Active vs. passive dominance

Active vs. passive dominance (Full Version)

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

Message

AAkasha -> Active vs. passive dominance (1/6/2006 11:55:51 PM)
I don't want to get into a debate about definitions again, but another thread got me thinking about domination styles. I'm talking specificaly about the femdom/male sub dynamic but it could apply elsewhere. It is a serious over generalization, but I can see a femdom relationship broken down into two categories: Active domination: The femdom is the active participant in domination. She engages in acts that might include bondage, implementing pain, forced sexual situations. The femdom acts, the submissive reacts. Passive domination: The femdom thrives on proactive submission from her partner. She is catered to, pampered, cared for. She may have protocol that is implemented that sets the framework for the relationship, but the submissive (for the most part) takes initiative to respond to her needs without being commanded, forced or coerced. Granted, some relationships might be a combination of these two. Some may just say "active domination = topping, passive domination = domination/submission." Is that an easier classification? Submissives, which style do you prefer, or do you seek a mixture? Akasha

Noah -> RE: Active vs. passive dominance (1/7/2006 12:04:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha ... Active domination: The femdom is the active participant in domination. She engages in acts that might include bondage, implementing pain, forced sexual situations. The femdom acts, the submissive reacts. Passive domination: The femdom thrives on proactive submission from her partner. She is catered to, pampered, cared for. She may have protocol that is implemented that sets the framework for the relationship, but the submissive (for the most part) takes initiative to respond to her needs without being commanded, forced or coerced. Granted, some relationships might be a combination of these two. Some may just say "active domination = topping, passive domination = domination/submission." Is that an easier classification? Submissives, which style do you prefer, or do you seek a mixture? Akasha I agree that two phenomena exist which we can reasonably call active and passive domination in the senses that you suggest. I see it as a worthwhile distinction to draw and to consider. Thanks. The proposed equations that follow, on the other hand, don't strike me as having much value at all, in virtue of going beyond generalization (which when used carefully has its place) to a gross oversimplification which conceals more than it reveals. I expect that cases which aren't a mixture of active and passive are rare.

Padriag -> RE: Active vs. passive dominance (1/7/2006 12:50:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Noah I expect that cases which aren't a mixture of active and passive are rare. I would agree. Just my own opinion but I would imagine most relationship are a mixture of the two. I do know that in my own case it is very much a mixture. But like Noah I also agree that its worthwhile to examine the two dynamics, when they are used, how and why and what results they produce. In my own case I find that I most often use active dominantion in situations involving punishment, correction and discipline; sessions of play, training sessions, about half of sexual situations, and various specific situations where I feel I need to step in and take charge. On the other hand I tend to be passively dominant in things like the day to day routine, general activities, and about half of sexual situations. If I found I had to be actively dominant on a continuing basis with a submissive I'd find it tiring and distracting... I have too much else going on in my life to devote that much attention and energy to a submissive who presumeably is there to serve me. So as a guesstimate to overall amount of time spent being actively dominant I'd say it probably amounts to something like about 20%-25% of my time. That is to say the large majority of my time I prefer to be passively dominant with the submissive carrying out tasks and being generally useful without me having to supervise or direct things.

1wildwolf -> RE: Active vs. passive dominance (1/7/2006 1:03:28 AM)
i would have to agree with the last 2 responses, that a combination of the two is the most common circumstance.... In a relationship a Dom/me, i would guess, would expect to be pampered and catered for at times.....but in the same relationship i could not believe that the sub would be expected to take control of the situation (or s/he could be accused of topping from the bottom) i know in my situation i am expected to give my Domme the attention She wants whilst at other times being actively controlled, especially when Wwe play

MsIncognito -> RE: Active vs. passive dominance (1/7/2006 5:29:11 AM)
I'm really trying but I just can't get behind your definitions. One is about play and the other is about service. Neither resonate with me as viable definitions for either style. IMO, passive domination is an oxymoron. One cannot dominate from a position of passivity (ok, except maybe for those super-uber-domly types who make one succumb with one of their piercing, magical looks....secret decoder ring is in the mail). Setting protocols, structure, rules, etc and expecting a submissive to learn and be proactive sounds pretty darn "active" to me. IMO, domination is by default "active" - meaning that the dominant is actively involved in maintaining the dynamic in the relationship on an ongoing basis by whatever means are appropriate. That can include aspects of both the defintions you provided depending on the relationship. Likewise, submission is also by default "active" - whether it's reactive or proactive, but it's never passive. Just my $0.02.

TeeGO -> RE: Active vs. passive dominance (1/7/2006 6:03:42 AM)
Nice topic. I do believe that both styles need to be implemented for it to be a true D/s. If a D/s was purely “Active Domination” then the sub would be nothing more than robotic. Reacting only to what the Dom says, does, etc. I would think that would be boring. If it was only “Passive Domination” I would say the Dom is selfish, lazy, and just being a user. It’s often been said being a Dom is a lot of work. As a sub I can see that clearly and believe it to be true. But being a sub isn’t easy either. (My “Ma’am” always says that I have it easy and only need to follow instructions. Of course I’m fairly positive her saying that is a mind game she plays with me.) What you say in describing the Passive Dom style, “The femdom thrives on proactive submission from her partner. She is catered to, pampered, cared for. She may have protocol that is implemented that sets the framework for the relationship, but the submissive (for the most part) takes initiative to respond to her needs without being commanded, forced or coerced. “ That is what I want to be, what I desire to be, what my kinky nature compels me to be. But I do not believe it is possible for me to become that without my “Ma’am” exerting her dominance over me. Of course I am new to the lifestyle, after hiding my true feelings in the closet for over 30 years, so maybe I’m off base. But I do struggle, at times, to keep my submissive nature in it’s proper place, to be the good sub, to serve her, pamper her, make her feel special. Even though doing all that is what I desire. It’s what I live for. I truly have a hard time understanding this. But when she takes an active role in keeping me in the submissive mindset, it is so much easier for me to be the good sub. I believe we feed off of each other. The more she exerts her dominance, the more submissive I become. The more submissive I become, the more Dominant she feels and thus exerts her dominance to a greater degree. Which of course makes me become more submissive and the cycle starts all over again. That’s what it’s all about. Several months back a lot of “life stuff” happened to her and she could not give me the attention I needed. The sad facts are my submissive nature started suffering, a lot. It was frustrating to both of us. She came to the conclusion that she really didn’t have time, at that point in time, to be what she needed to be. She took the blame for my failings, telling me I wasn’t really failing at all. I of course felt bad about that and thought that I was totally at fault and that I should have been more like the sub AAkasha described in the Passive Dom style. She was frustrated as to what to do, so I made the choice easy for her and pulled out of the relationship. She was relieved. That was what she wanted to do but couldn’t do. The good news is that soon we will be moving in together and the relationship will start up again, better than ever. I can assure you that both of the above styles will be used. I truly believe that is the only way to make it work.

LadyJulieAnn -> RE: Active vs. passive dominance (1/7/2006 6:37:20 AM)
I like a mixture of the two, but am very heavy on the "active" side. I enjoy doing things to my sub and having him endure things for me. Bondage, humiliation, and pain are the things I really enjoy with my sub. The "passive" part has always been something that I feel should take place naturally. I have trouble with the "I'm a Domme, therefore you will worship and pamper me" idea, because I don't like the idea of someone doing those things for me simply because I state I am a "Domme". I believe that within the course of a loving relationship, those things should come naturally from the other person. I also think that passive domination can sometimes take on a negative connotation that it's all about the Domme and that the Domme doesn't give anything back to the sub. Because I enjoy D/s within the course of a loving relationship, it's a mutual pleasure thing for me, so I enjoy returning the pampering at times. I also realize that I am a very independent person, and it's sometimes difficult to let people do things for me, which may also play into my hesitation with "passive domination". Be well, Julie

laurax -> RE: Active vs. passive dominance (1/7/2006 7:45:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsIncognito IMO, passive domination is an oxymoron. One cannot dominate from a position of passivity (ok, except maybe for those super-uber-domly types who make one succumb with one of their piercing, magical looks....secret decoder ring is in the mail). I am not sure I agree with this. I agree that many relationships have a mixture of active and passive domination, within the described definitions. I have, however, had a wonderful relationship with a Dom who never had to raise his voice, force me, dictate protocols or such. In response, I was automatically and deeply submissive. He said that he didn't feel any need to exert any active dominance within our particular relationship, although he had within other Ds relationships. I guess it very much depends on the individuals concerned and how they interact. Certainly, for myself, I don't think I have ever felt so deeply submissive as with him.

sudja -> RE: Active vs. passive dominance (1/7/2006 8:25:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha Active domination: The femdom is the active participant in domination. She engages in acts that might include bondage, implementing pain, forced sexual situations. The femdom acts, the submissive reacts. Passive domination: The femdom thrives on proactive submission from her partner. She is catered to, pampered, cared for. She may have protocol that is implemented that sets the framework for the relationship, but the submissive (for the most part) takes initiative to respond to her needs without being commanded, forced or coerced. Granted, some relationships might be a combination of these two. Some may just say "active domination = topping, passive domination = domination/submission." Is that an easier classification? Submissives, which style do you prefer, or do you seek a mixture? I definitely seek a mixture - I need want to be free to pamper, cater, run around grabbing things for Her, etc. Few are able to "take" that, let alone want it, thrive from it. I am fortunately to have found One who can and does. At the same time there is a thrill to being told to do something, whether mundane or less so. sudja

RumpusParable -> RE: Active vs. passive dominance (1/7/2006 8:33:04 AM)
I have to agree with others that most are likely a mixture, a single method being rare. I tend to be "active" in discipline/punishment, training, and play sessions... but "passive" in the day-to-day. In those relationships where I've been dominant in a completely non-play way, purely relationship-dynamic, it's been completely "passive" in nature -I behave as comes natural to me, they behave as comes natural to them, which is I'm in charge with them aiming to please me. In those times when it's been both active and passive, the two live side by side... After letting know what expectations are so long as met things go on fairly passively and easily often, but when they are not met then an active response is put into motion to correct. I think, really, that's how all relationships are whether BDSM or vanilla; Sometimes the partners need be active in forming the interaction and seeing that their needs are met, sometimes it just flows. When on the sub side of things, I enjoy active only as I'm primarily interested in play sessions (even if active means leaving me to sleep in restraints). More lifestyle of things I'd be willing to try if the right person came along, but it's not something I could do as a major part of my life.

thetammyjo -> RE: Active vs. passive dominance (1/7/2006 8:35:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha I don't want to get into a debate about definitions again, but another thread got me thinking about domination styles. I'm talking specificaly about the femdom/male sub dynamic but it could apply elsewhere. It is a serious over generalization, but I can see a femdom relationship broken down into two categories: Active domination: The femdom is the active participant in domination. She engages in acts that might include bondage, implementing pain, forced sexual situations. The femdom acts, the submissive reacts. Passive domination: The femdom thrives on proactive submission from her partner. She is catered to, pampered, cared for. She may have protocol that is implemented that sets the framework for the relationship, but the submissive (for the most part) takes initiative to respond to her needs without being commanded, forced or coerced. Granted, some relationships might be a combination of these two. Some may just say "active domination = topping, passive domination = domination/submission." Is that an easier classification? Submissives, which style do you prefer, or do you seek a mixture? Akasha I do more passive domination then given your definitions. However, it follows a serious and formal training process that is 3-4 months minimum long during which I spend a great deal of time and energy setting up my rules and expectations, giving the trainee a taste of everything, and evaluating them (and me) on how well things might flow. I do also, when I have the time and desire, "scene" with my slave(s). But they are my slaves, not my submissives, and I consider their primary job to be taking care of me, not the other way around. Someone who has to play every night or every day or every several times a week would not be happy with me. I may do little things constantly (spanking, hair pulling, commands, etc) but I don't have the time for a steady flow of "scenes".

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Active vs. passive dominance (1/7/2006 8:42:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha Granted, some relationships might be a combination of these two. Some may just say "active domination = topping, passive domination = domination/submission." Is that an easier classification? Submissives, which style do you prefer, or do you seek a mixture? Akasha For me it is. I seek a relationship where everyone is actively invested in improving and growing together. Whether that can be done actively or passively at any one time or for any one aspect of the relationship completely depends on the situation.

MsIncognito -> RE: Active vs. passive dominance (1/7/2006 8:52:09 AM)
I'm not sure where the idea of yelling, forcing or dictating came into this (certainly not from my post) but I don't see any of those as signs of dominance. Yelling, in particular, connotes to me lack of control. Submitting to someone who lacks self control (most of the time, everyone's human) wouldn't be viable for me. Dominance requires taking a leadership role. Submission requires a role of following. How that manifests within a relationship is entirely up to the people involved. If there is nothing to follow how can one be actively involved in submitting? Leaders inspire and I don't think yelling, forcing or dictating has any part in that. I guess perhaps I'm just not prone to binary thinking where human relationships are concerned [:)] quote: ORIGINAL: laurax I have, however, had a wonderful relationship with a Dom who never had to raise his voice, force me, dictate protocols or such. In response, I was automatically and deeply submissive. He said that he didn't feel any need to exert any active dominance within our particular relationship, although he had within other Ds relationships. I guess it very much depends on the individuals concerned and how they interact. Certainly, for myself, I don't think I have ever felt so deeply submissive as with him.

Noah -> RE: Active vs. passive dominance (1/7/2006 11:57:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsIncognito (ok, except maybe for those super-uber-domly types who make one succumb with one of their piercing, magical looks....secret decoder ring is in the mail). Us TRUE doms, you mean. I appreciated your critique of the proposed definitions. For me the value of terms like those from the OP is not that they definitively name some concrete pair of mutually exclusive things but rather that they give solid traction for discussion of whatever they may be trying to point to. Or to use a different metaphor they shed light on the subject matter from a particular angle. Your response, MsIncognito, advanced the discussion and shed some light. Thanks. It seems that you seldom have go far in these discussions to sense a degree of paradoxicalness. Think of the endless discussions about whether it is genuine (or something) for a sadist to hurt a masochist. Discussions like that tend to be pointless in any direct way--like theological discussions--but sometimes they sort of throw off useful ideas and anyway they give people standing outside the discussion a handle to grab to join in. My rule of thumb is to give regular attention and energy to carefully choosing terms along the way, preferably in a broad cooperative way. At the same time I try avoid all efforts to define things themselves, since they are what they are before during and after our attempts to pin them down, so what the fuck. I just want to encounter them genuinely and although it is true that well chosen language can sometimes bring light it is also true as the song says: sometimes words get in the way. Words are tools which we can use to work on ideas, among their many other uses. MsIncognito has pointed out that even though the wrenchs the OP brought to work here can be applied for some purposes they fail for others. That's valuable. A good tool box has some sturdy basic items with very broad applications. A ruler or measuring tape; a saw; a pot of glue. A good tool box also has items which are only useful for this or that fussy or brutal sort of job (micrometers and sledgehammers.) Taking MsIncognito's critique well into account I still see worthwhile uses for the terms from the OP. I thank her for pointing out that there are other important jobs for which they just won't do the trick.

Sirandlittle1 -> RE: Active vs. passive dominance (1/7/2006 4:18:30 PM)
I liked the OP definitions, it clicks in my head. So going with that..... passive domination, where i am generally serving him, or responding in a appropriate manner whilst in the supermarket, or whilst we have vanilla guests etc. It all helps to re-inforce the dynamic of D/s we have embarked on. But if this were the only type of D/s around, i get 'tetchy' and less submissive in the way that TeeGo describes. For instance, life may be troublesome, and your 'active' dominance by pushed to the background because you just dont have the time right now. That is ok for a very brief time for me. Our agreement is 24/7, that means, 24/7. Not when i feel like it, and not when he feels like it. We once suspended D/s whilst shit rained down. It was a mistake for us. Its when times are tough, that we find most solace in our reality. Im not really that service orientated, so just sufficing with doing things right for him, doesnt cut it for too long. but each to their own.

Misstoyou -> RE: Active vs. passive dominance (1/7/2006 4:55:10 PM)
I don't see it as "vs." or even passive, actually. I see it as more of a sliding scale, and on any given day, my intereaction with my submissive along that scale depends on my mood.

KnightofMists -> RE: Active vs. passive dominance (1/7/2006 7:07:15 PM)
I do believe that the Active/Passive Activity within the relationship can be an interesting aspect to consider. I do not think it is wise to consider the Active/Passive Activity from only the Dominance, but submissive as well. Each and every interaction within two people will have one of three possible combinations. Active/Active - Active/Passive - Passive/Passive. I think it might be useful to consider a persons particular preference in the interaction they engage in... no matter if they are on the Dominant side or the Submissive side of the equation. There could also be a tendency to be enjoy or prefer more an Active role in the interaction or be more passive. There is to me no value in trying to assess that dominance or submission need be Active or passive... that the multple combinations are possible and understanding the perferences of those in the relationship might help to raise the general satisfaction of the relationship by having the particular person more active or passive if that is their peference. Thanks for the thought provoking thoughts... time to jot some notes into my book now and lots of thinking is coming on this... as well as discussions with my girls G

truesub4u -> RE: Active vs. passive dominance (1/7/2006 7:12:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Noah Us TRUE doms, you mean. Snickering....... now now... that goes to another thread. As to the OP. . I lean more towards a mixture. I love to submit to my Master. It doesn't matter as far as the sexual aspect of it who starts what. When and where it begins. We do not consider it me topping from bottom if I start the ball rolling. All I'm doing is showing him I'm in the mood for some love/fun if he is. He can always tell me to behave. He never just ignores me. But if and when he starts the ball rolling, he very well may want to start out very passionate. Before taking the firmer stance. It's all in how he feels, and want attention that night. I find nothing wrong with a Dom wanting to be pampered... or pamper his sub/slave. A happy sub/slave... means an even happier Dom.

Noah -> RE: Active vs. passive dominance (1/7/2006 7:25:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists ... I do not think it is wise to consider the Active/Passive Activity from only the Dominance, but submissive as well. Each and every interaction within two people will have one of three possible combinations. Active/Active - Active/Passive - Passive/Passive. I think it might be useful to consider a persons particular preference in the interaction they engage in... no matter if they are on the Dominant side or the Submissive side of the equation. There could also be a tendency to be enjoy or prefer more an Active role in the interaction or be more passive. There is to me no value in trying to assess that dominance or submission need be Active or passive... that the multple combinations are possible and understanding the perferences of those in the relationship might help to raise the general satisfaction of the relationship by having the particular person more active or passive if that is their peference. Thanks for a couple of nice dialectical turns, Knight. First you show it to us in a mirror, then you add something like another dimension. Both seem to me to be worth keeping in mind.

mstrcorky -> RE: Active vs. passive dominance (1/7/2006 7:25:53 PM)
I do not see this as an issue of active v. passive, but as physical v. mental/psychological. And, looking at it this way, I see the importance of a mixture between the two. I do not see them as opposites, but two factors in a larger equasion. Both have their value - their stregnths and weaknesses - as well as their limitations. Well - something to think about, anyway.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875