RE: Are you Dominant? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message


Focus50 -> RE: Are you Dominant? (5/23/2007 5:34:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MstrssPassion

Focus

The mother in your example is correct - is validated by having a baby.

By have do you mean that they were pregnant & delivered the baby or do you mean they simply physically have a child they are raising?

I say this because many women are Mothers to children they did not physically carry inside their own bodies.

Lol, I'm not going there; I've had enough "cyber fisticuffs" at CM this past week -I was generally happy to go with that part of the OP's statement.  My point being that some titles/honourifics etc require the validation of another being and some don't.
 
I was actually wondering if some lesbian "husband" was gonna come after me looking for blood!  lmao  Was all prepared to simply point them to the second sentence of my opening post....
 
Focus.





domiguy -> RE: Are you Dominant? (5/23/2007 5:37:07 AM)

Hmmmmmm.......Language is a bitch....Now that being said, would make language  female which it clearly isn't.  Is a mother. a mother if her children are dead? Or once a mother always a  mother?

George Michael, long renowned for his intellectual discourses on this matter and who will probably never have children, professed "I will be your father figure put your tiny hand in mine.".....

Let's see what the lovely and talented Dionne Warwick has to add to this debate,.....

"A chair is still a chair. Even when there's no one sitting there
But a chair is not a house And a house is not a home
When there's no one there to hold you tight, And no one there you can kiss good night."

I am not a woman...Although I am the mother of all that is rude and obnoxious.

I see that a man cannot be a husband until he has a wife and yet there are plenty of wives who feel that their husbands are not men.


Knock yourselves out....No one cares either way.





SirDominic -> RE: Are you Dominant? (5/23/2007 6:33:29 AM)

The title of your post asked one question, your post asked another. Are you Dominant? is not the same thing as Are you A Dominant. In either respect, having a Dominant personality describes how you react to life; your approach to living.

Namaste, Sir Dominic




MasterFireMaam -> RE: Are you Dominant? (5/23/2007 8:41:17 AM)

*shrug*

Doesn't work for me. I'm a Master whether or not I have a slave. But, it does work for other people.

Master Fire




Viridana -> RE: Are you Dominant? (5/23/2007 8:48:18 AM)

*sigh*
all these categorizations and packing everything in to neat little boxes.
I'm a dominant personality. I like to lead, have responsibility and be in control in my day to day life. But I like to be on the receiving end in the bedroom. Where does that put me?  a domissive or subinant?




ELUSIVE1 -> RE: Are you Dominant? (5/23/2007 9:13:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Grrr.  I hate people getting confused over wordings.   Seriously.

Ah wells.  Here's the deal.

You're saying a Dominant is one who participates in a D/s relationship.  You're right to say that a Dom is only a Dom when he has a sub as that's the only time he's in a D/s relationship as a Dom.

Some responders have disagreed.  They see a Dominant as one who would be a Dom under ordinary circumstances in a relationship, should they currently be in such a relationship or not.  They're right for what they mean by the word.

Now you all agree with eachother.  No need to "give opinions" on the issue.  Be happy 'n such.

I was actually just using another's words in hopes of creating intelligent debate...I don't necessarily agree with the statement...




lateralist1 -> RE: Are you Dominant? (5/23/2007 9:21:17 AM)

Do we have to keep going around the same old debates?
It's been said.
Being dominant or submissive is a character trait.
But it's a graduation like all character traits.
If you are generally submissive to most people it doesn't mean that you aren't going to ever meet someone that you are more dominant than.
So it's individual to the relationship but it also depends on context and learned behaviour patterns. We are often who we were trained to be as a child. Personality isn't fixed until around 16 years of age.
If your a Dom/me then you are whether you are more dominant than the person next to you who says he's a sub who knows. It's the same as male/female demarcations.
It's a continuum.




ELUSIVE1 -> RE: Are you Dominant? (5/23/2007 9:23:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadisticMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: ELUSIVE1

[:-] A person  is not a Dominant/Domme unless he has a submissive to complete him/her in the same way A woman is not a Mother until she has a child...she may have motherly feelings, but she is  not called "mother' until she has a child.....
I read this on another site and would love to hear your thoughts on this....


and what are you? submissive or Dom, your profile says both.
quoted from your profile: "I enjoy topping 20 something sluts"
But you're listed as submissive..
How do you validate yourself in each role?
 

I actually never felt the need to 'validate' myself in any percieved role...




dawntreader -> RE: Are you Dominant? (5/23/2007 10:16:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MstrssPassion

Then you must feel that no a dominant is a dominant regardless... because I don't know not one dominant who has gestated their submissive.




Heheheh[sm=biggrin.gif]THATS funny!




dawntreader -> RE: Are you Dominant? (5/23/2007 10:18:43 AM)

domiguy!!
ROFL!!!That last post of your requires a "spew alert"!!!




puella -> RE: Are you Dominant? (5/23/2007 10:21:34 AM)

You think Dionne Warwick is lovely?




imthatacheyouhav -> RE: Are you Dominant? (5/23/2007 10:22:02 AM)

It depends on what the meaning of the word is...is




Lashra -> RE: Are you Dominant? (5/23/2007 10:27:47 AM)

I'm dominant regardless if I have a submissive or not. My personality is dominant and that is something that will never change. Dominance goes beyond having a sub or not, its your core, your personality. It has nothing to do with having a sub/slave.

~Lashra




RavenMuse -> RE: Are you Dominant? (5/23/2007 10:34:19 AM)

Master is to Dom as slave is to submissive.... I am ALWAYS a Master, but only once I Own her am I HER Master.

I am predisposed to the TPE dynamic, it is the way I am wired for relationships, that 'wireing' doesn't change when I am single, it is simply not functional without her as its focus.

I always have a Dominant personality, I have a Dominant outlook and I do tend to either take charge or have others place their trust in Me and follow My lead.... but those things are seperate to the notion of the D/s 'Dominant' that I ALSO am.




sugarcoatedscamp -> RE: Are you Dominant? (5/23/2007 10:42:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

A Master is always a Dominant but a Dominant is not a Master unless validated by owning a slave.
 
A slave is always a submissive but a submissive is not a slave unless owned by a Master.


And what of J, one of my dearest friends, who is dominant in her own right, but chooses to be slave to one?




BeatMeDaily -> RE: Are you Dominant? (5/23/2007 10:49:42 AM)

It is human nature to have more than 1 personality.  The good voice, the bad voice....
Scared, happy, timid, bossy, submissive, Dominant, these are all sides that
everyone has to some degree or another.

Let's just be happy that we are free to make these choices.




CuriousLord -> RE: Are you Dominant? (5/23/2007 11:14:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ELUSIVE1

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Grrr.  I hate people getting confused over wordings.   Seriously.

Ah wells.  Here's the deal.

You're saying a Dominant is one who participates in a D/s relationship.  You're right to say that a Dom is only a Dom when he has a sub as that's the only time he's in a D/s relationship as a Dom.

Some responders have disagreed.  They see a Dominant as one who would be a Dom under ordinary circumstances in a relationship, should they currently be in such a relationship or not.  They're right for what they mean by the word.

Now you all agree with eachother.  No need to "give opinions" on the issue.  Be happy 'n such.

I was actually just using another's words in hopes of creating intelligent debate...I don't necessarily agree with the statement...



It's fine.  Just many debates on this site arrise from disagreements over word definitions and people continue to debate them, not realizing their only real disagreement, or at least the main, is in what they're debating.  So they carry on in a meaningless debate which has its basis in misunderstanding.

I'm just annoyed with people in general chasing their tails for lack of seeing the larger picture.  I mean, seriously, do people even realize they're just disagreeing over what a "Dom" is?  And don't they realize that, in the absense of a standardized definition, the argument is entirely silly?

I mean, to draw an anology, it's like two kids were given toys.  They both go to school the next day, without the balls, and learn what colors are.  With their new-found knowledge, they go to debate what color balls are at lunch, failing to consider the other may be saying "ball" in reference to something similar, but different.  Now they're going to spend their lunch period debating if balls are black and white or mostly orange.

(Edit)I'm not quite up to the point of complete apathy and ignoring the kids.  I'm still in the stage where I go up to them, a soccer ball in one hand and a basket ball in the other, trying to show them how silly their debate was.  Still, I've done this enough that it's getting to the point of annoyance at a lesson unlearned- though not yet apathy.(/Edit)

If you're a teacher watching such a debate, as you have for most lunch periods for your long career, I believe you'd be beyond the point of thinking it was cute.

Anyhow, that's my rant. 

(Edit)ELUSIVE1, the post says this is to you, but mostly because it was to the thread itself, and you're the OP.  I'm not trying to be mean to you.(/Edit)




slaveish -> RE: Are you Dominant? (5/23/2007 11:16:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sugarcoatedscamp

And what of J, one of my dearest friends, who is dominant in her own right, but chooses to be slave to one?



I have a very Dominant personality. It stems from decisions I made and my reactions to decisions that were made for me. I am still, however, a submissive, and I am my Master's slave.

I had no idea I was submissive until someone brought it to the surface with an offhand remark. Once I got over the shock and denial, it was like I found the piece of myself that was missing, the piece I was trying to fill with alcohol, recreational drugs, and promiscuity.

I have always been a submissive, even when I didn't know I was one. That does not mean that surrender is easy for me - it isn't - I've had decades of self-training to be Dominant in my vanilla environment.




LadyHugs -> RE: Are you Dominant? (5/23/2007 11:29:06 AM)

Dear Elusive1, Ladies and Gentlemen;
 
In my mind's eyes I see; there will be many a standard set as to what a Dominant and or Master 'is.'  There will be plenty of answers given.
 
However, from my personal experiences--being a Dominant (before it became a title) was a state of being.  This also became a state of awareness as well as the responsibilities and consequences for such a status, as it affects/effects those around them.  To know the energy of that state of being and the power transmitted by a Dominant state of being is the beginning point of mastering it, as not to be a 'loose canon' and or 'be abusive.'  It is going through the process of being masterful in the art of Domination.
 
That said, there is great depth of knowledge gained from being servant and submissive; as knowing how it feels to be under foot, under the belt's line, to give and to empower creates its own lessons.
Knowing the negatives and positives from the experience of submission, serving and or as slave--to me; adds to the compassionate side of a Master, since being there once -- does not take things, especially the slave, for granted; thus keen on making serving a more pleasant experience as well as knowing all the tricks of manipulations learned by being slave.
 
I'm from a time when one was not considered a Master until they had a Master-slave relationship.  Otherwise, would be deemed a SIR.  The only exceptions would be when peers raised that SIR into the title of Master for reasons of mastering a skill and or persons in general.  But, in most cases from my personal experiences; Masters were titled by their slave's empowering them with an acknowledgment and proclaimation of that person being their Master.
 
It is one thing to be philosophical of what it is to be Dominant and its criteria.  It is entirely different when as a Dominant you agree to take on a slave and begin the real lessons of human nature, human relationship and all the things which create that union and keep it maintained and successful.  The same with those who teach law and never been in a court room can teach theory but, until you go into the court rooms and put law, theory and experience to practice, can you really be a lawyer beyond a law degree; in my mind's eyes I see this as being truthful.
 
Lines are blurred now days.  With the computer age, so many self title themselves as a Master and have yet to remove their cabboose from the chair and physically learned from interaction with others to be a Dominant; let alone a Master.  This also includes women who identify as Dominant, as Mistress and or Master.
 
Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
Lady Hugs




ELUSIVE1 -> RE: Are you Dominant? (5/23/2007 12:20:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: ELUSIVE1

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Grrr.  I hate people getting confused over wordings.   Seriously.

Ah wells.  Here's the deal.

You're saying a Dominant is one who participates in a D/s relationship.  You're right to say that a Dom is only a Dom when he has a sub as that's the only time he's in a D/s relationship as a Dom.

Some responders have disagreed.  They see a Dominant as one who would be a Dom under ordinary circumstances in a relationship, should they currently be in such a relationship or not.  They're right for what they mean by the word.

Now you all agree with eachother.  No need to "give opinions" on the issue.  Be happy 'n such.

I was actually just using another's words in hopes of creating intelligent debate...I don't necessarily agree with the statement...



It's fine.  Just many debates on this site arrise from disagreements over word definitions and people continue to debate them, not realizing their only real disagreement, or at least the main, is in what they're debating.  So they carry on in a meaningless debate which has its basis in misunderstanding.

I'm just annoyed with people in general chasing their tails for lack of seeing the larger picture.  I mean, seriously, do people even realize they're just disagreeing over what a "Dom" is?  And don't they realize that, in the absense of a standardized definition, the argument is entirely silly?

I mean, to draw an anology, it's like two kids were given toys.  They both go to school the next day, without the balls, and learn what colors are.  With their new-found knowledge, they go to debate what color balls are at lunch, failing to consider the other may be saying "ball" in reference to something similar, but different.  Now they're going to spend their lunch period debating if balls are black and white or mostly orange.

(Edit)I'm not quite up to the point of complete apathy and ignoring the kids.  I'm still in the stage where I go up to them, a soccer ball in one hand and a basket ball in the other, trying to show them how silly their debate was.  Still, I've done this enough that it's getting to the point of annoyance at a lesson unlearned- though not yet apathy.(/Edit)

If you're a teacher watching such a debate, as you have for most lunch periods for your long career, I believe you'd be beyond the point of thinking it was cute.

Anyhow, that's my rant. 

(Edit)ELUSIVE1, the post says this is to you, but mostly because it was to the thread itself, and you're the OP.  I'm not trying to be mean to you.(/Edit)

I understood that you were referring to the post, I just didnt' t want people to think those were my original words...I have seen the debate over and again, however I had never seen the Mother analogy and found it interesting....I do believe that one that only reads about being Dominant, or plays online can hardly consider themselves "Master" if they have never "Master"ed anyone one, or any particular skill




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.109375