits together. Similarly with being gay, or submissive, or...

Dominance and submission occur in so many situations, irrespective of D/s play. If you go into a meeting at work, who is dominant? who is submissive?

But to "dominate", you need someone to be dominated. You could of course dominate yourself, but in that case you are both dominating and being dominated. So there's always an interaction. So without someone to dominate... the best you can be is "intending to dominate".

Personally, without a submissive around, I get rather frustrated. And I think most dominants would be frustrated without a willing person to be dominated.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

As a Dominant, my first purpose is to be served. Secondly, I feel it is my duty to push my sub a step or two further than she would normally go on her own.

 

[Pleasurekitten]

Re: Re: What is the purpose of a Dom?

<snip> So there's always an interaction. <snip>

This one sentence stood out to me. But i am going to turn the situation around a little. There have been times when i have been asked to *do* something whilst my Master has not been present. i have carried out His instructions to the letter and must always report back to Him exactly what i did, how i did it and what, if any, were the "results". Meaning how i felt about doing it, did i learn from it etc........ after all i am still learning, growing and developing in my submissiveness.

my point is, as i have told Him, that even though i know i am doing the task for Him, that without Him present to "witness" it, the act of doing it becomes somewhat empty in a sense. This reminds me of the analogy: If a tree falls in the forest and no-one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

At the point of me doing the task, am i being submissive if He is not there? Yes, because i am obeying Him but my mindset is slightly different and the whole act becomes more intense if He is present. So to FungiUg's point, for me, the interaction makes it more meaningful.

 

[Netzach]

I am not certain what the purpose of a Dominant is, as Dominance is a character trait shown by a wide range of people.

The purpose of a Master, includes:

To refine oneself, to seek excellence in one's own actions and commitments

To know one's own strengths and weakenesses so that the strengths can be offered forward, the weaknesses worked on.

To lead.

To advise.

To demonstrate possible solutions or actions outside of a ssubordinate's instincts, habits, or comfort zones.

To reinforce and praise right action.

To practise right action so that right action in others can even be recognized.

To encourage growth, development, even at the cost of ultimate independence of the relationship. To encourage happiness and fulfillment unselfishly, even while excercising authority in comfort and certainty.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

You left out' weekly canings', Netzach!!

 

[psiberzerker]

I think I adequately answered this in the other thread, but I got nothing better to do right now, so just for shits, and giggles...
The "purpose" of a Dom/me is the same as for a sub, or any other playmate, to please, and pleasure their lover(s). Tastes vary, so too must techniques, but that's the only real purpose here, pleasure. Whether you get it dominating, submitting, hurting, or being hurt, depends on you, and what you can work out with your fuck buddy.

 

[Netzach]

Shit, how'd you know that's my favorite thing, soap man?

I also agree with psiberserker on this one, in the grand relationship picture so in D/s, do what makes ya happy. D/s is really not so vastly different or more complicated than any other interaction.

 

[MissTaken]

I am really struggling with this topic.

The purpose of a Dominant?

Perhaps because I am not a Dominant, I can't really answer for HIS purpose.

Is it to seek pleasure only?

Give pleasure?

Teach, guide and motivate a submissive?

I think that when it is all laid out, the purpose, or what I expect from a Dominant is "control." Control in his own life, self control and an ability and desire to use that control in my direction

If a Dominant cannot control his spending, his temper or manage his time wisely; if he can't keep a job, maintain a stable residence or any of those other mundane things, can he really be entrusted with the responsibility and control over a submissive?

After that?
I guess it is all about pleasure....

 

[Netzach]

I believe in balancing one's checks and having a residence. However, I don't think that middle class norms are the ruler by which we can measure self control or worthiness, always, not that you are, but I've seen it happen.

I may be better at something than my submissive. He may make more coin, but I may have a much better idea about how to express my feelings. Or relax. Or walk confidently in the world, or whatever.

There are a lot of areas in which one can excel.

I prefer to lead by example. In the end I don't control jack and neither does anyone. But then, I'm an amateur Buddhist, don't mind me.

 

[MissTaken]

I guess I didn't mean to suggest middle class type norms, but for example, if a Dominant can't get his phone hooked up or pay for the hotel room because he can't get a credit card, but he has money to go buy a bunch of cd's to listen to or go out and get drunk twice a week, I wonder how much self control he has.

A Dominant who feels the need to punch the wall when he is angry or more to the point, kick the dog, is not getting anywhere near this lilly white ass with a riding crop!

I mean life happens, but I do believe that a Dominant has to have a certain modicum of control over himself and his life before being able to provide that to another. So, it is how he handles life's inconsistencies that tells me if he is in control.

Adn isn't control at the core of Dominance?

 

[psiberzerker]

I can definitely grok the self controll thing, though it doesn't really directly apply to the issue of purpose. If you cannot rule yourself, you cannot rule another. (Something like a Bene Gessurite axiom, Dune on the brain, but I digress further.)
A sexual Master is first master of hemself. Most claiments to the dubious distinction have the temperment all wrong, think they'll become less losers if they push someone around the bed a while, or some fucked up shit like that.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. The submissive doesn't have to controll a thing, just their emotions, and perhapse their tongue depending on the Dom/me. Way up at the top, you pretty much have to be a multitasker to keep trak of everything, especially your temper, and your urges. Let them get away from you, and it just might be time for an un-erotic trip in the ambulance.

 

[MissTaken]

I think that what we have learned from this thread and the submissive thread is that there are no clear answers to "purpose?"

The responses will and should change with each individual.

What is the purpose of a sponge?
A sponge's purpose is to do dishes, in Richard's home.
A sponge's purpose is to clean the bathroom in Netzach's home.
A sponge's purpose is to add texture to some of my painting and crafts in MissT;s home.

 

[lassarina]

well, i'm just one voice here, but i guess i'll speak up anyway.

for me, the "purpose" of a dom in my life is zillion-fold. friend, teacher, advice-giver, companion, lover (in that most sadistic dominating way), someone to whom i can devote myself, trustworthy mentor, and yes, something of a father figure. someone i can look up to, learn from their mistakes and know that when they tell me i'm doing something wrong, they probably know what they're talking about. someone who values me and truly cares about my well-being, appreciates all i do for them. any jackass could tie me up and spank me, but that does not make them a dom. and yes, i do want to be tied up and spanked (another purpose for a dom) but it has to run deeper, i need to feel loved, cared for.

i hope i'm making sense here.

How beautiful and how well put!!!!


lass

 

[JazzManJim]

My being a Dom has no particular purpose. It is not a means to an end. It is the end itself. I am a Dom and that would remain true were there no submissives on Earth (though that would be incredibly frustrating!).

Being a Dom is, IMO, a personality trait (or set of traits) just as is having a sense of humor or a love of music or a cruel streak. It serves and is served by the personality traits of others with compatible traits and there isn't much more than that, I don't believe.

I don't aspire to anything beyond an attempt to make the planet a slightly better place than when I got here and to make a few folks happy along the way. But I figure that ought to be the job of any human being, Dom or no.

 

[Pure]

The Ascendant One, said,


I am not certain what the purpose of a Dominant is, as Dominance is a character trait shown by a wide range of people.

The purpose of a Master, includes:

To refine oneself, to seek excellence in one's own actions and commitments

To know one's own strengths and weakenesses so that the strengths can be offered forward, the weaknesses worked on.

Jung has commented on the "protestantism" of this continuing 'work' on oneself. But in any case, I rather like some of my weaknesses-- does the development of depraved tastes count as 'working on weakness'?



To lead.

To advise.

To demonstrate possible solutions or actions outside of a ssubordinate's instincts, habits, or comfort zones.

Sounds rather teacherly. One paradigm of dominance. But from my own view, the difference is that the dom/me is not necessarily trying to narrow the gap. (You know the old saying: the aim of a good teacher is to make him/her self redundant.)



To reinforce and praise right action.

To practise right action so that right action in others can even be recognized.

Well, bawdisatva, there's a few problems here, potentially. Is this brand of buddhism universalistic in ethics? same duties for all? My view is that an ordering of humans is presupposed in
domination. Hence the compatible Buddhism, imo, is like the Zen Buddhism of Japan which served the warrior class. Hence 'right action' is linked with social position.


To encourage growth, development, even at the cost of ultimate independence of the relationship. To encourage happiness and fulfillment unselfishly, even while excercising authority in comfort and certainty.

Hey, Carl Rogers is fine and all that, but no dom/me or model for one.

The word 'unselfish' has many meanings; generally my view is that (enlightened) egoism is where the dom/me comes from. So yes, 'unselfish' in the sense of General Patton, but not in the sense of Mother Teresa (as commonly pictured).

We perhaps should have a thread on "domme as 'humanistic' psychotherapist." Something about that makes me uneasy, but maybe a few months on--ok, tied to--your analytic couch would change my mind.

I like your thoughts; this is just an offering of my own aberrant views and reactions, in case anyone's interested.

J.

 

[Netzach]

I am not certain what the purpose of a
Jung has commented on the "protestantism" of this continuing 'work' on oneself. But in any case, I rather like some of my weaknesses-- does the development of depraved tastes count as 'working on weakness'?

Well, I don't see depravities of the sexual or anti-establishment kind as weaknesses unless taken to certain clearly harmful extremes (kiddie raping, priest-chopping, what have you)

My bad habits are just that...mine. And I don't feel like every one of them has to be reformed. It's nice to know what they are, though. It's nice to keep them in line to the point where they don't hurt my credibility. Credibility with a sub is critical.

Additionally, woe be to the idiot who thinks they can reform every bad habit from a submissive. Weaknesses define us as much as strengths. If they present a clear obstacle though, if my lack of organization, say, keeps me from effectively leading M, then working to change it or minimize it seems logical.

Sounds rather teacherly. One paradigm of dominance.

And my favorite. Others will no doubt beg to differ.

But from my own view, the difference is that the dom/me is not necessarily trying to narrow the gap. (You know the old saying: the aim of a good teacher is to make him/her self redundant.)

Most aren't. Personally, I'm open to taking that risk. I'd find it tragic if I ever made myself redundant with my fiance, but I'm willing to accept that I could be, as a Master to him, eventually. Maybe the boy will want a boy of his own later, who knows?

A lot of people are really fixed about their needs and identities in a way that seems fear-based to me. "I'm 100% Dom!" Well, ok, sure, so you can see the future. And so what if you were only 90% Dom? Is your love of your submissive dependent solely on their submission? Are they out of the fold if they grow?

However, with another bottom, a slave, I made myself redundant and rejoiced in that, the contract had reached the point where it had culminated, in a specific way. I had no further need of his services and he had nothing more to learn from me, of what I had chosen to teach him. It felt like writing the last page of a novel, it was great!



Well, bawdisatva, there's a few problems here, potentially. Is this brand of buddhism universalistic in ethics?

same duties for all? My view is that an ordering of humans is presupposed in
domination. Hence the compatible Buddhism, imo, is like the Zen Buddhism of Japan which served the warrior class. Hence 'right action' is linked with social position.

Hell no it's not universalistic. I don't have a general definition of right action in this instance, and I'm sure it's not something you'll read at the SF Zen center.

What is universal? Zen is a useful value system for those to whom the values speak. Other people think that hand clapping shit is just silly. Just like I think guys in mitered hats look funny, and the idea of God dying is comic.

My idea of the ordering of humans is that we come together when someone wants something from someone else, in an almost magnetic fashion. The Dominant voice, the loudest monkey, is just that. He's not so great without his disciples. And sometimes the guy in the corner with nothing to say until someone asks him is the most qualified to lead. The smartest leadables bother to ask. That's the naturalistic side to D/s, anyway, in my mind.

Hey, Carl Rogers is fine and all that, but no dom/me or model for one.

LMAO

Ok that's funny.


The word 'unselfish' has many meanings; generally my view is that (enlightened) egoism is where the dom/me comes from. So yes, 'unselfish' in the sense of General Patton, but not in the sense of Mother Teresa (as commonly pictured).

My dear boy, perhaps you need to spend more time worshipping the Goddess.

All kidding aside, would the matriarchal archetype of leadership in your cosmos act like General Patton?

Nurse Ratchett?

Or dear old Mother?

Food fer thought, I hope.

We perhaps should have a thread on "domme as 'humanistic' psychotherapist."

We could not and say we did, if that makes you happier. I am not a shrink and do not even play one on TV or anywhere.

Something about that makes me uneasy, but maybe a few months on--ok, tied to--your analytic couch would change my mind.

Yowza!

I like your thoughts; this is just an offering of my own aberrant views and reactions, in case anyone's interested.

J.

And I like being in the position of having to decide what I really meant when I blathered in the first place.



[/B][/QUOTE]

 

[Pure]

Hello N,


The word 'unselfish' has many meanings; generally my view is that (enlightened) egoism is where the dom/me comes from. So yes, 'unselfish' in the sense of General Patton, but not in the sense of Mother Teresa (as commonly pictured).

My dear boy, perhaps you need to spend more time worshipping the Goddess.

All kidding aside, would the matriarchal archetype of leadership in your cosmos act like General Patton?

Nurse Ratchett?

Or dear old Mother?

Sorry about the use of only males. There are certainly female leaders, and some are egoistic. Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I,
There are some artists like Isadore Duncan, Frida Kahlo, Josephine Baker, etc. who fit the bill.

I'm not sure of your dom/me as leader thing, but I'm thinking on it.

J.

________

Homo homini lupus est.