What is a fake Dominant?

[Extreme Bohunk]

I would offer that someone who chooses to call themself a Dom (or Domme) and doesn't really understand there's a lot more to a D/s relationship beyond the obvious, is dangerous.

It seems to many people (usually guys) see some things online, and get the idea that the lifestyle appeals to them and pursue it without realizing the responsibilties that go with it.

I've personally seen some of the emotional & mental damage done by these wannabes and/or entry level gamers. Most of them have image and control issues of their own and sublimate those shortcomings into the relationship.

They don't understand the depth of intimacy that can be built, or how much hurt they can cause a sub. There's a razor thin line between quality time and abuse.

 

[Pure]

an analogy--

i don't think the problem is any different from that in other categories--and the issues are complicated.

consider--What's a teacher? What is a 'fake' teacher?

The dictionary of course says, a teacher is one who teaches, and thus:

TEACH: 2 a : to cause to know a subject <all children are taught the three R's> <taught his sons a trade> b : to cause to know how to do something : show how <my father is teaching me to drive> c : to accustom to some action or attitude <should teach students to think for themselves> <have been taught respect for the self-made man> d : to make (one) know the disagreeable consequences of some action <I'll teach you to come home late>

3 : to direct as an instructor : guide the studies of : conduct through a course of studies : give instruction to <the most active mind that I have ever taught>

4 a : to impart the knowledge of <teach algebra> b : to present in a classroom lecture or discussion <have taught Hamlet many times> c : to instruct in the rules, principles, or practice of <teach music> <teach dancing>
----

So I like furry's line
//a fake dom is one who pretends he has experiences he does not have.//

a 'fake teacher' might be an imposter with little education and no ability to instruct. a fake teacher is likely ineffective, as the students learn.

But there are a whole lot of other issues: What is the ideal teacher like? Is there an 'immoral teacher' or a 'dangerous teacher'. How about a sloppy teacher, or prejudiced one, or a bumbling one?

One poster said a 'fake dom' ignores safewords. That may be getting into the territory of 'dangerous'. But that person is still a dom (like a teacher who ignores bullying).

One can characterize the teacher as having empathy, and 'personal power,' self knowledge, etc. That is the ideal teacher. This ideal or idealized 'dom/me' is worth thinking about, but those words don't *define* the dom/me anymore than 'warmth' defines a teacher.

How about an immoral teacher? A college prof who seduces the females with implicit promise of academic rewards, grades, publications, etc? Still a teacher, I'd say. Not a 'fake.' **

This gets to what fury called the "worthwhile" issue. Whom you'd want in your life. Who is an asshole. There are some teachers I'd NOT want in my life--narcissistic, overbearing, etc. But, as fury implies, they still teach; the 'asshole' dom/me is perhaps still dominating, and is not 'fake' because of being an asshole.

For any category, there is a blurring of the usual and the ideal type; the hammer and the ultimate hammer; the dog and the best of all dogs. Maybe Socrates was that teacher; or Maria Montessori or the fellow in the "Stand and Deliver" movie.

Maybe these are the 'true' teachers. But it's a mistake to label all the others 'false' or 'fakes.'

That's my two cents.

--
**Why did I pick the college teacher? Because the person who's seducing primary students, preying on them, is arguably lacking in something that is at the core of 'teaching' ; i'd agree in some cases we'd want to say 'that's a predator, not a teacher.'

 

[AngelicAssassin]

A fake dominant does not give the submissive what the submissive wants (and vice versa).

i can't believe Pure and Marquis gave you a bye on this. Considering the number of posts concerning orgasm denial, quandries over humiliation, etc. you've got a rather narrow-minded view of the dynamic.

 

[Emma_Ray_Garrett]

Maybe these are the 'true' teachers. But it's a mistake to label all the others 'false' or 'fakes.'

That's my two cents.

Then I suppose we should look at the word true and it's etymological base:

**Word History: The words true and tree are joined at the root, etymologically speaking. In Old English, the words looked and sounded much more alike than they do now: “tree” was trow and “true” was trowe. The first of these comes from the Germanic noun *trewam; the second, from the adjective *treuwaz. Both these Germanic words ultimately go back to an Indo-European root *deru- or *dreu-, appearing in derivatives referring to wood and, by extension, firmness. Truth may be thought of as something firm; so too can certain bonds between people, like trust, another derivative of the same root. A slightly different form of the root, *dru-, appears in the word druid, a type of ancient Celtic priest; his name is etymologically *dru-wid-, or “strong seer.”**

As we see from my above reference, the word true was initially used to suggest strength(of wood) and stability.

So instead of looking at the word 'true' as a synonym for 'real', perhaps we should take it as meaning fundemental or essential, and righful or legitimate. Legitimate Dom/mes don't have to question their truth-- read stability, strength-- they are essentially dominant.

Those who are fundementally dominant, who understand the tree from which they spring, are true. Those who look only to control or oppress, to force themselves on those who are weaker, with or without consent, perhaps these are false. Not that they may not be dominant, but in the purview of this setting, i.e. D/s, the 'fakes' don't accept that it's more than having someone willing to bend to you or live under your thumb. It's about trust, compliance, and fulfillment, among other things.

But of course this is all esoteric and philosophical. The reality is that each of us has his own opinion of what makes someone a 'real' dominant and what doesn't. And as many different interpretations as there are for true and real and false, are there opinions on this matter.

 

[waynerobertson]

Regarding teachers (for pure and others)

I think the fake dominants are like substitute teachers; they try to follow the lesson plans but if they don't it's no big deal for them. They still get paid or in this case receive their own satisfaction not caring whether or not they did a good job for the sub or students. They know full well they may not see them again and thus have no stake in the person.

The true teacher (real Dominants) cares deeply about his students since he sees them every day (or on a regular basis) and gets to know their backgrounds, living conditions and many times their emotional state. They have a vested interest unlike the substitute teacher ( fake dominant) and even after they leave his care he still has affected them positively and encouraged them to pusue their goals and interests in life.


Finally, the true Dominant instills in their subbies the joy of submission and the emotional and physical fulfillment that submission can bring them.

 

[FurryFury]

REAL Doms/Teacher's don't use books, they teach by DOING, and SHOWING, like binding you and then hey, yeah, wanna use that nice big thick book NOW maybe? LMAO!

(Silly mood!)

Fury

 

[Marquis]

i can't believe Pure and Marquis gave you a bye on this. Considering the number of posts concerning orgasm denial, quandries over humiliation, etc. you've got a rather narrow-minded view of the dynamic.

Too easy.

 

[Oblimo]

i can't believe Pure and Marquis gave you a bye on this. Considering the number of posts concerning orgasm denial, quandries over humiliation, etc. you've got a rather narrow-minded view of the dynamic.

And you seem to have a very narrow minded view of what "want" means.

 

[Oblimo]

Too easy.

If you say so. I've seen too many perfectly happy dom&sub couples to think that the dynamic is anything other than mutual love expressed through voluntary assumption of hierarchical roles.

Maybe the dynamic is different for short-term relationships but mutual love and understanding of each other's wants seems to be the foundation of the long term dom&sub relationships and marriages of my D&S friends.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

And you seem to have a very narrow minded view of what "want" means.

Not by a longshot. i empathize quite well with want on several different levels. i also recognize no two humans run on the same wavelength much to the consternation of most couples, polys, whatever relationship you may choose to name.

By your definition, you label any individual that doesn't provide a sub what the sub wants a fake. i'm sure kittycat wasn't all that happy about 'Cisco working out of town for extended periods of time. i'm quite sure she wanted him at home with her every night. Does that make him fake? i think not, and that's a simplistic example.

Shall we delve into the land of the submissive with multiple strong wants that contradict each other, or does that make them a false submissive, and by default the partner a false dominant rendering the point moot?

 

[A Desert Rose]

... Shall we delve into the land of the submissive with multiple strong wants that contradict each other, or does that make them a false submissive, and by default the partner a false dominant rendering the point moot?

Yes. Go for it, Pal. Delve and delve deeply... please.

 

[Private_Label]

i understand about 'passion', but what's odd is that this is not applied to surgeons or concert pianists, only to sex workers.

What Docotr do you go to that lacks passion? I want my Docotr's to have a passion for what they do for a living. The best Docotrs IMO have a passion for it. I hate the Doctors who make you feel like they want to look at their watch, or belittle your comments and questions. I may not be a doctor, but as a biologist, I have been trained on how my body works, and have had some classes in how various drugs work. I may not know which drug I need for a particular ailment, but I do want to be able to ask why they chose Drg a over drug b for it.

And concert pianists who lack passion aren't concert pianist.

As for sex workers, I once saw a chat transcript of an IM bot who only responded with random things like "awesome, we have a lot in common?" and "are you? how's it going?" - Shoot, it was "Vixen Love" and the IM transcripts were posted in Jan. 2004, but the site no longer exists. The point was all the men wanted was an audience, they really didn't care if the person on the other end was involved or not. They just wanted the fantasy that they were interacting with a person. Very funny to read, and also a bit sad.

 

[Oblimo]

By your definition, you label any individual that doesn't provide a sub what the sub wants a fake. i'm sure kittycat wasn't all that happy about 'Cisco working out of town for extended periods of time. i'm quite sure she wanted him at home with her every night. Does that make him fake? i think not, and that's a simplistic example.

What you are describing sounds to me like a situation common to all human relationships. I suppose I should have been more specific but I understood the context of the discussion to be what makes D&S a unique relationship dynamic, rather than the problems all couples from all walks of life face, and tried to be pithy within that context. I apologize.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Yes. Go for it, Pal. Delve and delve deeply... please.

Already dove into that abyss and failed miserably darlin'. i'll stay back here away from the edge and cheer on the rest of you.

... rather than the problems all couples from all walks of life face, and tried to be pithy within that context. I apologize.

No need to apologize for a worthy goal. A few here, as well as on other parts of this board, have mentioned some variant of "It's not the destination, but the journey." Rather than attempt some pithy comment of my own, i'll shut the fuck up and exercise some self-control.

 

[catalina_francisco]

By your definition, you label any individual that doesn't provide a sub what the sub wants a fake. i'm sure kittycat wasn't all that happy about 'Cisco working out of town for extended periods of time. i'm quite sure she wanted him at home with her every night. Does that make him fake? i think not, and that's a simplistic example.

LOL, and there are so many things he does or plans to that I am not overjoyed at to say the least (hmmmm, think I have been pouting some of late), but it is also his not satisfying my needs/wants, especially at the expense of his own, which makes him so appealing.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

As for sex workers, I once saw a chat transcript of an IM bot who only responded with random things like "awesome, we have a lot in common?" and "are you? how's it going?" - Shoot, it was "Vixen Love" and the IM transcripts were posted in Jan. 2004, but the site no longer exists. The point was all the men wanted was an audience, they really didn't care if the person on the other end was involved or not. They just wanted the fantasy that they were interacting with a person. Very funny to read, and also a bit sad.

In the real world of sex work, I think you might be surprised to find this is not always true, but does fit the stereotype fed to us through movies, books, fantasy. Many women choose the work without the popular image of drug addiction etc. as a cause and enjoy it, many clients see them as friends and are genuinely interested (and sometimes actively involved in assisting) in their lives, safety, family and happiness outside of work.

Catalina

 

[Pure]

hi catalina,

there is some truth to what you say, but you must admit that men's delusions about sex workers' pleasure are legion.

since my remark has been misinterpreted (not by you, Catalina), let me try again:

i said among other things,

//i understand about 'passion', but what's odd is that this is not applied to surgeons or concert pianists, only to sex workers.//

i was responding to a poster who was emphasizing that prodommes can do their thing mechanically, without passion. she was partly correct of course. but my point was closer to Catalina's (see below):

why is it that a sex worker's taking money proves she's cold and greedy, but a doctor or a concert pianist is not subject to that same routine? doctors charge hefty fees, yet we generally don't say, 'you have no real 'passion' for medicine' (money focus, of course, IS occasionally the case). therapists usually charge, and again, most clients don't say, 'you have no warmth, you're doing a mechanical 'caring' routine for the money.' (again, sometimes this IS a true accusation).

So I remain open to a sex worker or domme who enjoys her work--same as, for example, a teacher of piano. I doubt if the 'orgasms' are real, in most cases, but a wise client won't insist on that pretense. And every pro has times that things feel like a 'chore.'

Actually for the dommes who do not get into 'sex', I can certainly believe there is pleasure in asserting power, humiliating, etc. Those pleasures are somehow more believable that orgasmic ones.



----

catalina said,

//In the real world of sex work, I think you might be surprised to find this is not always true, but does fit the stereotype fed to us through movies, books, fantasy. Many women choose the work without the popular image of drug addiction etc. as a cause and enjoy it, many clients see them as friends and are genuinely interested (and sometimes actively involved in assisting) in their lives, safety, family and happiness outside of work.//

 

[catalina_francisco]

So I remain open to a sex worker or domme who enjoys her work--same as, for example, a teacher of piano. I doubt if the 'orgasms' are real, in most cases, but a wise client won't insist on that pretense. And every pro has times that things feel like a 'chore.'

Actually for the dommes who do not get into 'sex', I can certainly believe there is pleasure in asserting power, humiliating, etc. Those pleasures are somehow more believable that orgasmic ones.

Very true....the sex worker who can genuinely enjoy the work, and be creative because of that enjoyment, plus have a professional approach that leaves no illusions as to what is and isn't going to happen, stun the others with how popular they become and how loyal and supportive their clients can be.

Catalina

 

[bridgeburner]

You're a fake if you lie about what you want --- if you don't really desire to dominate then you're a fake. If you truly wish to dominate but don't have the skill for it then you're just unsucessful.

 

[rosco rathbone]

You're a fake if you lie about what you want --- if you don't really desire to dominate then you're a fake. If you truly wish to dominate but don't have the skill for it then you're just unsucessful.

I like this definition a lot.

Really, I think the very nature of the male gonad leads to dominance of one kind or another. From the top or the bottom, men are doing everything in their power, by hook or by crook, to get what they neeeeeeeeeeed. That's why my political slogan is every man a master. That's all very philosophical, though.

 

[LunarKitten]

It's a good book, a little on the snooty and PC side though.

John Warren puts on a great demonstration in person though, if you ever get the chance to see him.

I agree with the demo assesment. John is a total hoot! And one sadistic SOB, as well lol I absolutely love him.

As for the book, as with anything else out there, you have to read it with a grain of salt and take what is in it for you personally and leave off the rest. *shrugs* I think too many authors try to write something that is meant for "everyone" and ends up not helping too many, not all, but quiet a few are out there. I think they are more cautious because of the camps of people out there that argue over meanings of words and try to pigeon-hole everyone into neat little cubbies, whether they want to be in them or not.

 

[LunarKitten]

i can't believe Pure and Marquis gave you a bye on this. Considering the number of posts concerning orgasm denial, quandries over humiliation, etc. you've got a rather narrow-minded view of the dynamic.

Ah, but some bottoms crave these things, so if they receive them they are getting what the want, no?

Though I do mainly agree with you. Being a bottom isn't about getting what you want, it's about wanting what you get - and what you get is what the top wants to give you...when you're loving what they are giving you, there almost becomes a circle of give and take within the play itself that is absolutely amazing.

This, imho, is what makes a "true" top OR bottom...it's about caring about giving the other what they want. It's about taking care of the other person's needs. Ok, so you hate the cane, for example....when the cane comes out during play, you don't get up and walk out of the room, screaming at them about using something you don't like, you take it as much as you can take it, because they happen to love using the cane. You taking it gives them something they need, so in return - well, if you're really lucky - they will next bring out your favoritest flogger and whale at you with it for a good while...because they know it's something you really really love.

Fake tops just don't care what you like. They only care about what they really like to do, and that they are going to get off on it in the end, regardless of if you do or not. (Not that "do me" bottoms are any better - the ones that ONLY want what they like and screw the rest of the toy bag...and, by golly, I'd better get off during it or I'll tell everyone what a total faker you are as a top *gets off her soap box*)

Also a good sign for both parties....how quickly a "collar" is offered and taken...then taken or given back, so they can move on their next "perfect" partner.

 

[Temptress_lee]

I think it depends on how each person see's it. To me a fake dominant is generally a person on a power trip. I've particuarlly seen it in males because they let their ego get in the way. To me you should put your ego on the back burner and accept that everyone is going to be new to something at some point. You can't automatically earn the right to be called, "Master." You have to earn that title. And thats were trust comes into the picture. Like any relationship Dom/Sub is based on trust. And you REALLY need it in these kinds of relationships otherwise it doesn't work. Slowly it builds, and togeather you open up eachothers passions. A real Dom is always learning things, just like the Sub. They can accept the fact that they don't know everything, and there always willing to communicate if they need to find out what they could do diffrently.

A real Dom doesn't need to be idolized. He/she knows what they are and what they want. And they don't need that re-assurance from anyone.

 

[Marquis]

I think it depends on how each person see's it. To me a fake dominant is generally a person on a power trip. I've particuarlly seen it in males because they let their ego get in the way. To me you should put your ego on the back burner and accept that everyone is going to be new to something at some point. You can't automatically earn the right to be called, "Master." You have to earn that title. And thats were trust comes into the picture. Like any relationship Dom/Sub is based on trust. And you REALLY need it in these kinds of relationships otherwise it doesn't work. Slowly it builds, and togeather you open up eachothers passions. A real Dom is always learning things, just like the Sub. They can accept the fact that they don't know everything, and there always willing to communicate if they need to find out what they could do diffrently.

A real Dom doesn't need to be idolized. He/she knows what they are and what they want. And they don't need that re-assurance from anyone.

Hmm, sounds like a "cool guy."

 

[siren319]

My experience with "fake" doms has simply been that it seems like they use BDSM to be abusive. As a sub it is complicated to tell the difference until play has commenced and by the time the warning signs are up... it is too late. A "fake" dom is usually unreasonably aggressive and fails to earn the trust. They prefer physical force because it requires less effort. It starts to look as though control is simply being taken out of fear of losing it. Instead of partnering with the sub they choose to take from the sub. I hear all the time about subs who take this as how BDSM really is for everyone and embrace it. I guess that is good for these doms, but horrible for those who can see how much more complex and fun this lifestyle is. I can honestly say though, there have been times where I questioned my own interest in the lifestyle because of these types of encounters.