|
MadRabbit -> RE: what makes a "true Dom" (7/28/2008 10:45:30 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MistressStiletto
Being dominant is a personality trait, as is being submissive and applicable to both genders.
So are you suggesting that everyone who has personality types that can be sterotypically defined as "dominant" desire to be in a power based relationship?
quote:
A person who is dominant is a natural leader in all aspects of life, not just the alternative lifestyle. A natural leader is someone who others listen to and follow. For example there are ten people in a room and they're given a problem or task that they all must work together to solve. As they discuss the problem and alternatives, before long they'll start to listen to one of the group and realize this person should be the one to direct everyone's efforts to solve the problem. That person has emerged as the natural leader of the group.
Let's say we placed ten natural leaders in a room. Is the one who emerges as a leader the only real natural leader? Do we discredit the rest?
Expand the example to everyone who can be stereotypically defined as a natural leader in their life in one group. If only one emerges as the leader and the other's become subservient to him for the sake of pragmatism, is he the only real natural leader?
quote:
Alternatively there are institutional leaders, who are given a position of authority in an organization, such as given a managerial title or mititary rank, which puts them in charge of others, but does not make them a natural leader or even a particularly good leader at all. Hence not actually dominant by virtue of their personality and ability.
What if someone who is dominant by "virtue of their personality" isn't given this position and is in a position subservient to him? Does this disqualify him as being "dominant" since he doesn't meet the qualification of "leader in all aspects of his life"?
quote:
There are degrees of dominance... say an absolute dominant, one who never submits, is a ten and an absolute submissive, who will never accept a leadership role, is a zero, in between are those who can lead more submissive personalities, but will defer to a more dominant personality. Usually refered to as switches.
So if I was to defer to someone else in a situaition where I haven't achieved rank in a company or military or if I were to be with ten other natural leaders and defer to them for the sake of pragmatically wanting things to run smoothly and efficiently without my big dominant ego creating a power struggle, this would classify me as switch because I am willing to defer to other people?
quote:
In the alternative lifestyle, as well as in other human endeavors, there are actors who can assume and play a role effectively for a relatively brief period. Such as those who can be a very skillfull top in a scene, playing the dominant role in the scene. But who avoids the mantel of responsibility that a natural leader and dominant is not afraid to assume, and probably relishes it.
So your saying ability to do something doesn't equate to desire? That desire to be in charge is what determines if someone is dominant or not.
Does desire to be in charge equate to ability? What if I had a strong desire to be in charge, but did not have "the natural leader" abilities that you have associated with "being dominant" in your stereotype above? What if I learned my leadership abilities over time like other skills.
Does the abscense of "natural leadership abilities" disqualify me as a dominant? Am I not a real dominant, because I desire to be in charge and had to learn leadership skills as opposed to being innately born with them?
quote:
Other than these situations, are those who simply declare a title for themselves, which imply that they are dominant, in the hope that others will believe that they actually are dominant. The self proclaimed "Master" or "Lord" or whatever. Typically called CHDW's (Clueless Horny Dominant Wannabies)
Let's say someone fit the stereotype listed above and then because of his own ego took on the title of "Lord" is in his Internet handle. Does the fact that he took on the title negate his "natural leadership abilities and desires", thus disqualifing him as being a dominant?
quote:
How can a subbie tell who actually has a dominant personality.? First don't pay attention to any self proclimations or self awarded titles, or boosting about being dominant. It's a sign that they are just the opposite.
Apparently you don't read SimplyMichael's posts. He does more boosting then anyone on these boards and is quite an exceptional dominant.
quote:
Observe them in settings outside the lifestyle. Do they always defer to others in their circle of friends.
I defer to people all the time. I do so because the people I defer to have more experience and knowledge in certain endeavors I am taking on and therefore are able to help me with decisions that I am unqualified to make. I let my advertising company make decisions for me regarding my advertising for my buisness, because they know more than me. I let my buddy recently pick a sharpening stone for me without my approval and mail to me for use with my knives, because he is far more educated at sharpening blades than me and I am learning from him. I defer to my boss and experienced butchers at work all the time about the best way to cut a product, because their knowledge far exceeds mine.
Does realizing that there is people more qualified to make certain decisions or provide you with guidance about things you don't anything about equate to not being a dominant?
quote:
Do others come to them for advice and help in solving problems, or are they avoided by others.
Does being social equate to giving good advice and an ability to solve problems and vice versa?
I'm not a very social guy and the number of people who come to me for advice and solving problems is far fewer than other people who are. Does this mean that I am incapable of giving good advice or solving problems? On the contary I see people get asked advice all the time, because they are "popular" and give some of the worst advice imaginable.
quote:
Do they have their own affairs in order, demonstrate self discipline, keep their financial affairs in order.
Sounds like quality that should be synomous with every adult and not just dominants. Are you suggesting that a lack of having one's life together is a submissive trait?
quote:
Show self confidence
Confidence in all aspects of your life is something that takes decades to build. "Showing self confidence" as something that we observe in other things is a lot of the time a superfical act people put on.
Also, are you suggesting that a lack of self confidence is a submissive trait?
quote:
Do they evade responsibility, and blame others or you for everything that goes wrong or not very well.
Sounds like a great trait for all adults to have. Is evading responsibility a sign of being submissive?
quote:
Do they constantly whine about their lousy wortk environment and boss, but just sit on their butt and don't look for a better job, or improve the job that they have.
Well, I certainly am in the process of approving my professional life, but I still do a lot of bitching about my boss and lousy work enviroment to vent from time to time regardless [:D]
quote:
I think that you get the point. Be observent, and it's not hard to pick out the natural leaders, who are actually dominants. They tend to be on the rare and hard to find these days. As far as the rest go... well take your pick, as they're dime a dozen.
I sure do. You have presented a carciature that personality specialists would say only 5% of the population even comes close to.
However, what I don't get is it's correlation to being successful as an authority figure in an interpersonal relationship nor why someone has to achieve perfection to be in charge of a slave or submissive.
Further more, if we invert your list of observations to find a "true Dom", then to find a "true submissive" then we should look for someone who is irresponsible, unconfidant, whiny, unmotivated possesses a lack of self discipline and self control over their lives, unsocial, posesses a lack of common sense, and incapable of making good decisions or giving good advice.
|
|
|
|
