What makes a Dom or Domme? (96)

I don't need to empower myself by trying to take control of every situation, I am happy to guide someone and give them the benifit of my experience. For that reason I have been labled as dominant by others but I do not need to be dominating in all things as a result.

Perhaps I am not then a stereotypical 'Dom'. I am my own person and that is all. If someone sees themself as submissive to me, so be it. If not, we are equal.

If it doesn't fit, force it!

I don't personally believe one has to be "born with the desire" to dom - or sub for that matter. Three years ago I thought I was little miss uber sub: today I identify as a bisexual switch but am in a monogamously hetrosexual relationship with someone who identifies predominantly as a sub. Does this mean I forego any rights to identify as a Domme at all as I once identified as a sub, so clearly I wasn't born with it? Am I no longer entitled to consider myself a switch now (or being bi whilst I'm at it)?

Oh, meant to ask, if you need to have a sub in order to be considered a dom/me does the inverse apply, i.e. you cannot possibly be a sub if you don't have a Dom/me? What happens whilst you are single, or are not in a committed relationship, but are happy to engage in casual kinky shenanigans?

Back to the OP's questions, and my personal answer would be that the will/inclination or desire to be in control and dominate the situation/scene or even relationship would be a good starting point. Beyond that, I don't really think I could say anything else is actually essential - desirable maybe - but then this is almost sounding like a person specification for a job advert.

I want to hold you close / Skin pressed against me tight
Lie still, and close your eyes, girl / So lovely, it feels so right
I want to hold you close / Soft breasts, beating heart
As I whisper in your ear / I want to f*cking tear you apart

First to the original question: The requirement to be a dominant (I believe this to be the intent of the OP, not to act dominantly), is to have a partner who has agreed to give you control. That act of agreeing to a power exchange, by definition, creates the dynamic - without which you are not a dominant. It's the result of that contract (agreement) between two unique people.

So the statement, "a sub makes a dominant" is kind of true --- just as a dominant makes a sub --- but really, it's the agreement that creates the dynamic that defines both of the dominant and the submissive.

The second point I'd like to mention originates WAY back in the thread, when pleasureswitch said something on which no one seemed to comment. He said:

So...I'll debate this...even "three-P" happy to! A D/s relationship does not necessarily have to be "Kinky" or have BDSM-styled activities as part of it. It is merely a dynamic between two people that defines who is in control. How that manifests itself depends on the individuals involved. Whether they choose to engage in "kinky" activities is really up to them.

The "Abuse" is caused when the agreement is non-consensual - regardless of the activities in which they engage.

- Rika

I will second on both of those points. Although not directly linked to the OP, I think they are correct and should be promoted.

If we think of the post-war propaganda of a 1950s household, you can see a D/s relationship. Marriage was, until about 1920, considered to be the enslavement of the woman. She was nothing more than property. As the Law would have it, a Chattal.

We have overlayed kinky or taboo behavior in defining or redefining D/s as BDSM, when it is a simple state of relationship. We then say that anything other than what we do, is Vanilla. I know some may run screaming for the nearest hitty thing, but there is no such thing as Vanilla. One person or the other is responsible for the instigation, purpose or procedure of love making at any point in time. It might be true to actually say that Vanilla Couples are actually Switches with little imagination. (Something my girl suggested when we discussed relationships).

I followed this line to link back to the OP. Even people who don't know about BDSM or are not in 'Classically Kinky' relationships, can be in D/s relationships. One of them... will be a Dominant.

What does it take to be a Dominant?

Will.

No matter what the environment. No matter how it is perceived by others. No matter how others label it or the person.

A submissive in a consensual D/s relationship.

That is a bit obvious. LOL

Other than that, I would say the WILL and desire to do it. It is very much beyond the conception of a lot of people. So no matter much how much someone might WANT to do it, if they don't "get" it, it might be pretty difficult.

Although it is easy enough to go through the motions, I expect, if it is on session basis.

@Play_Space - Next party is 23 October, Sunday, 5 to Midnight!
Road Trip to the Sea!!! The October trip has tJust elapsed...More info here.

Dominance is authority, rule, asserting control, influence over others. And yes, in some cases, forcing your will. The latter is one small part of it, not the be all and end all as you have implied and that, I think, is the fundamental point of our disagreement.

A.

Kat

I am not sure that is our fundamental area of disagreement but I am certain of one thing, neither of us will change our points of view. Anyway, this is not so interesting any more, so I will just say the following and then move on.

So, here comes the semantic stuff anyway.

Dictionary.Com defines authority thus.

noun, plural -ties. 1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine. 2. a power or right delegated or given; authorization: Who has the authority to grant permission? 3. a person or body of persons in whom authority is vested, as a governmental agency. 4. Usually, authorities. persons having the legal power to make and enforce the law; government: They finally persuaded the authorities that they were not involved in espionage. 5. an accepted source of information, advice, etc.

1 and 2 I think cover what we are talking about.

Who gives that authority? If it is yourself, it is meaningless, authority is given by others, not yourself. The right to control is only established if consent is given.

Likewise, if someone asserts control over another it has to be accepted.

Influence is a much less powerful term and I do not disagree about people exerting influence even in everyday life, but one has to be receptive to that influence. If you aren't, then the dominance or influence is not successful.

To rule basically means to control via force or authority ( back to definition of authority).

I certainly never meant to imply dominance had only one element to its meaning but all of them seem to point to having a 'right' to rule, control, be in authority over others.

I said 'forcing your will onto others' as that seemed to be the non consensual definition (and not the strict dictionary one) that you were using. I think it would have been better if I had made it clear I was using the way in which you had seemed to be defining dominance

If one forces your will onto others, using a form of power the other cannot beat or overcome, then that is many things but not dominance as we usually know it on IC.

Mistress of @paulss My PD blog at http://mistress-keene.blogspot.com/ http://twitter.com/#!/Mistress_Keene

Edited 5 Nov 11, 8:16 PM by Ms_Valentine

However being dominant to the core is fair enough but one doesn't always have to behave dominantly. That is just being one dimensional and inappropriate, isn't it? After all, there are times and places for everything.

Mistress of @paulss My PD blog at http://mistress-keene.blogspot.com/ http://twitter.com/#!/Mistress_Keene