Dom/me wannabe's and their lack of insight

[DVS]

No, no. See, I love the irony of being in Missouri while you're looking for me in Oregon. So I'm not leaving till you get here. My mama didn't raise no fool.

And I don't think I'll be letting anyone know I'm in Missouri when I go.

OK...let's see now...from Oregon by car, you'll be coming in on I-70 or if on plane, it won't take much to check flights just in from Oregon.. We'll be waiting.

 

[FurryFury]

Pandora vampire:
" Im talking about various people i have met on line, or whilst out, who'm claim to be a Dom/me yet behave like your evolutionary unequal."

Being a dom does not make you loyal, brave, generous, noble, honest, intelligent, respectful, or 'good'.

Being a sub does not make you kind, caring, nurturing, gentle, sweet, sensitive, or appreciative of others.

Cro-Magnon dom may still be a dom. Horny 13-year-old geek dom may still be a dom. A dominant sexuality is just one of thousands of personality traits.

Too true. I never thought about it like that. I guess they just are my idea of a Dom I'd want to deal with or put my trust and respect in. *L*

Fury

 

[bridgeburner]

There are far too many people to quote at this point so please forgive me if I fail to mention others who fall into this categorey which I'm sure I will because right now I can only recall Rosco and Never.

I'm on board with the idea that what makes a Dominant is the desire to be so. Not the ability or the skill nor the willingness of others to submit to your wishes. Same thing for submissives.

While I understand what a lot of people are saying about someone being a "good Dom" versus a "bad Dom" or a "wannabe" I'm not sure that those terms are truly useful for me because there doesn't seem to be the same stringency for submissives.

Nobody ever (well hardly ever) says to a submissive "You're just a wannabe submissive." We talk about undisciplined and inexperienced and bratty and sammy and unhealthy and crazy and whatever else kinds but we never deny them their self-identification as submissives.

So what this says to me is that we have higher standards of behavior for Dominants because of what we feel they should represent.

But that's not what really defines a Dominant. I know plenty of people who are charismatic and wise and respectful and forceful and loyal and brave and nurturing and full of integrity and blah blah blah but that doesn't make them Dominants.

If someone gets a sexual charge out of telling other people what to do that person is a Dominant.

Now if he's socially inept or a beta personality he may just be shit out of luck, but somewhere he might catch a break and find some sub who thinks he's the bees knees. (Just curious, why do people accept that there are Alpha subs but not entertain the notion of Omega Doms?) The fact that you're a knuckle-dragging cretin doesn't affect your sexual preference one way or the other.

True Dominants can be total losers. They can be dog-faced, moronic, fuck-wads with the personalities of brine shrimp. Hell, they can be Adonis-like, moronic, fuck-wads with the personalities of brine shrimp. They can be totally inept and dangerous and everyone should be warned away from them. They should get no one's stamp of approval, but to deny that they are Dominants.....feh, that's just a sop to our egos.

-B

 

[Kajira Callista]

I BB

 

[bridgeburner]

Or I suppose I could have just said "Hear! Hear!" and quoted Never but I was feeling chatty. ;->


-B

 

[bridgeburner]

I BB

You're aces in my book too, honey!


Except that I think you were talking about Blush.

dang!

 

[SweetDommes]

No, no. See, I love the irony of being in Missouri while you're looking for me in Oregon. So I'm not leaving till you get here. My mama didn't raise no fool.

And I don't think I'll be letting anyone know I'm in Missouri when I go.

Doesn't announcing it on here defeat the purpose of not telling anyone when you go? LOL

 

[Kajira Callista]

You're aces in my book too, honey!


Except that I think you were talking about Blush.

dang!

you, silly

 

[FurryFury]

<snip>
I'm on board with the idea that what makes a Dominant is the desire to be so. Not the ability or the skill nor the willingness of others to submit to your wishes. Same thing for submissives.

While I understand what a lot of people are saying about someone being a "good Dom" versus a "bad Dom" or a "wannabe" I'm not sure that those terms are truly useful for me because there doesn't seem to be the same stringency for submissives.

Nobody ever (well hardly ever) says to a submissive "You're just a wannabe submissive." We talk about undisciplined and inexperienced and bratty and sammy and unhealthy and crazy and whatever else kinds but we never deny them their self-identification as submissives.

So what this says to me is that we have higher standards of behavior for Dominants because of what we feel they should represent.

But that's not what really defines a Dominant. I know plenty of people who are charismatic and wise and respectful and forceful and loyal and brave and nurturing and full of integrity and blah blah blah but that doesn't make them Dominants.

If someone gets a sexual charge out of telling other people what to do that person is a Dominant.

Now if he's socially inept or a beta personality he may just be shit out of luck, but somewhere he might catch a break and find some sub who thinks he's the bees knees. (Just curious, why do people accept that there are Alpha subs but not entertain the notion of Omega Doms?) The fact that you're a knuckle-dragging cretin doesn't affect your sexual preference one way or the other.

True Dominants can be total losers. They can be dog-faced, moronic, fuck-wads with the personalities of brine shrimp. Hell, they can be Adonis-like, moronic, fuck-wads with the personalities of brine shrimp. They can be totally inept and dangerous and everyone should be warned away from them. They should get no one's stamp of approval, but to deny that they are Dominants.....feh, that's just a sop to our egos.

-B

That's probably true. To me the reason why this comes up so often is that the Dom types that we seek have to be the sort that we can trust and respect not to mention take care of us in a scene.

So when we say, he's a asshat, wannabe or whatever, we mean that to our individual way of thinking, and sometimes collective one too, this person who says s/he is a Dom isn't the sort we feel that could ever happen with.

Fury

 

[bridgeburner]

That's probably true. To me the reason why this comes up so often is that the Dom types that we seek have to be the sort that we can trust and respect not to mention take care of us in a scene.

So when we say, he's a asshat, wannabe or whatever, we mean that to our individual way of thinking, and sometimes collective one too, this person who says s/he is a Dom isn't the sort we feel that could ever happen with.

Fury

Oh, absolutely, but with few exceptions this is all subjective. Your perfect Dom might be somebody else's wannabe and vice versa.

The perfect Dom is the one who's right for you. In the end the submissive is the only one who gets to decide who the perfect Dom is just as the Dom is the only one who gets to decide who the perfect sub is.

-B

 

[Never]

Furry Fury:
" Too true. I never thought about it like that. I guess they just are my idea of a Dom I'd want to deal with or put my trust and respect in. *L*"

I'm the same way.

And I'm certainly not suggesting people compromise themselves.

It's just that people are imperfect, flawed humans first and subs/painsluts/bottoms or doms/crop-wielding sexual monsters/tops second. Personality ideals are like physical ideals. It would be nice of all submissive women were slim, nubile sluts that became wet at the drop of a hat but it's not happening.

bridgeburner:
" True Dominants can be total losers. They can be dog-faced, moronic, fuck-wads with the personalities of brine shrimp."

Note to the subs: If the above description gets you going, feel free to PM me!

 

[Richard49]

True Dominants can be total losers. They can be dog-faced, moronic, fuck-wads with the personalities of brine shrimp. Hell, they can be Adonis-like, moronic, fuck-wads with the personalities of brine shrimp. They can be totally inept and dangerous and everyone should be warned away from them. They should get no one's stamp of approval, but to deny that they are Dominants.....feh, that's just a sop to our egos.

-B

I so disagree with most of what you posted
I will post from this message

A "true dom" has first dominated themselves
perhaps not perfectly
but they are well on thier journey

now a top
that may be a different story


an abuser is again a far different story
and a Dom who abuses is no dom

going back to the old school
one was not a Dom till there were recognized as such

 

[FurryFury]

I so disagree with most of what you posted
I will post from this message

A "true dom" has first dominated themselves
perhaps not perfectly
but they are well on thier journey

now a top
that may be a different story


an abuser is again a far different story
and a Dom who abuses is no dom

going back to the old school
one was not a Dom till there were recognized as such

I so like that ideal better!

Fury

 

[Richard49]

I so like that ideal better!

Fury

If we have anything different






is because we have allowed it

 

[bridgeburner]

I so disagree with most of what you posted
I will post from this message

A "true dom" has first dominated themselves
perhaps not perfectly
but they are well on thier journey

now a top
that may be a different story


an abuser is again a far different story
and a Dom who abuses is no dom

going back to the old school
one was not a Dom till there were recognized as such

I can agree with the sentiment behind that but it is an idealized version of what we'd like BDSM to be or on a larger scale what we'd like humanity to be.

One might just as easily say that real men don't rape women or that true parents don't abuse their children, but the truth is that real men DO rape women and real parents DO abuse their children.

What such a claim really means is that men who deserve my respect don't rape women (unless by pre-agreement) and parents who are worthy of being called so in my eyes don't abuse their children.

So when you say "true" Dominant you can really only define that as it applies to your value system or to that of a select group of people who are in agreement about what the qualities of a "true" Dominant will be. But outside that group, the rules and the qualifications are different.


-B

 

[bridgeburner]

If we have anything different






is because we have allowed it

There are both advantages and disavantages to being mainstreamed. Yes, there's less persecution, but as you've pointed out, you lose control of how you are defined and how your community is run because it grows beyond itself in leaps and bounds as outsiders begin to dabble.

-B

 

[graceanne]

Doesn't announcing it on here defeat the purpose of not telling anyone when you go? LOL

Well, first off - I have to wait for DVS to come here. Then with all the hundreds of flights in . . . cause I don't have to go one way. I can go via minneapolis or chicago or austin (you get the idea ) I could also go to Kansas City and have my uncle pick me up.

Beyond that, what's the fun of going to Missouri while DVS is here in Oregon looking for me if he doesn't know where I am? Missouri is a big state and I have family in three different cities. muhahaha

 

[Richard49]

So when you say "true" Dominant you can really only define that as it applies to your value system or to that of a select group of people who are in agreement about what the qualities of a "true" Dominant will be. But outside that group, the rules and the qualifications are different.


-B

another one that does not get it
shaking head

What we have as a community today
is NOT the a D/s BDSM community
by defintion

what we have
more or less
is tops/bottoms/preverts etc
that "we" have allowed to become the
prototype
because we refuse first and formost
to honor the shared language
and to beat up old timers like me that are sick and tired
of watching people hurt cause they thought they were with one kind of person
to find they are with another

and as I said that you quoted
why are we here
cause we have allowed it

I have to wonder
if all the Doms on here
just the ones here on Lit
went through a year of training
by being a submissive to a Dom(me) would they last the year?

 

[FurryFury]

LOL!

Good question.

Frankly I like the idea of Doms training to become Doms and essentially having to be a sub at first. Is that what you are talking about? I'm all for training.

Fury

 

[Richard49]

LOL!

Good question.

Frankly I like the idea of Doms training to become Doms and essentially having to be a sub at first. Is that what you are talking about? I'm all for training.

Fury

ff
I have posts many times that I spent a year as a submissive
under a couple that were Dom and Domme
when the year was over
1) I knew for sure I was a Dom and not just a top
2) what applinace felt like applied to the human body
3) what respect/committment and collars met

maybe more stuff
but that is what comes to mind

 

[FurryFury]

ff
I have posts many times that I spent a year as a submissive
under a couple that were Dom and Domme
when the year was over
1) I knew for sure I was a Dom and not just a top
2) what applinace felt like applied to the human body
3) what respect/committment and collars met

maybe more stuff
but that is what comes to mind

Now see in my SRP that is what I had in mind for the couple to do, whilst being trained under a Dom and Domme. They wouldn't go into it saying we are subs or anything just, train me and we will find out on the journey.

I LOVE that.

Fury

 

[Richard49]

Now see in my SRP that is what I had in mind for the couple to do, whilst being trained under a Dom and Domme. They wouldn't go into it saying we are subs or anything just, train me and we will find out on the journey.

I LOVE that.

Fury

I'm sorry ff I do not understand your post

 

[FurryFury]

I'm sorry ff I do not understand your post

I'm just saying that's how I think it should be done in the best of all possible worlds. You say, hey I'm into this stuff. Who can I train with. You are fresh and new. You don't classify what you are yet. You actually train in a formal manner and then decide.

I tried to set up a Sexual Role Play on this board with a married couple like that. I thought it would be great fun for them to explore and then decide. What if he's not a Dom. What if she is or what if they both aren't.

*shrugs*

I have a fever tonight. Just ignore me. Ouch. Head hurts. I'll be quiet now.

Fury

 

[Richard49]

I'm just saying that's how I think it should be done in the best of all possible worlds. You say, hey I'm into this stuff. Who can I train with. You are fresh and new. You don't classify what you are yet. You actually train in a formal manner and then decide.

I tried to set up a Sexual Role Play on this board with a married couple like that. I thought it would be great fun for them to explore and then decide. What if he's not a Dom. What if she is or what if they both aren't.

*shrugs*

I have a fever tonight. Just ignore me. Ouch. Head hurts. I'll be quiet now.

Fury

I am not feeling well
and my heart and mind are with lady_kat in what might be her last few days
but I will post ... proably on my thread more of how it worked and still does in soem circles but it can NOT work in cyber space

 

[bridgeburner]

another one that does not get it
shaking head

What we have as a community today
is NOT the a D/s BDSM community
by defintion

what we have
more or less
is tops/bottoms/preverts etc
that "we" have allowed to become the
prototype
because we refuse first and formost
to honor the shared language
and to beat up old timers like me that are sick and tired
of watching people hurt cause they thought they were with one kind of person
to find they are with another

and as I said that you quoted
why are we here
cause we have allowed it

I have to wonder
if all the Doms on here
just the ones here on Lit
went through a year of training
by being a submissive to a Dom(me) would they last the year?

Richard,

Is there some reason you feel it necessary to be condescending? I'm happy to entertain an opposing point of view since that's the point of debate but if you want to play weary martyr on the mountain then we won't won't get very far.

Moving on:

No matter how skilled one might be with the tools of the trade and even if one were to serve first for a year as a submissive one might still be socially inept. There are all kinds of "bad" Doms. Some of them are total nutbags who ought to be locked up and some of them are just people who should only be paired up with certain submissives.

Not every "good" Dom is right for every "good" sub. Surely you could agree with that? You wouldn't insist as a Good Dom yourself that you would be the correct master for any sumissive you met, right? Certainly there are perfectly good submissives that would find you intolerable that you would in turn find abhorrent not because of any failing of your Domliness or their submission but because as human beings your personalities are simply incompatible.

Limits and preferences aside, personalities are important. A Dom might be skilled and responsible and experienced and "good" but if the submissive of his dreams thinks he's an ass, then he's an ass.

-B