Padriag
Posts: 2633
Joined: 3/30/2005
Status: offline
|
Its an interesting question. In considering how best to answer it I thought about not just the different perspectives but also some of the history involved. There is more to this than just different ideas, there is something of ideology involved.
There are two general schools of thought on the subject... one says that in order to become a skilled dominant you must begin as a submissive and work your way up; the second school of thought says that becoming a skilled dominant requires experience and practice as a dominant. The debate emerges from these two different points of view. To help understand it, it might be useful to understand where some of it originates.
The ideology, for that is what it amounts to, that a dominant must begin as a submissive and progress from there in order to become a skilled dominant could be called "old school" for lack of a better name. You commonly find it associated with Old Guard ideas and so far as I can tell it may have originated there. Those who were Old Guard drew on their military background when creating structure within their groups. One idea that transferred over was the concept of "coming up through the ranks". That is the idea that in order to be a good leader you had to have had experience as a soldier first, you begin as a private and progress up through the ranks as an NCO. From what I can find, most Old Guard groups established a heirarchy based on that kind of structure. Individuals started out as submissives and then as they gained in experience some progressed onwards as dominants, but not all, not everyone had the necessary traits to become a dominant. In the process they learned a lot about what it was like to be on the receiving end of a whip (literally and otherwise) and that experience was believed to make them more skilled dominants. Of course one wonders then how the first OG dominants became such, someone had to be first?
There is something to be said for this, certainly it does give the dominant experience in some areas. For example, a better understanding of how cramped one gets when kept kneeling or caged for too long, exactly how painful the bruises from a heavy caning can be, etc. It can aid in learning many of the technical aspects of things. It can help in understanding the physical and practical aspects and realities of various forms of service. However, if one doesn't have the desire to be submissive, to be happy serving, the ability to enter subspace, then there are emotional and psychological aspects of this lifestyle that one will never directly experience what these things "feel" like and the experience remains largely academic. For example, someone who is "bottoming" but isn't really submissive will not react the same way to many things as someone who is very submissive. As such, their experience will not be the same and they won't get the same "feeling" from it. In that regard, beginning as a submissive is arguably not useful.
Somewhere, and I don't know that anyone can say when or where, the alternate ideology of doms begin as doms and subs are subs came about. I suspect it began with those who were outside of the more organized groups perhaps among the smaller number of heterosexuals involved in the lifestyle back then, but it is impossible to know for certain. Regardless, the idea has been growing steadily in popularity over the decades and at this point could reasonably be called the predominant ideology, as it seems to be widely accepted and many assume it to be the only correct way of doing things. The general idea is that a dominant "evolves" naturally from inborn traits, and along the way somehow acquires the knowledge necessary to be a skilled dominant. The draw back is that this ideology never had the supporting structure of something like Old Guard which defined how this knowledge was to be acquired. Dominants have been left largely on their own in figuring that out and in light of that it is perhaps not surprising to also see the attitude among some submissives that a dominant is somehow supposed to automatically know what to do, and also to see some scoff at dominants trying to learn. Such attitudes are unfortunate.
My personal view on both ideologies is that each presents useful ideas, but I don't feel either had it entirely right. I believe it was not the Old Guard practice of beginning as a submissive that produced more skilled dominants, but rather the fact that there was within their groups more of a structure for teaching and educating dominants in the skills necessary. Also there was a receptive and encouraging environment for the practice of teaching dominants. That is, from what I have read about these groups and how they did things, if one of their own wanted to learn to be a dominant they could be reasonably sure they would not be laughed at or ridiculed, instead they would be assessed and if they had the necessary dominant traits would be taught and educated. These days many react derisively to any dominant who does not present themselves as anything other than already accomplished, an attitude which itself encourages the deception that goes on, in addition to contributing to creating an environment hostile to teaching and sharing knowledge amongst dominants. I do feel that to be a skilled dominant one needs to focus on that, having formerly been submissive is of limited use to that and its more the education and training often associated with it that is of the greatest benefit. I think we would all be much better off if at some point the idea of of not only teaching dominants the skills they need was embraced, but a more defined concept of what that is, what should be learned and how it should be learned needs to be embraced. Unfortunately, lacking an organized community, I'm at a loss to suggest how that might happen.
As I have said elsewhere, there are many paths to becoming a skilled dominant. What matters isn't how you go there, but that you get there with the knowledge and skills necessary to fulfill the role.
_____________________________
Padriag
A stern discipline pervades all nature, which is a little cruel so that it may be very kind - Edmund Spencer
|
RE: The best Dominants are submissives first? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread