Dom vs. dominant, is there a difference?

[neonflux]

Neonflux,

I'll try and answer your question the best I can. I think the thing I was alluding to here more was personal nature that accompanies being a Dom or Domme. It is interesting that it is often spoke of "earning" trust and respect, yet how does that actually happen? I am more of the mind that a relationship is a relationship is a relationship is a relationship. In all relationships trust and respect is given and earned as there is give and take and exchange between two people over time. Therefore I think compatibility is a key aspect.

I think there is room in one's thinking to be self-aware of their own Dom-ness or Domme-ness that stems from the confidence of who they are. However I do believe that being a Dom or Domme is something that happens inside of a relationship. I say this because I think the position or recognition is not something that is "self-acclaimed" as much as it is given by another and is an essential aspect of the power exchange between a D/s couple. As others have said here, anyone can say they are a Dom or a Domme but that does not make it so.

For a long time I believed that if a person was mature enough or had manners or character, this is what made them a Domme/Dom, but I have come to realize that this is not true. What they really are, are dominants who are mature and who have manners and have character. Some would say, those that have such qualities make for good Doms and Dommes because those are the qualities they are looking for in a person they would be willing to have a relationship with in which they would be able to submit to that person.

What makes being a Dom or Domme "unique" or special is because it is only obtained when another looks at them in that special or unique way. I am not talking about some fairytale type of thing here. I am talking about the honest feelings of devotion and respect that is given from a submissive to a dominant. It is why consent is an intregral part of a D/s relationship, and also why it is an intregral part of the power exchange that takes place. Without it ... well you get the idea.

I do understand what you are saying. Would you say that developing respect you are speaking of can take place in both a purely play relationship as well as a romantic one? (I would say yes.) Then there is a second question - what do you think of those folks who are referred to as Master Dom/mes within a BDSM community. Is this a legitimately claimed title, why or why not? I am a social creature and joiner and I can see this being legitimate as one develops a relationship with one's community.

And so as not to completely hi-jack this thread, how does this all relate back to the original question of whether or not there is a difference between a dominant personality and being a Dom/me? I would assume because the one is a personality trait that may or may not be reflected in one's individual relationships / sexual & romantic life... Which also goes to the heart of your most recent dialogue, Shaq and JMohegan. I would not classify any of those men as Doms per se, just as I wouldn't classify Elizabeth I or Katherine the Great, or Virginia Wolf as Dommes, although they certainly had very dominant and charismatic personalities...

~ Neon

 

[JMohegan]

What makes being a Dom or Domme "unique" or special is because it is only obtained when another looks at them in that special or unique way. I am not talking about some fairytale type of thing here. I am talking about the honest feelings of devotion and respect that is given from a submissive to a dominant. It is why consent is an intregral part of a D/s relationship, and also why it is an intregral part of the power exchange that takes place. Without it ... well you get the idea.

Not really disagreeing with anything you wrote, RJ. But just for the sake of a well-rounded discussion, I'll point out that devotion and respect are extremely subjective concepts.

I know a woman for whom the concepts of respect and trust are very unsexy. She gets off on being used by guys she barely knows.

Her one long-standing relationship is with a guy she refers to simply as "The Fucker". He calls her at random intervals and totally unpredictable times, and she goes to him to be used for his pleasure. Mostly SM, but occasionally sex as well. Sometimes he amuses himself by offering her to other men or women. When he or they are done, he sends her home.

This is high-risk behavior, to be sure. And it's not the type of D/s typically discussed on this board. But he controls her sexual behavior in the context of a consensual relationship, and per my definition - that's D/s.

Devotion? Yes. Respect? Perhaps, but of a very different type than is usually spoken of here.

 

[JMohegan]

Which also goes to the heart of your most recent dialogue, Shaq and JMohegan. I would not classify any of those men as Doms per se, just as I wouldn't classify Elizabeth I or Katherine the Great, or Virginia Wolf as Dommes, although they certainly had very dominant and charismatic personalities...

More great examples of dominant personalities.

Were Shaq's men, and your women, Dom/mes? I do not know anything about their personal relationships, so I have no idea.

 

[neonflux]

More great examples of dominant personalities.

Were Shaq's men, and your women, Dom/mes? I do not know anything about their personal relationships, so I have no idea.

I cannot imagine Malcom X, who is one of my historical heroes, as being kinky - certainly not after his conversion. Don't know about Napoleon beyond the fact that he was devoted to Josephine.

Also don't know about Elizabeth I (although did you see the recent HBO special with Helen :sigh: Mirren?). Also don't know about Virginia Wolf & Alice B., but judging from what I've read about Catherine the Great's love life (sorry for the misspelling earlier), she absolutely must have been a Domme

(Regarding Hitler, for some reason I cannot imagine anyone but Eva being the Dominant one in that relationship - I know, it's not really something to contemplate, is it?)

Neon

 

[RJMasters]

I do understand what you are saying. Would you say that developing respect you are speaking of can take place in both a purely play relationship as well as a romantic one? (I would say yes.) Then there is a second question - what do you think of those folks who are referred to as Master Dom/mes within a BDSM community. Is this a legitimately claimed title, why or why not? I am a social creature and joiner and I can see this being legitimate as one develops a relationship with one's community.

Yes it can happen at the freindship level just as a perso0n can develop a reputation of being a Dom or Domme. However, I doubt the same level of usage can be applied compared to that of the intamacy that two would share.

Not withstanding that there are many different types of relationhips, and as I said I am not about to enter into a conversation about true this or true that. If a woman goes to a guy to be beaten and fucked and she wants to call them or refer to them as a Dom...I wish them well in whatever pursuit of happiness they wish to pursue.

I think when you pull back from the relationship aspect in the usage of the term Dom or Domme and look at it from a community sense, I think there is a different conotation which is applied to the meaning. I think all communities has certain unspoken and recognized definitions and traditionally the term Dom and Domme was a title of respect and carried with it status within the BDSM community at a peer to peer level. In some circles it still does, in others used loosely like slang.

Depending on the context of speaking about relationship or community/friendship I think it is still hinged upon respect which is given or recognized by others more than it is "self-acclaimed".

IMO and that's all it really is, I think there are many who see themselves as a Domme or a Dom when they are really Tops. I also see many submissives who are really bottoms. That is in no way a slam, to me its just a better term which describes what they do and how they do it that fits my way of thinking.

How does this relate back to the original topic? Well I think it relates back to my second point in that all that really matters is what a person thinks when they view another. If that person's behavior aligns and is compatible with what the person doing the looking. chances are they will give or see that person as having trustworthy Dom/Domme like qualities. In a relationship these qualities lead to a personalization of using the term Dom or Domme to reflect the intimate nature of the relationship. If in a community enough see and recognize these qualities in a person, they might point and say that person is a Dom/Domme, which I interpret as slang to mean a Dominant person with Dom/Domme qualities that are noteworthy and respectable.

If asked directly, yes I can and do make that distintion but in normal conversation I don't sweat it.

 

[JMohegan]

Then there is a second question - what do you think of those folks who are referred to as Master Dom/mes within a BDSM community. Is this a legitimately claimed title, why or why not? I am a social creature and joiner and I can see this being legitimate as one develops a relationship with one's community.

I am a very social guy as well. Not so much a "joiner" as someone who enjoys the company of friends and peers.

I agree with RJ that there are some BDSM communities in which the terms Dom and Domme are regarded as titles of respect and status at a peer to peer level. While I might visit these groups as a guest from time to time, I would never officially belong to one or participate in the title-granting process, either formally or informally, for two reasons.

1 - There is no formal accreditation process or informal set of standards, applied by any group of people, that would guarantee application of the title and status solely to those whom I, personally, consider worthy of respect.

In other words, no matter how strict the process or standards purport to be, there will still be someone granted the title of Dom whom I personally consider to be a horse's ass.

2 - There is no comparable title or status for any other group of people in the room. For example, no one ever talks about an accreditation process or set of standards to be applied before someone can be awarded the title "bottom". And yet, bottoms may possess character traits that are at least as strong as those possessed by any Dom in the room.

Once you start looking at Dom or Domme as titles of respect, the inevitable result is a caste system that I personally consider to be artificial and unnecessary.


If I want to convey respect for another human being, I would never use a title to do so. Instead, I would say things like:

He has great skill with a flogger.

or

He is an honest and straight-forward guy.

But if I want to convey a very high level of respect for another person, I would say:

He is my friend.

And to convey the ultimate level of respect, applied on the most selective basis to the most elite group in my personal world, I would say:

She is my partner.

 

[JMohegan]

IMO and that's all it really is, I think there are many who see themselves as a Domme or a Dom when they are really Tops. I also see many submissives who are really bottoms. That is in no way a slam, to me its just a better term which describes what they do and how they do it that fits my way of thinking.

RJ, what definitions of "Dom" and "Top" do you employ when using those nouns? In your opinion, what is the difference between the two?

 

[RJMasters]

RJ, what definitions of "Dom" and "Top" do you employ when using those nouns? In your opinion, what is the difference between the two?

As I said before in my earlier posts, I don't want to get into a discussion that is that defining. For two reasons, 1) I have no desire to write an exhaustive piece and 2) Defining discussions turn into circular arguments or people arguing over semantics. In the end it isn't very profitable for anyone.


However I do believe that I answered your questions in the posts I have already made to the thread as to the difference between the two.

 

[JMohegan]

As I said before in my earlier posts, I don't want to get into a discussion that is that defining. For two reasons, 1) I have no desire to write an exhaustive piece and 2) Defining discussions turn into circular arguments or people arguing over semantics. In the end it isn't very profitable for anyone.


However I do believe that I answered your questions in the posts I have already made to the thread as to the difference between the two.

My understanding was that you've been discussing the difference between a dominant personality and a Dom in this thread. The only time I've seen you mention Tops is in the sentence I asked you to clarify, from post 105.

If you're reluctant to provide definitions because you anticipate that someone would jump on you and pick a fight over it, I suppose that's fair enough.

But I gotta tell ya, I do not understand needing an "exhaustive piece" to define words that you use everyday.

To me, there is an enormous difference between describing the type of Dominant that I am, or strive to be, and defining the word "Dominant" itself. Just as there is a difference between describing the type of Top whom I would consider a friend, and defining the word "Top". The former take pages or volumes. The latter would be relatively succinct.

Your methods may, and clearly do, vary.