Can a below average person be a dominant?

[AvaAdore]

can a below average person be a dominant?

i think it's a silly question to ask. there are plenty of people with all those criteria who just do not have it in them to be a domniant. being involved in BDSM, whether as a top or a bottom, depends more on how open your mind is than on how intelligent or successful you are. in my experience, open-minded people do tend to be more on the intelligent side.

personally, i would prefer someone blunt and calous to someone who is charismatic. i never quite trusted charismatic people on first impressions, and my impressions of a lot of them did not change very much on getting to know them better. a lot of them have a very "can-do" attitude towards everything, and four out of five times it amounts to nothing.

 

[bridgeburner]

we are talking about the bottom 15 of that group. Can any of them be dominants?

Sure. Why couldn't they?

Roscoe pointed out in another thread that what defines a Dominant is the desire to dominate. Even if we want to require that not only the desire but the ability to dominate must be present, that still doesn't preclude some complete Gomer from being a successful Dom.

Not to shake anyone up too hard here on a Tuesday morning, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that some of us Litsters are average or even below average.

It depends on what your criteria for judgement are.


I can't now recall who it was but I wanted to give a hearty nod and wink to the poster who paraphrased the Lake Woebegon motto.


-B

 

[A Desert Rose]

There are no below average people anymore. It's not allowed. Everyone MUST be above average.

I stopped reading this thread at this post.

You are an educated woman in the education field. You know this is not true. LOL

Everyone MUST be dummied DOWN. It's the new rule.

 

[Mr Blonde]

The assumption that everyone must somehow "match up" is flawed. Before yielding, the submissive weighs out factors such as their personal safety and estimated satisfaction they will receive from the arrangement. People who can't muster a certain degree of trust while being sufficiently attractive will simply not receive offers. And to consider yourself a dominant, you have to have had someone -- another human being, face to face -- yield to you at some point. BDSM is not a solo activity.

And that's my point. Do below average people ever receive the necessary offers to become practicing dominants?

 

[morninggirl5]

I stopped reading this thread at this post.

You are an educated woman in the education field. You know this is not true. LOL

Everyone MUST be dummied DOWN. It's the new rule.

NO, no, no, the new rule is everyone must be above average.

Everyone is gifted and if you try to say they aren't, you aren't looking hard enough.

Trust me, WWIII, IV, and V is coming at my school this year because we have a new Principal and Asst Princ who believe that no student should receive a N (Needs Improvement) or a D or F. According to them, ALL our students should be on the honor roll.


The pendulum has gone the other way.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

... we have a new Principal and Asst Princ who believe that no student should receive a N (Needs Improvement) or a D or F. According to them, ALL our students should be on the honor roll.


The pendulum has gone the other way.

And the rest of the
world wonders why ...

 

[Phoenix Stone]

Only if they're topping from the bottom ...

Oh, Sure! Blame My people.



For heaven's sakes, if a below average person can become President, surely one can become a Dom. They could do it the old-fashioned way: money.

 

[incubus'_sub]

There is a big difference between a Dom and a bully, it's just that those below average don't seem to know it.

 

[shy slave]

There is a big difference between a Dom and a bully, it's just that those below average don't seem to know it.

I agree with that IS. The thing is if a below average PYL was with a below average pyl would the pyl realise it; and if not does it matter? They say there is someone for everyone

 

[A Desert Rose]

NO, no, no, the new rule is everyone must be above average.

Everyone is gifted and if you try to say they aren't, you aren't looking hard enough.

Trust me, WWIII, IV, and V is coming at my school this year because we have a new Principal and Asst Princ who believe that no student should receive a N (Needs Improvement) or a D or F. According to them, ALL our students should be on the honor roll.


The pendulum has gone the other way.

So, they lower the bar to make everyone "equal" at the expense of those who are truly above average? And who pays? They dummy it down for those who are gifted or those who work harder. We are saying the same thing... just in different ways.

 

[bridgeburner]

Before yielding, the submissive weighs out factors such as their personal safety and estimated satisfaction

A smart sub. A stupid, weak or inexperienced sub might not do any wieghing of any factors at all besides "This personwill have me."

People who can't muster a certain degree of trust while being sufficiently attractive will simply not receive offers.

There are millions of men in this country, uneducated, unwashed, unlovely and unappealing to most but who manage to rule their roosts just fine and most of them don't rule by physical terror.

Everybody can get the better of somebody. You never specified that the person had to be a Scene-acceptable dom.

-B

 

[shy slave]

A smart sub. A stupid, weak or inexperienced sub might not do any wieghing of any factors at all besides "This personwill have me."




There are millions of men in this country, uneducated, unwashed, unlovely and unappealing to most but who manage to rule their roosts just fine and most of them don't rule by physical terror.

Everybody can get the better of somebody. You never specified that the person had to be a Scene-acceptable dom.

-B

I understand this BB and I agree but as a footnote it may be viewed as 'abuse' as there may be issues of consent.

For example if someone who has has little formal education and little experience of the world outside their own town, they may be with that person because they have real love feelings for them or because they do not realise there is an alternative.
If it is the latter is it still consent, simply because there was a lack of options available?

On the other hand just because no-one has labelled it D/s does not automatically make it abuse.

Everybody can get the better of somebody

This is the premise of bullies and has been referred to as the 'Napolean complex' (I think)

However IMHO its only wrong/non-consent if the other person does not wish to be under that kind of rule or does not realise there are other options available.

Hope this was not too off-topic, don't want to go down the avenue of consent issues as its been debated before on Lit (several times I think).

More on topic
There are millions of men in this country, uneducated, unwashed, unlovely and unappealing to most but who manage to rule their roosts just fine and most of them don't rule by physical terror.

We can't help who we want to be with. The film industry make millions based on this premise: forbidden love or love triangles.

I have fallen for a policeman in UK but if i were single and visited US I may fall for a someone who quoted scripture all day or went huntin' & shootin.'

In the past I have dated a milkman, a rich entreprenuer, a man with no qualifications and a solicitor. They all had appealing aspects to them and none of them were terrible people. They did not rule with physical terror (some of them I ruled ), and I guess to some people they were all of the above quote from BB.

Anyone one of us could fall for someone who is not a PYL in the 'nilla world but is most definately in control in the world of BDSM.
I guess its only a problem if your looking for 24/7, judging from Shadowsdream and Netzachs' posts you would need an equal in so many respects for it to work successfully.

Course I am willing to be told I am wrong

 

[Esclava]

... as appetizing as warmed-over snot to others.


-B

Oh my...perfectly describes how I feel most of the time when out in mixers or munches.

I may not be everyone's "Cup of Chocolate", but if I came across someone like me, I wouldn't kick them out...

Esclava

 

[SwtSouthrnSub]

.

 

[bridgeburner]

Shy Slave,

I understand this BB and I agree but as a footnote it may be viewed as 'abuse' as there may be issues of consent.

Ah, but it wasn't specified that the person be a good or self-aware dominant or subscribe to SSC. There are some really shitty Doms out there. I know it's rather impolitic to say so ---- if they're shitty Doms they're not REAL Doms etc. ---- but the power to dominate and the will to use that power are not inextricably linked to intelligence, looks, money or social standing.

I mean, there's the fantasy ideal and then there's reality and I have SEEN MOBILE HOME BDSM.

It was pretty hot, too.



-B

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I would say (and this might be terribly inpopular, I know) that below average people are likely to exist and equality isn't really a terribly meaningful term.

As such, I should think that a good Dom would be a superior person.

 

[shy slave]

Shy Slave,





but the power to dominate and the will to use that power are not inextricably linked to intelligence, looks, money or social standing.


-B

I love the bit about intelligence best, simply because all over the world there is proof power and intelligence are NOT linked -------. Pick a country any country, then pick a politician lolol Thanks BB

 

[shy slave]

I would say (and this might be terribly inpopular, I know) that below average people are likely to exist and equality isn't really a terribly meaningful term.

As such, I should think that a good Dom would be a superior person.

Its not an unpopular view with me, equality is a very subjective term (there are probably entire websites and assoc boards devoted to it ), of course below average people exist, it would probably be more difficult to find an average person. It used to be said, that in the UK, the average family had 2.5 children. Well I am not a mathamatician but .5 of a child ???