- Blaze wrote:
Then what, in your definition, makes a dom?
That's going to vary by the person involved. What *I* think a dom is is going to be different than what Silver thinks one is. We have different needs in what we look for in a dom. There aren't any "general" characteristics that all doms have that I can tell, save a need to play with power and control from the top position in the power exchange.
- Blaze wrote:
Does dominance require bondage? or pain? or humiliation? Does one need to be 'kinked' in order to be dominant? To be the one in control? I think we are defining from different reference points.
It can contain any or all of those. And any or all or none of thousands of other things as well. I would say that yes, to be dominant in a BDSM context or a lifestyle context, you have to be kinked.
Please note that distinction. In a BDSM or lifestyle context. There are other contexts to view dominance from.
I tend to view my world through the metaphor of a wolf pack. I am an alpha bitch. I am fairly dominant to most people in most things in my life...work, play, spare time. I don't take guff from most of them.
However, in the BDSM/lifestyle arena, I'm submissive to Tiger. He, as a general rule, is more dominant than I am in ALL aspects of life that surround me...but most particularly in BDSM. What we do involves things as mundane as going to movies and as kinked as him flogging me or fucking me with gun barrels. He is in charge. He's an alpha male in my wolf pack.
There are other men in my life, one in particular, that is submissive in many aspects of his life, including some aspects of what we do together. He is, most definately, a beta male. However, sexually, he is still generally more dominant than I am.
Dominance and submission exist on a continuum...not in a vacuum. The problem I think you're having is that you don't understand the continuum and are having trouble making those of us that are more used to it understand. Or we're having trouble making you understand why just saying "I'm dominant" isn't enough to attract a partner. There's so many variations on what that means that we have no clue how to know what you are into, what you're not into, what a relationship might entail, etc.
- Blaze wrote:
You seem to be coming from the reference of "dominace as force & power", whereas I'm coming from the reference of "dominace as control & shaping."
Ok....that's a start. Control and shaping of what? How much control do you want over your partner? What do you want to shape them into? What if what you want to shape them into doesn't mesh with what they need? Or what if it's unhealthy for them?
