Soft Dominance Discussion

[liqueur]

You seem to choose not to get it.

This

 

[Primalex]

You seem to choose not to get it.

Well, you seem to ignore that the topic is not submission, but dominance.

Her Dominance excites me. I do not fear Her. I adore Her and seek Her attention, touch, teasing, approval, AND feminine authority.

So you seek her approval but you are not afraid of her disapproval?

 

[NancyPan]

Well, you seem to ignore that the topic is not submission, but dominance.

Don’t be silly. There is little pleasure in submission without Dominance.What I think you choose not to understand (or accept, I’m not sure which) is that some of us simply enjoy the pleasure of submitting. It has nothing to do with fear (although of course there are some fear junkies out there).

So you seek her approval but you are not afraid of her disapproval?

I do not “fear” her by any stretch of the imagination. I am confident in Her love for me and trust that She would never knowingly hurt me. I am very troubled by Her disapproval or disappointment, but I am not afraid of Her. I know that, if I do disappoint Her, She will correct me and give me an opportunity to to improve and learn. She leads much more with carrots than sticks.

 

[Blake83]

It's all very individual...like for me I would never be comfortable degrading a woman or anything that borders on the threat or act of causing harm. That said, I know there are people out there who may thrive on those - both as doms and subs...absolutely no judgement from me, but I know it's just not my particular style.

To me, it's all about about the power dynamic and an element of obediance/subservience in the pursuit of pleasure, for both sides. That can be emotional, verbal, or physical and most often a mix of them all. All of those can be just as much a part of "soft dominance" as they would be what I'll term "hard dominance" which I think is where the stereotype often leads people when they think about d/s dynamics.

Again, just from my perspective, I think the softer side of d/s for me takes the focus off of the objectifying, degrading, etc. often just for the sake of it and puts a focus back on the power dynamic in dare I say a more sensual way which I like. It's also always a sliding scale and communication is key to determine where on the spectrum of "soft" to "hard" the dynamic will be for a given encounter or relationship.

End of the day, different strokes for different folks...as long as it's built on a strong foundation of trust and caring, to each their own!

 

[justyouraveragedaniel]

I tend to lean more towards a soft domme when I'm in a dynamic with a male...
Well... Certain men.

I'm not into sph, or degrading...
I like to do a little orgasm control, but since I myself have a kink for a man orgasming.. I'm not into denial...

I feel like there is such a big distinction between orgasm control and orgasm denial that often gets overlooked. Surely, denial is a part of that. But I like giving up control--maybe that means I'm denied, maybe that means I cum. The point is, that whatever my cock is permitted to do, is because the person controlling it wants that to happen.

 

[NancyPan]

I feel like there is such a big distinction between orgasm control and orgasm denial that often gets overlooked. Surely, denial is a part of that. But I like giving up control--maybe that means I'm denied, maybe that means I cum. The point is, that whatever my cock is permitted to do, is because the person controlling it wants that to happen.

Entirely agree. Knowing that She decides when I orgasm has made a significant ifference in our relationship in many ways. It has become very important to me that it is Her decision when I deserve it, and sometimes She tells me that She wants my focus entirely on Her, so I know not to even hope for a release. Her forbidding any unsupervised (or unauthorized) masturbation has also been very powerful. Perhaps it is obvious, but this dynamic would not work if I could jerk off whenever I desired.

 

[average_red]

How does the Stockholm syndrome fit in there then?

I will get to Stockholm in due time.

Part of the problem is that you are not using useful/meaningful definitions.

What is a vanilla relationship? Odds are if your society has marriages that average 30+ years there is very little difference between soft Dom and vanilla, but if a 10 year anniversary is considered an accomplishment, there is probably a vast number of differences between soft Dom and vanilla relationships.

This is fairly self explanatory because in order for a relationship to last you need two things: A power exchange to determine how conflicts will be resolved in a reliable manner, and mutual benefit to ensure that both parties are willing to put in the effort to stay. The simplest way to provide both is to assign one person both authority over the other, and responsibility for the other. That is the "essence" of a soft Dom relationship; authority and responsibility joined properly.... Only difference is that the soft Dom relationship allows both parties to openly negotiate their needs, and possibly their EXTREME needs within those boundaries. I know a vanilla couple married for 60 years and the husband only put his foot down twice. Meanwhile a soft Dom/sub with brat tamer/brat tendencies may need to put his food down twice in a single week, because they ENJOY playing with the extremes of what could otherwise be seen as a normal relationship. Soft Dom is almost an extreme version of a traditional husband, twisted to focus on particular dynamics, or the reversal of those dynamics.

Your interpretation of fear is also just about useless.

Firstly, the simple fact that you can lose something that you want is not fear, it is just an expression of preference. Me following through with my commitments because I "fear" breaking my word, or a sub who obeys me out of a "fear" that she will disappoint me is ENTIRELY different from an employee who obeys me from fear that I will have him or his family killed. They might be the same word, but they are very different concepts.

Secondly Stockholm syndrome is actually a method of REMOVING fear. The subjects empathize with their captors as a method to gain the sympathy, and therefore better treatment, safety, and security from their captors. It is however a GENUINE conversion. The captives genuinely become invested in the well-being of their captors and stop feeling any fear of their captors, and will continue to support their captors even when they are set free. Stockholm syndrome is not based on fear, it is based on empathy, although the empathy was probably based on fear, the fear burned away and left only empathy.

 

[Primalex]

Odds are if your society has marriages that average 30+ years there is very little difference between soft Dom and vanilla, but if a 10 year anniversary is considered an accomplishment, there is probably a vast number of differences between soft Dom and vanilla relationships.

Uhm. Marriage longevity as proxy for relationship quality or relationship structure is pretty questionable. But yay, if there is a vast number of differences, let's focus on those 10 years and less.

A power exchange to determine how conflicts will be resolved in a reliable manner, and mutual benefit to ensure that both parties are willing to put in the effort to stay. The simplest way to provide both is to assign one person both authority over the other, and responsibility for the other. That is the "essence" of a soft Dom relationship

I'm confused.

Is the "hard Dom" relationship then the more complex way to provide both? And what is the hard Dom missing? Authority? Responsibility?

Meanwhile a soft Dom/sub with brat tamer/brat tendencies may need to put his food down twice in a single week

How is this still soft? And I'm not sure if we have met the same kind of brats, because the brats I know will say:"Awwwe, I hope you didn't hurt your foot while putting it down. Now go and make me a sandwich."

to assign one person both authority over the other [...] is the "essence" of a soft Dom relationship
[...]
Only difference is that the soft Dom relationship allows both parties to openly negotiate their needs

If negotiation determines the outcome, in what sense is one partner the authority over the other? This contradicts itself.

Sorry, but I don't buy your argument. You argue that lasting relationships require a power exchange in which one person has authority to resolve conflicts. Why doesn't mutual decision-making, negotiated compromise, or domain-specific leadership based upon competence satisfy that requirement? And which of these is mutually exclusive with a soft Dom relationship?

Me following through with my commitments because I "fear" breaking my word, or a sub who obeys me out of a "fear" that she will disappoint me is ENTIRELY different from an employee who obeys me from fear that I will have him or his family killed. They might be the same word, but they are very different concepts.

They are not different concepts, you are just changing the magnitude and the morality.

Secondly Stockholm syndrome is actually a method of REMOVING fear. The subjects empathize with their captors as a method to gain the sympathy, and therefore better treatment, safety, and security from their captors. It is however a GENUINE conversion. The captives genuinely become invested in the well-being of their captors and stop feeling any fear of their captors, and will continue to support their captors even when they are set free. Stockholm syndrome is not based on fear, it is based on empathy, although the empathy was probably based on fear, the fear burned away and left only empathy.

Well, I have bad news for you, but you just argued my point that devotion can grow from fear.

 

[Scooter58]

I just clicked into this thread by mistake, read a little bit and realized I’m not smart enough to be here. I thought I was a deep thinker but I’m a total novice in here.
I’m going to quietly slip out the back door.

 

[Emma_O]

"...Call it what you want. If it works for you, it doesn't need a box or a strict set of rules..."

Wisest thing I think I've read here in these forums yet. And it need not refer to just the dom/sub thing, or even anything sexual. It could be about relationships, or just life in general.

 

[Emma_O]

"...I place greater emphasis on emotional and psychological control...I'm more adept at...emotional manipulation to reinforce the sub's obedience..."

I realize I paraphrased your post. You had it more dressed up with niceties in your original post, but the underlying theme still seems apparent. By dressing it up in your post, it is almost as if you're trying to manipulate the readers here in much the same way you might manipulate your sub. And it spooks me. Maybe I shouldn't even bother to post to this thread, or on this particular board, but for some reason, this post struck a very dissonant chord with me. I felt compelled. Maybe it is the subtle sense of pride you seemed to take in psychologically and emotionally controlling another. I don't think the dom/sub thing would ever be for me, in any shape or form. But to each their own.

 

[BillyWalrus]

"...I place greater emphasis on emotional and psychological control...I'm more adept at...emotional manipulation to reinforce the sub's obedience..."

I realize I paraphrased your post. You had it more dressed up with niceties in your original post, but the underlying theme still seems apparent. By dressing it up in your post, it is almost as if you're trying to manipulate the readers here in much the same way you might manipulate your sub. And it spooks me. Maybe I shouldn't even bother to post to this thread, or on this particular board, but for some reason, this post struck a very dissonant chord with me. I felt compelled. Maybe it is the subtle sense of pride you seemed to take in psychologically and emotionally controlling another. I don't think the dom/sub thing would ever be for me, in any shape or form. But to each their own.

I hope you don't ever feel that you can't express your POV. I may not agree with you all the time but I like reading what you have to say.

 

[average_red]

...

That was a masterful troll good sir, and if I had been in a better mood I would have absolutely swallowed the hook on it. Well done, you almost had me.

 

[average_red]

"... And it spooks me. Maybe I shouldn't even bother to post to this thread, or on this particular board, but for some reason, this post struck a very dissonant chord with me. I felt compelled. Maybe it is the subtle sense of pride you seemed to take in psychologically and emotionally controlling another. I don't think the dom/sub thing would ever be for me, in any shape or form. But to each their own.

Actually, that strong of an emotional reaction, and the types of emotions indicates a remarkable possibility that you might rather enjoy experimenting with the dynamic, so this might very much be the place for you... Hang around for a while, see how it affects you.

In the end manipulation of anything, a tool, an instrument, an animal, and even a person, is only judged by the effects it causes... Regardless, please feel free to continue hanging around and posting here.

 

[Shortstroke56]

I am in a Female Led Marriage, and have accepted (needed) my Wife’s leadership for many years. Her Dominance would definitely fit the description of “soft dominance” given here. It is never mean, but is definitely strict and intolerant of disrespect or disobedience. She frequently uses terms of endearment and will give directives in the form of requests (even though She knows I will of course comply.) “Honey, would you please fold the laundry and straighten out my panty drawer when you are done cleaning the bathrooms.”

She does use erotic humiliation because She knows it excites me. She chooses to say or do things that arouse me as both rewards and motivation, but also because it amuses Her to use Her feminine power to tease me. “You have been such a good panty boy. I’m thinking about letting you have pussy. Tell me why you think you deserve it.”

I desire Her approval and fear Her disapproval.

Well said.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

That was a masterful troll good sir, and if I had been in a better mood I would have absolutely swallowed the hook on it. Well done, you almost had me.

His points make a ton of sense to me and they are well-stated. Why would you step out of the fascinating conversation by calling his efforts “trolling?”

 

[average_red]

His points make a ton of sense to me and they are well-stated. Why would you step out of the fascinating conversation by calling his efforts “trolling?”

Because taken as a collective, it appears to be structured like a lure designed to illicit a reaction from me. Hence a fisherman trolling for fish, as did the shit posters of olden times. Given that previous people had come to the conclusion that he is willfully not getting it, and no protestations or indications that he is serious, I don't think that I was incorrect in my assessment.

You however are a different person, and frankly if he had been interested in a genuine conversation I would offer him the same courtesy: I'll offer you a deal. Pick one point at a time, and we can deal with them one point at a time.

 

[Katiel3036]

I am definitely for soft Dom. I want him to tell me what a good girl i am but I want him to make me earn it

 

[ToPleaseHim]

Because taken as a collective, it appears to be structured like a lure designed to illicit a reaction from me. Hence a fisherman trolling for fish, as did the shit posters of olden times. Given that previous people had come to the conclusion that he is willfully not getting it, and no protestations or indications that he is serious, I don't think that I was incorrect in my assessment.

You however are a different person, and frankly if he had been interested in a genuine conversation I would offer him the same courtesy: I'll offer you a deal. Pick one point at a time, and we can deal with them one point at a time.

I don’t require a deal from you. You’re disparaging the words of a well-established member of this forum who’s been posting here for decades. Sure, he pushes back and challenges people. For me, statements like his over the years have given me pause and made me think. I don’t always agree with anyone here, but I will stand ten toes down for those I know are intelligent and have experience and challenge my worldview.

I’d encourage a lot of folks here to step back and consider that someone else being passionate and knowledgeable, even with a different perspective and opinion than your own, doesn’t diminish you.

 

[Primalex]

Because taken as a collective, it appears to be structured like a lure designed to illicit a reaction from me. Hence a fisherman trolling for fish, as did the shit posters of olden times. Given that previous people had come to the conclusion that he is willfully not getting it, and no protestations or indications that he is serious, I don't think that I was incorrect in my assessment.

You however are a different person, and frankly if he had been interested in a genuine conversation I would offer him the same courtesy: I'll offer you a deal. Pick one point at a time, and we can deal with them one point at a time.

Ironically, the approach you are offering now, taking one point at a time, is exactly the kind of process that distinguishes genuine disagreement from trolling. Your argument is that my contribution looked like a lure designed to provoke a reaction and therefore you were justified in treating it as one without first determining whether that was actually the case. This creates a circular standard: The assumption is effectively being used as its own evidence, because the very process that could have tested the assumption was dismissed from the outset.

And you don't really have to wait for anyone to pick a point. You can pick any point you want, nobody is stopping you from talking about just the one point you prefer for whatever reason.

 

[average_red]

I don’t require a deal from you. You’re disparaging the words of a well-established member of this forum who’s been posting here for decades. Sure, he pushes back and challenges people. For me, statements like his over the years have given me pause and made me think. I don’t always agree with anyone here, but I will stand ten toes down for those I know are intelligent and have experience and challenge my worldview.

I’d encourage a lot of folks here to step back and consider that someone else being passionate and knowledgeable, even with a different perspective and opinion than your own, doesn’t diminish you.

So you support him as an individual, but don't particularly care about his ideas as separate things from him personally? I commend your loyalty, but he hasn't earned my loyalty and I don't have enough experience with him to know anything other than what I have seen.

I do suggest that you consider your last paragraph yourself. I CERTAINLY have a different perspective, and I might just have enough passion and knowledge to recognize the signs of an impending conversion that will take tens of hours and not go anywhere.

 

[average_red]

Ironically, the approach you are offering now, taking one point at a time, is exactly the kind of process that distinguishes genuine disagreement from trolling. Your argument is that my contribution looked like a lure designed to provoke a reaction and therefore you were justified in treating it as one without first determining whether that was actually the case. This creates a circular standard: The assumption is effectively being used as its own evidence, because the very process that could have tested the assumption was dismissed from the outset.

And you don't really have to wait for anyone to pick a point. You can pick any point you want, nobody is stopping you from talking about just the one point you prefer for whatever reason.

That's the thing, you didn't say anything that I feel any particular need to respond to. I can go line by line with the bad faith argumentation you used, from continuing to not only refuse to define your terms, but repeatedly muddying the conversation. What's the point in that? First, you might not have intended to keep confusing the subject, secondly that conversation just devolves into us spending hours writing responses that don't matter. You either have something that you actually want to talk about, which we can do, or you want to keep broadening the conversation untill I am spending hours writing each response that no one but me actually cares about. I don't know which it is, because I can't read your mind.

Ultimately the only 'point' that I care about is determining if your post was authentic, because it doesn't look that way to me, but I could be wrong, and if you were authentic you deserve an authentic response. If you don't care about any of the topics enough to keep the conversation contained to a reasonable response time it just looks like your goal is wasting my time to me.

It isn't a big deal, we both threw out different balls and started playing different games by the rules we thought we were playing. It's cool. I genuinely thought that you had crafted a great troll, there's no hard feelings on my side. I'm perfectly happy to walk away from this conversation if you are done with it.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

So you support him as an individual, but don't particularly care about his ideas as separate things from him personally?

Where did I say I don’t care about his ideas separate from his personality?

Incidentally, to the thread topic, I nearly nuked this thread because it was opened by a scammer who had an ulterior motive, but there was value in the discussions taking place, not something we see every day in this forum anymore. So I poofed the scammers posts and kept the rest.



As someone who has been with several dominants, including one who is a Daddy Dom and soft with his guidance, I find the inquiry about the line between soft dominance and vanilla interesting. On the broad continuum of all things BDSM, I do think this dynamic can be closer to the vanilla side of things, but can still vary wildly. At that point in my life, and hell probably still to do this day, I was looking for permission. Permission to be “bad.” Permission to want some kinky thing I had grown up thinking was wrong. And giving the decision making up to another person who was going to give me permission to do this things was, well, very hot. There was a power exchange involved, so I do think it is BDSM rather than a vanilla relationship that got a little kinky. But I also don’t think there’s anything wrong with a vanilla relationship that gets a little kinky.

Asking the question of how does soft dominance differ from a vanilla relationship isn’t insulting. It’s interesting. That we are posting in a BDSM forum doesn’t make vanilla a bad thing; it’s just another flavor.

Also, soft dominance was a fucking gateway drug for me, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s the case for a lot of people with submissive tendencies.

 

[njlauren]

<dons flame-proof suit>

I never know quite how to respond to phrases like "soft Dominance." It is possible that I am taking this a bit OT, if so, my apologies. I also apologize in advance to those who will take offense at my thoughts - I mean no ill, and I am not trying to gaslight anyone.

In a world where the Dominant is expressing their natural personality, is allowing their true self to shine through; and that self happens to be "...more adept at using praise, physical touch, or emotional manipulation to reinforce the sub's obedience," I have no problem with it. We each find joy in our own expression of our Dominance. That is the essence of kink, of BDSM.

A submissive should choose to kneel at the feet of someone that they respect, someone whose style resonates with them. If a submissive prefers a lighter (or dare I say "softer") touch, that is their prerogative. If they want a hard core sadist, they should choose such a Dominant to submit to.

But I really struggle with the whole concept of a "pleasure Dom" (which I read as a service Top, ie someone who is pleasing their "submissive" and not themselves). Similarly with "Dominants" who adapt their behavior or expression of their Dominance in order to please their sub - for example by being "soft".

I realize that I am being controversial here, but a true natural Dominant pleases themselves. Sometimes they take a longer term view, and may meet their sub where the sub is in order to get the sub over a mental hump or through a rough patch in their training. But my Dominance is not a role or a game. It is me. It is, fundamentally, who I am. My amazing primary partner gets what she gets on any given day: she gets my good moods and my foul ones; she gets soft loving Master and harsh punishing Master. And it is not up to her. She offers her submission, and she gets what she gets. She can always lay down my collar and find another if she does not find peace and joy at my feet.

When I take on a trainee, we negotiate her limits up front. Inside of the sandbox created by those limits, she gets the true expression of my personality, of my Dominance. I may tune myself a bit to take her level of experience into account, but I never solve for her or her pleasure.

A service Top is not Dominant. They are there to please their bottom. A "Dominant" whose goal is the "pleasure" of their "sub" is not a Dominant at all in my view. I'm not sure what a "soft Dom" is - but if the "soft" part is anything other than a true natural expression of that Dominant's personality, then I do not see it as sincere.

A service top or any top is not necessarily a dominant, you can be a top and not be a dom/me. Saying a soft dominant is really a service top is not true, because you assume a soft dominant is someone who is doing what they do only to please the sub, and that I think is a misnomer. How dominance and submission plays out is up to the couple or whatever, and it doesn't mean that there is any one definition of Dominant. Your version of dominance is your own which is the whole point. You are assuming that a soft dominant is someone playing down to their sub, when it is simply the way they choose to express their dominance.

Put it this way, one of the for lack of a better word fiercest dommes I ever met was deadly because she was 'soft'. She never berated her subs, she never yelled, or called them names, when she asked for something of someone who was a slave, she said please and thank you (picture the southern genteel lady at a tea, that was her manner) but you knew her energy was fully there. I saw her working over one of her slaves, and it was intense, but her personna didn't change.

The reality is with dominance and submission is that dominants and subs that get together have a mutual style. Your sub loves the way you express it, and that is fine. BTW the fact that you express your dominance the way you do pleases your sub, otherwise she wouldn't be with you. That her pleasure is doing whatever you want doesn't change that fact. Some dominants enjoy doing things they know their sub enjoys because that gives them pleasure, everyone's style is different.What you are doing is saying your style of dominance is real dominance, whether you meant it or not, and that is wrong because dominants and submissives come in all shapes, ways and styles.

Speaking as a sub, yes, there were times in serving a dominant I was doing something I didn't enjoy at all, but they loved it and the fact they knew I didn't like it added to their joy *shrug*, but other times they would do or have me do things they enjoyed putting me through they knew I loved, and the energy between us was amazing when that happened, it was a different facet of our relationship. Yet the dominants I have talked about used 'soft power' , because they didn't need to,I was trained well enough to know what they wanted that they didn't need to push the power, it was just there.

 

[njlauren]

Yes, I understand soft dominance very well, @Sofia_2 In fact, I suspect many people underestimate how much authority can exist without intimidation.

When people first discover Female-Led Relationships or BDSM dynamics, there is often an assumption that dominance is measured by severity. More commands. More punishment. More humiliation. More visible displays of control. Yet some of the most profound forms of authority are almost invisible to outsiders.

A woman does not become less dominant because she says, "Sweetie, drink some water," instead of barking an order. Nor does she become less dominant because she guides rather than threatens. The question is not whether the words are gentle. The question is whether they are followed.

I have always believed that leadership is at its strongest when it creates security. A submissive who feels safe, understood, and emotionally connected is often far more willing to surrender than one who is merely afraid of consequences. Fear can produce compliance. Trust can produce devotion.

That does not mean softness is weakness. In many ways, emotional and psychological authority requires greater confidence. It is relatively easy to dominate through pressure. It is much harder to create a dynamic in which someone genuinely wants to follow because they value your guidance and feel better under it.

I also think people sometimes misunderstand praise. Praise is not the opposite of control. Praise is one of the most effective tools of control. When a woman communicates, "I noticed your effort," "I'm proud of you," or "You did well for me today," she is shaping behaviour every bit as surely as a punishment might. The difference is that she is building rather than breaking. She is reinforcing rather than correcting.

The same applies to affection, reassurance, and emotional intimacy. These are not necessarily alternatives to dominance. They can be expressions of dominance when they are offered deliberately by a woman who understands the influence she has.

What resonates with me in your description is the emphasis on care. Not because care is inherently dominant, but because caring leadership is often overlooked in discussions of power exchange. Many submissive men are not searching for humiliation. They are searching for structure, guidance, approval, accountability, and the feeling that someone they deeply respect is paying attention. A woman who can provide those things consistently possesses a very real form of authority.

So yes, I understand soft dominance. I understand the power of a gentle reminder. I understand the influence contained in a warm touch. I understand the effectiveness of praise. And I understand that sometimes the quietest expressions of authority create the deepest and most enduring submission.

After all, devotion rarely grows from fear alone. More often, it grows from feeling safe enough to surrender.

Wow, just wow, at a loss for words how well this is written. For my part Humiliation is a hard limit, in a play session a dominant went into hard humiliation in front of other people, and I lost it, literally ripped a cuff out of a st. david's cross I was strapped to and was a mess, took a lot of aftercare, i think i was more scared by the fury that came out. Figured out later on it tapped into something from growing up , and it became a hard no way. Never had a dominant question that as a limit or break it when I explained why.