Domination & Dominants & Fear In BDSM

February 4, 2001
What Is Domination? and a bit on Fear in BDSM

[21:08] * raven{Az} says Hello and welcome to #Leather_and_Roses' weekly discussions on BDSM topics. I hope you enjoy it. The following rules apply for all present.
[21:08] <raven{Az}> You must be of legal age to participate, if you are not, please leave. Legal age being 18 or 21 depending on your location, if you are thought to be younger, you will be asked your age. If you are found to be younger, you will be kick/banned.
[21:08] <raven{Az}> No trolling will be tolerated, this is not a singles night, it is a discussion night Trolling is the advertising of yourself, wants/needs/desires, and/or personal ads. If you troll, you will be kick/banned.
[21:08] <raven{Az}> Harassment will not be tolerated either. If you harass another person, and an op is made aware of it, you will be asked to stop. If you continue, you will be kick/banned. This discussion is for enjoyment and information, not harassment.
[21:08] <raven{Az}> Please try to stay on topic and discuss one thread at a time. If the discussion gets overly fast (or overly emotional, or someone requests a break), I will call a break. This is so everyone can take a few moments to relax, and get their thoughts in order before continuing.
[21:08] <raven{Az}> If it erodes into a semantics argument, and those who are disagreeing can not agree to disagree, I will close the discussion for the night. We are here to discuss and learn from one anther, not fight with one another.
[21:08] <raven{Az}> Please be polite when speaking and do not flame anyone. Flaming is insulting the person who states an idea. You can disagree with an idea, but do not attack the person making the idea. Flamers, will be kicked
[21:09] <raven{Az}> All statements are publishable on the web site,. I will change nicks if it is requested via email to ravenshad@mindspring.com. If I receive no requests, logs will be published in full on the web site and the lack of a request will be taken as consent to publish your statements.
[21:09] <raven{Az}> I hope you enjoy tonight's discussion, the topic is What is domination
[21:09] *** raven{Az} is now known as raven^Ron
[21:09] <raven^Ron> lets start with this...what do you think domination is?
[21:10] *** raven^Ron is now known as raven{Az}
[21:10] <raven{Az}> bot off
[21:10] <blackrose{LnR}> Yes raven{Az}.
[21:11] <raven^Ron> OK..what would not be domination? (might this be easier)
[21:11] <{sonja}JP> submission?
[21:11] <{sonja}JP> sorry
[21:11] <raven^Ron> I would agree gf..
[21:11] <bella{D}> lol sonja...
[21:11] <{sonja}JP> my last smartarse comment.....i promise
[21:11] <raven^Ron> yeah..that's true sonja KIK
[21:11] <raven^Ron> oops LOL even
[21:12] <numbum{S}> trying to controll without any responsibility towards the sub?
[21:12] <EZRiser> perish the thought .. but .. life in a vanilla world ...
[21:12] <Rorschach> Well, I can offer the text book definition
[21:12] <ayli> alot of things could go under the heading of not dominant.. whining, shirking responsability, lack of control..
[21:12] <numbum{S}> ohhhhhhh who said the "v" word
[21:12] <raven^Ron> that works Ror.. :)
[21:12] <Rorschach> dom*i*na*tion (noun)
[21:12] <Rorschach> First appeared 14th Century
[21:12] <Rorschach> 1 : supremacy or preeminence over another
[21:12] <Rorschach> 2 : exercise of mastery or ruling power
[21:12] <Rorschach> 3 : exercise of preponderant, governing, or controlling influence
[21:12] <Rorschach> 4 plural : DOMINION 3
[21:12] <raven^Ron> what responsibility does a dom have towards a sub numbum{S}?
[21:13] <raven^Ron> exercise of preponderant, governing, or controlling influence..yeah I'd say that's pretty accurate..
[21:13] <numbum{S}> to take care never to really hurt her/him
[21:13] * {sonja}JP answers that one ........ to know their own power/strength in all areas
[21:13] <numbum{S}> to try and meet her/his needs
[21:13] <Rorschach> I'd agree with that one myself, raven
[21:14] <ayli> the ability to admit mistakes, and work on them
[21:14] <Rorschach> Number 2 is interesting ... "Mastery"
[21:14] <raven^Ron> yes that is quite interesting..
[21:14] <{sonja}JP> with the ery, it implies a knowledge
[21:14] <raven^Ron> makes sense ot me numbum{S}..
[21:14] <{sonja}JP> a significant knowledge
[21:14] <raven^Ron> shouldn't a dom have knowledge?
[21:15] <{sonja}JP> oh yes....
[21:15] <{sonja}JP> i was just mentioning it
[21:15] <numbum{S}> if he is going to be using implements, he MUST know how to use them
[21:15] <ayli> I have to go find the b
[21:15] <Rorschach> Well, one would hope, num
[21:15] <raven^Ron> yes I agree he/she should have prior knowledge with the use of implements..but what about prior knowledge of the mental/emotional aspects of control?
[21:15] <EZRiser> I believe it goes far beyond the use of implements ..
[21:16] <numbum{S}> he must also know about emotions....... his sub's at least
[21:16] <raven^Ron> To where EZ?
[21:16] <raven^Ron> what about his own numbum{S}?
[21:16] <numbum{S}> he must know his own limits yes
[21:16] <Rorschach> He/she should also also know his/her own emotions, num
[21:16] <EZRiser> you said it already raven .. the emotional aspects of the relationship ..
[21:16] <numbum{S}> be willing to learn........ to listen
[21:16] <raven^Ron> shouldn't he/she know his own emotions, thought process and behavioral patterns?
[21:16] * {sonja}JP always gets the feeling that Doms "have to be gods"
[21:17] <Rorschach> I've often thought control starts with oneself
[21:17] <Gin_No_Kawaii> If a dom doesn't know the effects of that control, not only on the sub, but on him/herself as well, then both the sub and the dom can be in for a world of problems.
[21:17] <numbum{S}> but one thing I value in my own Dom....... and this may seem odd
[21:17] <bella{D}> the dominant should know himself well enough, and what he wishes to do, so that he can assume responsibility for the person in his care
[21:17] <numbum{S}> he has the courage to tell me when he doesn't feel like being a Dom
[21:17] <bella{D}> whether for a scene...or for longer.
[21:17] <numbum{S}> I think that's important too
[21:18] <raven^Ron> that's a good thing I thinkg numbum{S}
[21:18] <raven^Ron> Ror, please explain "Control starts with oneself"
[21:18] <raven^Ron> Ron: Good point bella (re: dominant should know himself well enough..etc)
[21:18] <numbum{S}> Yes..... I think some feel a Dom has to be in the "role" at all times..... but
[21:19] <Rorschach> Well, who can one truly expect to control another being when one hasn't control of oneself?
[21:19] <numbum{S}> I may be niave ..... but that seems a little unrealistic
[21:19] <ayli> I dont' think anyone can be in control constantly, not of themselves or anyone else.
[21:19] <raven^Ron> raven: I agree Ror..so it would be safe to say that a dom must have self control..
[21:19] <numbum{S}> exactally ayli
[21:19] <{sonja}JP> hmmmm......but what if a dom expects a sub to be sub......all the time?
[21:19] <raven^Ron> I would think that would depend on how one defines "role"
[21:19] <Rorschach> I would think that's safe to say, raven
[21:19] <ayli> no one is sub constantly sonja
[21:20] <{sonja}JP> when do we step out?
[21:20] <bella{D}> num...ayli...my owner is always 'dominant'....it is just the level of assertiveness that might change due to circumstances
[21:20] <raven^Ron> Ron: I would say that a person needs to have to stay in control of themselves all the time, whether or not they rae exerting a control over someone else can be a more on and off thing..
[21:20] <numbum{S}> I would examine whether he wants a sub or a doormat
[21:20] * {sonja}JP likes that thought bella
[21:20] <ayli> bella, I mean, you can't expect him to be on top of you constantly
[21:20] <{sonja}JP> dang it.......why not/
[21:20] <raven^Ron> I think a dominant can be "dominant' all the time..whether or not they are actively enforcing it or not..same with a sub..
[21:20] * {sonja}JP giggles
[21:20] * numbum{S} nodds to bella
[21:21] <raven^Ron> OK..break for five please
[21:21] <numbum{S}> not meaning to be personal, but are there times when you give HIM comfort and nuturing?
[21:21] <Amax> But of course...
[21:22] <raven^Ron> yes there are numbum{S}..but to me, taht's service..part of my submission..
[21:22] <numbum{S}> nodding...... some see it as weakness on the Dom's part...... I see it as giving of yourself to the one you love..... being there for him
[21:23] <raven^Ron> I see it as part and partial of any long term relationship.. :)
[21:26] <raven^Ron> Ok...lets get back to it...(BREAK OVER FOR LOGGING PURPOSES)
[21:26] <raven^Ron> the thread that was "shelved" was whether or not a dominant drawing support from their sub is "less dominant" or "not a dominant"..opinions?
[21:27] <ayli> more dominant I would think, admiting you need help isn't weak
[21:27] <raven^Ron> Ron: Doms are human...we all need comforting at one point or another..
[21:27] <raven^Ron> Ron: A dominant that is dependent loses some of the dominance because they are depended..
[21:27] <raven^Ron> explain dependent Ron..
[21:27] <bella{D}> hardly...a person is dominant...what they need as a human does not change that
[21:27] <{sonja}JP> they lose dominance?
[21:27] <numbum{S}> I most certainly trust someone who can tell me he needs something from me
[21:27] <{sonja}JP> i wouldnt think so
[21:27] <raven^Ron> Ron: dependent: unable to do without that comfort..be it sex, or whatever
[21:28] <{sonja}JP> actually - i know thats not true (least for me)
[21:28] <ayli> okay.. I can agree to that..
[21:28] <raven^Ron> Ahh..well I don't think someone who is co-dependent can be very dominant either..they wouldn't be able to take care of themselves very well and lack self control...
[21:28] <ayli> if you NEED something so bad.. that it can be used against you.. it's a weekness
[21:28] <{sonja}JP> they can be dependent, but still not lose dominance.
[21:28] <bella{D}> there is a difference between allowing one's self to depend upon another...and being 'needy'
[21:28] <numbum{S}> it shows me he trusts me..... when he is at his most vulnerable..... so therefore he will understand my feelings of vulnerability
[21:28] <raven^Ron> that's another point numbum{S}..both people leaning on one antoher does breed trust..
[21:29] <EZRiser> Ron .. would you mean to say that you dont enjoy the aftercare time with raven after a particularly good session .. that peroid of closeness
[21:29] <raven^Ron> how so sonja?
[21:29] <raven^Ron> Ron: right ayli...
[21:29] <ayli> just cause you enjoy something... doesn't mean it's required EZ
[21:29] <raven^Ron> raven: I think he's meaning co-dependence here ..not just "dependent"...co-dependent..literally unable to fucntion without the one you "need"
[21:30] <Soulhuntr> technically, co-dependance is both of you being dependant on something outside.... I think :)
[21:30] <bella{D}> that is different...interdependence versus co dependence...
[21:30] <{sonja}JP> Master has leaned on me before......depended on me to comfort Him.....never lessened His dominance over me in any way........rather it prolly strengthened my submission to Him
[21:30] <raven^Ron> Ron: Of course I enjoy it...Of course I want it..but if every day I felt I needed to get that kind of "comfort" I would lose some of her respect..
[21:30] <raven^Ron> true Soulhuntr...my explanation is not clear enough..
[21:30] * numbum{S} agrees with sonja
[21:30] <Soulhuntr> Accepting comfort and wanting it is NOT the same thing as needing it.
[21:31] <raven^Ron> Ron: If I leaned on raven all the time, whether it was for comfort or whatever, she would lose respect for me..
[21:31] <raven^Ron> thank you Ken!! :))
[21:31] <{sonja}JP> you are probably talking about a weak person there Ron - and not a Dom........tho i am not sure i get your meaning completely
[21:31] <ayli> well.. a week person isn't domiant, and thats where we were going sonja :)
[21:31] * ayli giggles.. turns the map upside right.. and points..
[21:31] <raven^Ron> I'm trying to draw the line so the difference Ron is talking about is clearer...Ken has come close...accepting/desiring comfort is one thing..but it is not the same as "needing" it...
[21:32] <{sonja}JP> lol
[21:32] <raven^Ron> ok..think of this..a dom literally can't function wtihout the sub to tell him/her what to do all the time, or to be there every single minute...would that person be dom?
[21:32] <ladysong> you take out the needing and you take out the human element of things
[21:32] <ayli> No
[21:32] <Soulhuntr> more than that, I know many dominat peopel who are weak. Not all submission is submission to strength :) Charisma is sometimes enough.
[21:32] <{sonja}JP> exactly.......but there are times when a Dom might NEED comfort......but if it was an "all the time" thing......that would signify the weakness
[21:32] <raven^Ron> not neccssarily ladysong..there is healthy need and an unhealthy need
[21:32] <raven^Ron> true Ken
[21:33] <Rorschach> Sounds more like the person being depended upon is the dominating force
[21:33] <ladysong> same goes for control .. doesnt it
[21:33] <raven^Ron> that's what Ron was saying. sonja..an all the time thing..the dom being "dependent" upon that comfort..
[21:33] <{sonja}JP> we are getting into a lot of "depends on the situation"
[21:33] <raven^Ron> yeah..I would agree with that Ror..
[21:33] <ayli> not all the needing ladysong, but honestly, I think if the dom needs me constantly.. it's a bad thing.. if he needs so much.. that he can't be in control, because all I have to say is.. if you do that, I'll leave..
[21:33] <{sonja}JP> ok........then yeah
[21:33] <raven^Ron> yes ladysong..there is "good" control and "bad" control I think..
[21:33] <{sonja}JP> good explanation ayli
[21:34] <raven^Ron> good one ayli :))
[21:34] * ayli would be in control then.. and well.. uhmm.. i didn't sign up for this tour to be the dom
[21:34] <raven^Ron> we always get into a lot of "depends on the situation" sonja..<giggle>
[21:34] <{sonja}JP> when the dependence gets to the point of shifting of control.....that would be the problem
[21:34] <raven^Ron> LOLOL ayli
[21:34] <{sonja}JP> LOL
[21:34] <raven^Ron> Ron LOL ayli
[21:34] <{sonja}JP> there was a sign up sheet?
[21:34] <{sonja}JP> and i missed ti?
[21:35] <Soulhuntr> generally speaking, dependance freom a sub is fine, dependance ON a sub is a problem.
[21:35] <raven^Ron> I agree Ken
[21:35] <ayli> agreed Ken
[21:35] <numbum{S}> noddin
[21:35] <{sonja}JP> but dependence on ANYBODY is really a problem......from anybody
[21:35] <raven^Ron> Though I don't think a sub should depend on the dom for their entire outlook on everything...
[21:35] * {sonja}JP looks at raven
[21:35] * {sonja}JP giggles
[21:35] <Soulhuntr> sonja - I dont buy into that. I dont think the only way to be healthy is to be independant;
[21:35] <raven^Ron> what sonja?
[21:36] <numbum{S}> I doubt if the Dom would want that either raven
[21:36] <{sonja}JP> nope.....didnt say that Ken
[21:36] <raven^Ron> I would hope not numbum{S}..but there are some who do want that...and there are subs who want it too..
[21:36] <ayli> I don't think you have to be independant, but y ou must beable to survice without the other person, maybe not quite as happily, but you can't base your life ON another persons
[21:36] <Soulhuntr> I'm not sure then how dependance == problems "on ANYBODY"
[21:36] <{sonja}JP> what ayli said......
[21:36] <raven^Ron> I agree ayli..
[21:37] <Soulhuntr> why not ayli? If the object of your dependance is worthy of that trust, why si that bad?
[21:37] <{sonja}JP> what happens if they die?
[21:37] <ayli> because what happens if
[21:37] <raven^Ron> Ron: that's a good rule from both sides ayli
[21:37] <raven^Ron> what happens if the person isn't there anymore Ken? suicide because you literally can't live wihtout them?
[21:37] <{sonja}JP> no fault of theirs........but they are gone.....what does the sub do then?
[21:37] <ayli> what happens if they decide the relation ship is over, what happens if they die, what happens if .. endless things
[21:37] <ayli> you should Not NEEED someone or you will die
[21:37] * {sonja}JP sees the mind merge between ayli raven and i and giggles
[21:38] <raven^Ron> LOL sonja
[21:38] <Soulhuntr> ::shrugs:: If they die, maybe you die too. That isnt necessarily much of a problem in my mind - as long as the person/cause was woth it.
[21:38] * ayli frowns
[21:38] * raven^Ron frowns..
[21:38] <ayli> gonna let this one go.. cause.. we're not gonna agree
[21:38] <ayli> next subject raven?
[21:38] <raven^Ron> I don't agree with that one Ken..sorry
[21:38] <Soulhuntr> Ah well... I an not going to pursue that thought... I am sure that isnt what this talk is meant to be about.
[21:38] <{sonja}JP> true
[21:38] <raven^Ron> OK..what kinds of traits would you consider to be dominant?
[21:38] <{sonja}JP> back to dominance?
[21:39] <bella{D}> dependence of that nature is not bad as long as there is positive growth...
[21:39] <{sonja}JP> one we have already listed.........Self-control
[21:39] <numbum{S}> I want my Dom to be strict...... but that strictness tendered with affection
[21:39] <raven^Ron> Ron: confidence, self assuredness, self control, a touch of arrogance maybe..reliable..trustworthy
[21:39] <ayli> self confidence
[21:39] * {sonja}JP likes the touch of arrogance
[21:39] <ayli> a nice ass :)
[21:39] <raven^Ron> LOLOL
[21:40] <bella{D}> and that wee little smackeral of maniacal evil....
[21:40] <ayli> (okay, that was a joke)
[21:40] <{sonja}JP> yes AYLI
[21:40] <raven^Ron> raven checks out Ron's ass..yup..nice one..:)
[21:40] <{sonja}JP> quick..............Dom ass check
[21:40] <{sonja}JP> guys.....would you all turn around ......please????
[21:40] <numbum{S}> ya mean we gotta erace alyi's answer....... DARN
[21:40] <raven^Ron> LOLOLOLK
[21:40] <raven^Ron> oops,..erase that KL
[21:40] <raven^Ron> K even
[21:40] <raven^Ron> damn..I can't type
[21:41] <ayli> naa.. everything I say should be taken with all seriousness. I am the goddess kimmie
[21:41] * bella{D} smiles hugely!!!!!!!!!!!!
[21:41] * ladysong grins .. got no problems here ...
[21:41] * {sonja}JP pouts
[21:41] <raven^Ron> ok...physcial attributes are not neccesarily an outward appearance of dominance...
[21:41] * numbum{S} thinks the Dom has to be willing to give time and attention to his sub
[21:41] <raven^Ron> I agree with that numbum{S}..
[21:41] <ayli> this is true.. can we still check out their asses?
[21:41] <{sonja}JP> but the hands..........i think doms need to have nice hands.....
[21:42] <{sonja}JP> for a VARIETY of reasons......
[21:42] <Rorschach> <chuckle>
[21:42] <ayli> the desire to learn?
[21:42] <{sonja}JP> some of them having nothing to do with sex.....
[21:42] <raven^Ron> everyone has differences when it comes to "physical appearance" so lets not go there. .LOL
[21:42] <raven^Ron> yes ayli
[21:42] <numbum{S}> why ya think I want so much time with him ayli, Course ya can
[21:42] <raven^Ron> what is "being' dominant?
[21:42] <{sonja}JP> thats a good one ayli - cause it implies that they dont think they already "know it all"
[21:42] <Rorschach> I would say some of these things would depend on the type of relationship
[21:43] <raven^Ron> they probably would Ror..
[21:43] <raven^Ron> Quite a bit of it does..
[21:43] <ayli> doesn't everything?
[21:43] <raven^Ron> yes ayli
[21:44] <raven^Ron> so lets get back to Ror's definition that he posted...the word mastery seemed to generate some ideas...what is mastery? is it different from dominance?
[21:44] <numbum{S}> we are people first, and into the D/s lifestyle second........ personalities come into this as with all aspects of life
[21:44] <raven^Ron> Ron: But I do know it all!!
[21:44] <raven^Ron> LOL Ron
[21:44] * {sonja}JP giggles at Ron..........sure hun
[21:44] <ayli> I think of Mastery as knowing.. as having learned your subject well enough
[21:44] <raven^Ron> Ron: though since Alzheimer's is hitting I may have to go look up some of the answers
[21:45] <Rorschach> Well, Webster-Merriam doesn't seem to think there's much of a difference
[21:45] <numbum{S}> ummm, I think that was a LITTLE touch of arrogance, Ron
[21:45] * numbum{S} grins..... letting him know she is just kidding
[21:45] <raven^Ron> Ron: See numbum I've got that one down.. <laugh>
[21:45] <ayli> naa.. he's just a smart ass numbum
[21:45] <Rorschach> However, I'm not certain how much I'm believing Websters these days
[21:45] <raven^Ron> big smart ass ayli.. LOL
[21:45] <raven^Ron> So Ror..how would *you* define mastery?
[21:45] <ayli> I know *I* am raven.. I was talking about Ron
[21:45] <numbum{S}> CUTE smart ass too
[21:45] * numbum{S} chuckles
[21:45] <{sonja}JP> smart and cute ass?........lucky raven
[21:46] <raven^Ron> Ron: mastery..having absolute control and having full knowledge of
[21:46] <raven^Ron> raven: can one ever have "full knowledge" of BDSM?
[21:46] <bella{D}> Possession of consummate skill.
[21:46] <bella{D}> The status of master or ruler; control: mastery of the seas.
[21:46] <bella{D}> Full command of a subject of study
[21:46] <Rorschach> Having the education and experience and control of a skill or talent
[21:46] <raven^Ron> Ron: 94% is close enough...screw it I don't want to know about scat..
[21:46] <numbum{S}> if they think they do, then they are dangerous
[21:46] <{sonja}JP> no..........but close to having full knowledge of a person
[21:46] <ayli> no raven.. but they might have a desire to learn, and know their partner well enough to be considered a Master
[21:46] <Draco> The last one seemed to fit the best ...
[21:47] * {sonja}JP considers letting ayli speak for her :)
[21:47] <ayli> prolly not a good idea sonja.. i say stupid shit alot
[21:47] <raven^Ron> LOL ayli
[21:47] <raven^Ron> I agree with the "education and experience/knowledge" parts
[21:47] * Amax raises an eyebrow...
[21:48] <ayli> what got your eyebrows in a tizzy Amax?
[21:48] <raven^Ron> So this differs from a dominant how? just in the level of experience/knowledge? or, when used as nouns (dominant/master) are the words interchangeable?
[21:48] <raven^Ron> (same old topic of dominant vs. master)
[21:48] <ayli> dominant = personality
[21:48] <Amax> Just to hear one admit that....
[21:48] <ayli> Master = learning and knowledge
[21:48] <bella{D}> and from a different dictionary....
[21:48] * Amax grins
[21:48] <bella{D}> mastery n 1: great skillfulness and knowledge of some subject or activity; "a good command of French" [syn: command, control] 2: power to dominate or defeat; "mastery of the seas" [syn: domination, supremacy] 3: the act of mastering or subordinating someone
[21:48] <ayli> hear who admit what Amax?
[21:49] <Draco> The problem with websters is that they use definitions not cultural interpretations of words...
[21:49] <Rorschach> So, in this case, would it be fair to say we are talking about mastery of a person or persons?
[21:49] <bella{D}> that is true....
[21:49] <raven^Ron> so by that book bella, mastery is a synonym for domination
[21:49] * ayli thinks lots of people might have a dominant personality.. it's what they learn to do with it
[21:49] <raven^Ron> Yes I think so Ror
[21:50] <Draco> That is the problem raven we rarely have ds relations that are by the book.
[21:50] * ayli giggles
[21:50] <bella{D}> that is true ayli....someone might be a 'dominant' personality, but not necessarily have 'mastered' another person.
[21:50] <ayli> I was just asking for working definitions Last night!
[21:50] <raven^Ron> this is true Draco...
[21:51] <Rorschach> So one who is actively dominant over another person or persons could be perceived as a master of that person, no?
[21:51] <ayli> works for me Ror
[21:51] <BloodTear> A Master by my view is a person who has full control and knowlegde of the partner
[21:51] <Draco> Yes...
[21:51] <numbum{S}> I can think of some dominant personalities I would never EVER give my submission to
[21:51] * Amax looks up and sees that silly hat on his head...
[21:51] <{sonja}JP> i wouldnt say necessarily
[21:51] <raven^Ron> it looks cute there Amax.. :)
[21:51] <raven^Ron> I suppose so Ror.
[21:52] <Draco> numbum I thionk you are thinking of domineering not dominant...
[21:52] <{sonja}JP> some D/s relationships happen in weeks......
[21:52] <Rorschach> So then perhaps a dominant is a dominant whether or not he/she has fulltime control over a person or persons ...
[21:52] <bella{D}> yes Ror...
[21:52] <numbum{S}> no,Sir, this is a "Dom...inant" person
[21:52] <raven^Ron> what is the difference Draco between domineering and dominant?
[21:53] <Rorschach> While a master is one who has fulltime control control over person or persons?
[21:53] <raven^Ron> I don't think so Ror...if someone is dominant, wouldn't they be dominant with or without a sub?
[21:53] <{sonja}JP> and a Dom could have full control over someone.....without having full knowledge (or even close)
[21:53] <Draco> Ok just a thought. I see those two words miss used often..
[21:53] <ayli> dominant = someone in contorl dominering = spoiled brat
[21:53] <numbum{S}> donineering...... wanting controll without any consideration for the other party
[21:53] <bella{D}> a master might not control another person..a dom could be a master of something specific - like fireplay
[21:53] <raven^Ron> (Yup..me too Draco, and it's a good thread on this topic, so I asked)
[21:53] <numbum{S}> wanting controll for controll's sake and his own gratification
[21:53] <Rorschach> Yes they would, raven/Ron ... I thought that was covered in my definition
[21:53] <Draco> Good defenition ayli...
[21:54] <Rorschach> That a dominant needn't have control over a person
[21:54] <raven^Ron> I have never been able to find any "difference" between the words dominant and master..with the one exception of "one has a collared sub" the other "does not"...but even that doesn't make much of a real difference..a master still has to be dominant...just as a dominant does..
[21:55] <raven^Ron> (hold on the dominance vs. domineering thread please)
[21:55] <bella{D}> a dominant takes responsibility for his actions...a person who is domineering does not
[21:55] <bella{D}> accountability....
[21:55] <raven^Ron> as for using the word "master" to imply an increased level of knowledge and experience...who would decide what level of knowledge/experience is needed to grant the title?
[21:56] <Soulhuntr> Personally, the only useful scene definition for Master is someone dominants consider superior in a skill or arena or technique.
[21:56] <raven^Ron> I mean..the way BDSM is currently set up (and I hope it stays this way) there is no "governing body" or "formal schooling" by which someone can acheive the title "master" due to increased knowledge..
[21:56] <Rorschach> I've always left that one alone. Hence my never using the term "Master"
[21:56] <Soulhuntr> Obviously, the only people who can make that choice are those speaking of someone... if enough see fit to use the term then he will be known as a master by reputation.
[21:57] <Rorschach> Indeed
[21:57] <raven^Ron> Ron: that's mastery of a skill
[21:57] <Soulhuntr> Many areas of knowledge have titles conferred by peers and not by a central body.
[21:57] <Draco> Traditionally before the internet it was your peers that judged you to be masterful...Now it seems you can get away with it if nobody calls you on it...
[21:57] <raven^Ron> true Ken
[21:57] <Rorschach> Travel enough and you'll find someone to call you on it <g>
[21:57] <numbum{S}> In my own situation, I use the term Master loosely, I guess. It's used as a term of respect towards my Dom
[21:57] <raven^Ron> I can't speak to that Draco other than what I've been told, since I was "in the closet" until the itnernet came out..so to speak..
[21:58] <raven^Ron> True as well Ror
[21:58] <numbum{S}> He owns me so therefore I feel comfortable calling Him Master
[21:58] <numbum{S}> would not expect anyone else to call Him such
[21:58] <raven^Ron> that is how alot of people use the term numbum{S}..for their own "master" or "mistress"...not otehrs
[21:58] <bella{D}> i would call someone a 'master OF something'...but rarely just Master.
[21:59] <Draco> It was usually the community at large that guided you and a mentor or elder in the scene that elevated you...
[21:59] <raven^Ron> Ron: Truthfully doesn't it come down, the term master, to when you earn it from your submissive and not from anyone else's judgement or opinion of you?
[21:59] <raven^Ron> wouldn't that have only worked if people were aware there was a "community" Draco? of which, most people were not aware..
[22:00] <raven^Ron> Ron: I might not be all that "masterful" in some people's eyes, but if raven sees me that way, do I need anyone else's opinion?
[22:00] <Draco> I am a master of the bella skill but would not call myself a S/M master...
[22:00] <raven^Ron> (raven the typing secretary..<giggle> sorry couldn't resist)
[22:00] <bella{D}> From my understanding...there were communities...some small, some large...
[22:00] * bella{D} blushes
[22:00] <raven^Ron> yes I know there were bella..but alot of people didn't know they existed...so finding a mentor and thus soeone to train and "elevate" you would be very difficult then..
[22:02] <Draco> True but these communities where very central in most large cities and are just now trying to catch up to the wide spread inflow of new people world wide via the computer...
[22:02] <bella{D}> that becomes part of the 'old guard' debate....*smiles*....i knew there was a community as a girl..but then i lived in NYC...leathermen were just a part of the overall populace
[22:02] <numbum{S}> I may be way off the mark here, but is it all that important that others consider you "Master" ... is it not more important what each partner considers their chosen one?
[22:02] <raven^Ron> yes..that is true Draco..least from my limited understanding of groups and such...
[22:02] <Soulhuntr> ::thinks:: No. I dont think it's an issue of what ones sub calls them. Personally I have a larger peer group than just Kimiko. I respect her opinion but to say her's was the only one that mattered would be false.
[22:02] <ayli> no, it's not terribly importaint I don't think numbum..
[22:03] * numbum{S} smiles at Soulhuntr.....
[22:03] <raven^Ron> Unfortunately numbum{S}, I think most people do care what others think about them..whether or not they allow those opinions to seriously affect thier lives sia different story...
[22:03] <Draco> The current gap is between people that call them self a term and the old groups that held standards to achieve....
[22:03] <Soulhuntr> To take that further, Kimiko doesnt define me, nor would I be content simply with her opinion.
[22:04] <Draco> It is a fight I here frequently at gatherings...
[22:04] <raven^Ron> I never knew tehre was a community bella...which was very interesting when I finally learned there was one only 7 m,iles from where I grew up.. LOL
[22:04] <numbum{S}> I do not mean that others not show you respect, Soulhuntr..... only that does it matter what 'title' you receive from others?
[22:04] <Soulhuntr> Now, I can see how in a romantic BDSM relationship ones partner's voice might be the only one of consequence.
[22:04] <bella{D}> lol raven/ron
[22:04] <Soulhuntr> num - actually, yes :) I don't INSIST on any title, nor do I ask for it - but I certainly do care if my peer group sees me as a "master" or an "asshole" :)
[22:05] <bella{D}> it matters to me numbum....my owner's opinion of me guides me...but others' opinions help me to clarify myself
[22:05] <bella{D}> or both ken?
[22:05] * bella{D} smiles
[22:05] <raven^Ron> I agree with that bella..
[22:05] <Soulhuntr> or both :)
[22:05] <raven^Ron> LOLOL bella
[22:05] <Draco> I just learned of a group in rural Alabama near my home .. Scary cousin bondage.....
[22:05] * numbum{S} can't help but chuckle at Soulhuntr's words
[22:05] <raven^Ron> Ron: scary cousin bondage..oh god..LOLOLOL
[22:05] <bella{D}> lolol
[22:05] <raven^Ron> ok...we ready to go back to that thread we put on hold?
[22:06] <numbum{S}> but that's what I mean....... you receive the respect..... but does it really matter whether you are called Dom or called Master?
[22:06] <Soulhuntr> num - that depends on it the title is a sign of respect or not :) Sometimes a title is in and of itself an idicator of esteem.
[22:06] <numbum{S}> nodding
[22:07] <Soulhuntr> In my peer group for example "Master" is a meaningless term, but "Trainer" has much behind it - it is an honor to be so known and it would be upsetting if it fell away.
[22:08] <bella{D}> ok...what thread did we put on hold asks the blonde?
[22:08] <raven^Ron> define domineering...
[22:08] <raven^Ron> (difference between dominant and domineering bella)
[22:08] <bella{D}> my ex husband....
[22:08] <raven^Ron> why bella?
[22:08] * raven^Ron giggles
[22:08] <bella{D}> To rule over or control arbitrarily or arrogantly; tyrannize.
[22:08] <bella{D}> v. intr.
[22:09] <Soulhuntr> hmm... technically, isnt domineering a tense of dominate or dominating?
[22:09] <ayli> no
[22:09] <Soulhuntr> Ah - not :)
[22:09] <Rorschach> Techically, it would seem so. Webster says "Masterful" is a synonym
[22:09] <bella{D}> domineering is control without taking responsibility....for the wrong reasons...
[22:10] <raven^Ron> Ron: I would say domineering implies a lack of care or respect for the other person..though that isn't to say it's out of the realm of what a dominant could be...
[22:10] <Soulhuntr> By the above definition it would seem to me that domineering is a description of how one uses a position of dominance. Unfortunatley the word itself has a value judgment attached - but thats life :)
[22:10] <raven^Ron> Ron: dominants can be assholes too
[22:10] <bella{D}> also....
[22:10] <bella{D}> To rule with insolence or arbitrary sway; to play the master; to be overbearing; to tyrannize; to bluster; to swell with conscious superiority or haughtiness; -- often with over; as, to domineer over dependents
[22:10] <raven^Ron> any title, when applied to a person, can be said to have a "value judgement" on it I think Ken
[22:11] <numbum{S}> a Major case of arrogance instead of jest a lil touch?
[22:11] <bella{D}> i believe someone who is domineering can dominate....thus making them dominant in that situation
[22:11] <raven^Ron> could a person who is domineering be so out of insecurity?
[22:12] <Draco> Alot of doms can be domineering but it is definetly a negative term to use in the comunity...
[22:12] <raven^Ron> exert more control to keep the person there ?? type thing
[22:12] <raven^Ron> why and how so Draco?
[22:12] <numbum{S}> I think a person who is "domineering" is very insecure
[22:12] <numbum{S}> he needs to controll another to promote his own self worth
[22:13] <numbum{S}> not to in anyway increase the happiness of the other person
[22:13] <bella{D}> a person who is domineering has a tendency to lack control of themselves and therefore compensates by taking control over another.
[22:13] <bella{D}> that is a personal connotation tho
[22:13] * Soulhuntr couldnt evern begin to speculate ont he motives of a person only because they have an attribute as terse as a dictionary term :)
[22:14] <raven^Ron> seems there can be a fine line between domination and domineering..
[22:14] * numbum{S} wonders if what we are trying to define here is the difference between a good and bad "Dominant"
[22:14] <Soulhuntr> What I dont see is anything in the definitions that implies a lack of self control ...
[22:14] <Draco> Tyrants and abusers have made it so. they are without the after care and control most of us feel are needed...
[22:14] <bella{D}> and some in afterthought view dominance that they agreed to as domineering behaviour later....
[22:14] <raven^Ron> we can go there numbum..:)
[22:14] <ayli> kinda sounds like it doesn't it numbum?
[22:14] <Soulhuntr> num - yes, that is basically it. It is often said in BDSM that someone is "just" domineering as opposed to being dominant
[22:15] <bella{D}> i agree Ken..that is why that is my personal connotation...
[22:15] * Soulhuntr waves
[22:15] <numbum{S}> nodding...... a way of pigeon holing
[22:15] <ayli> lables again?
[22:16] <raven^Ron> always ayli LOL
[22:16] <Rorschach> That was were my thinking was heading, ayli
[22:16] * numbum{S} wishes she had thought of labels.... easier to spell
[22:16] <Soulhuntr> yes, usually it's used as an insult with no real basis, like "abusive"
[22:16] <raven^Ron> Ron: we don't need no stinking labels...
[22:16] <bella{D}> and what one might consider 'dominant'...another might see as 'domineering'
[22:16] <Draco> A good example would be someone who leads by exammple and someone that just expects it because of there possition..
[22:16] * ayli sticks a lable on Ron's ass
[22:16] <raven^Ron> Ron: the only reason labels are used is we only have words to convey our positions and feelings. thus a term takes on a meaning and becomes a label.and it can be both good and bad
[22:16] <numbum{S}> least it was ON an not UP
[22:16] <Soulhuntr> True bella - it's tied up to ones views of "arbitrary" and "arrogant"
[22:17] <raven^Ron> Ron: Draco, the difference between a leader and an officer?
[22:17] * ayli wouldn't stick things UP his but.. he lives here.. he could get me
[22:17] <Soulhuntr> Thats cool Ron, the problem is many terms that are inherently context sensative and individual are used in an absolute way
[22:17] <raven^Ron> Ron: thanks ayli!
[22:17] <Draco> Bingo raven^Ron
[22:18] <Soulhuntr> I dont see it Draco, I have known many officers who expected obedience because of their position who did not fit the idea of domineering.
[22:18] <Soulhuntr> They were neither arrogant, arbitrary or tyrranical.
[22:19] * numbum{S} looks at the clock and sighs
[22:19] <numbum{S}> people, it has been enjoyable, enlightening and fun
[22:19] <Draco> But to expect it just because is mild tyrrany. If you lead because you are actually qualified then you deserve the respect...
[22:20] <raven^Ron> Ron: To expect obedience beacuse of their rank is one thing. but to exhibit none of the characteristics of a leader and still expect the obedience simply because of their rank, is domineering in my opinion
[22:20] <raven^Ron> Ron: I've known alot of officers like that..
[22:21] <raven^Ron> Ron: couldn't lead their way out of a wet paper bag, but would tell you to "go forth and conquer!" with no hint of how to do it, no guidance and no support
[22:21] <raven^Ron> ummmmm..we're getting off topic??
[22:21] <Draco> Thank you raven^Ron that fillled out what I was trying to say...
[22:21] <raven^Ron> or..can we tie this leader topic into the discussion topic somehow please?
[22:21] <raven^Ron> RoN: You're welcome Draco :)
[22:21] <raven^Ron> Draco, there are two of us, at one keyboard..raven and Ron (my Master) so I type for both of us..I prefacse (or try to) his words wiht his name.. :)
[22:22] <ayli> a good leader, is like a good dominant
[22:22] <ayli> a bad leader would be a dominering asshole?
[22:22] <raven^Ron> Ron: she types because she's my submissive...and..she types better..alot fewer typos that way..and alot faster too
[22:22] <BloodTear> LOL
[22:22] <raven^Ron> raven giggles..thank you Ron :)
[22:22] <bella{D}> so, someone who self identifies as a dom....might not deserve that title as proven by their actions?
[22:22] <raven^Ron> LOL ayli..yeah I suppose so..
[22:22] <raven^Ron> Ron: Bingo ayli!
[22:22] <raven^Ron> that's how I see it bella..
[22:22] <raven^Ron> one's actions will either support or negate their self given titles..
[22:23] <raven^Ron> One can call themselvs a dom all they want, but if their actions show them to be more sub, then the title falls by the wayside..
[22:23] <raven^Ron> brb
[22:23] <Draco> I type absolutly horrible so I forget sometimes to include ploliteness also .Sorry...
[22:23] <Draco> See I even missspell alot...LOL
[22:24] <bella{D}> *smiles*
[22:24] <raven^Ron> not a problem Draco :_)
[22:25] <raven^Ron> back
[22:26] <raven^Ron> OK...anything else?
[22:26] <bella{D}> So...domination is non-domineering control/mastery over one's self...and possibly someone else?
[22:27] <raven^Ron> can one be dominant without someone to dominate?
[22:27] <Draco> So regardless of the term used if a person does not live up to it then there peers will not accept it anyway..
[22:27] <raven^Ron> taht's true Draco...least I would think so
[22:27] <Draco> Then the old "guard" ways still hold but there word in reverse order sometimes...
[22:28] <raven^Ron> probably Draco..
[22:28] <Draco> Worked in reverse even...
[22:29] <bella{D}> yes raven...even as someone can be submissive without someone to submit to
[22:29] <raven^Ron> except now a days Draco, there is no "body" to answer to...in other words, you may not think someone is a dom..but if they continue to say they are, someone who doesn't know them will believe it until they again prove they aren't..
[22:30] <BloodTear> I have a question to all in here..i had a girl ones who called herself sub..but she always said that she has to have her freedom..like go out to parties without telling me..and she said that i could not get angry at her just because she did not tell me what she did and where she has been. and she was always to have it her way or no way at all....in my opinion she was not a sub att all..she was more of a Dom..was i correct on that
[22:30] <Soulhuntr> Well BT - by current terms she was "domineering" :)
[22:31] <BloodTear> then i was correct
[22:31] <raven^Ron> I can't really answer that BloodLord cuz I don't know the person..but wanting everything your way (it's my way or else) is not submissive..
[22:31] <Draco> That is a long discusion on another topic tho. That relates to the fact that alot of idiots exist in the world that will do as they will with or without the right to..
[22:31] <raven^Ron> Ron: might have just been a bottom looking for occasional pain play...
[22:31] <raven^Ron> true Draco
[22:32] <BloodTear> well it will be fun in a month or to because her Online Master from USA is coming to pick her up here in Sweden and take her with him..haha OMG i will laugh so much when she comes with him and he will see how she really is
[22:32] <Draco> Sounds like a bottom that gets the top from the bottom trill Bloodtear..
[22:32] <bella{D}> raven..i still think there are bodies to answer too...whether they be munch groups....private acquaintances...or online peers...
[22:32] * raven^Ron giggles
[22:33] <bella{D}> there are always groups that will judge/label you...unless you avoid them entirely
[22:33] <raven^Ron> true as well bella..but that doesn't prevent the person from makign contacts with prospective subs outside of those groups..BDSM is not such a "closed" community anymore.....
[22:34] <raven^Ron> If you have a computer, and some curiosity, you can get into BDSM easily now...and you don't even hve to attend any r/l groups to get in touch with subs...internet personal ads will take care of that
[22:34] <Draco> I am glad for the most part that it is not so closed but you get the good with the bad also..
[22:34] <raven^Ron> Ron: and online it is so easy to prsent yourself as something you're not
[22:34] <bella{D}> this is true...tho, i am unsure it ever was 'closed' any more than it is now...the groups in NYC might not have had knowledge of their equivalent in San Fran for example
[22:34] <raven^Ron> true Draco..
[22:34] <raven^Ron> maybe not closed...but harder to find bella?
[22:34] <bella{D}> yes
[22:34] <ayli> people are scared?
[22:34] <raven^Ron> ok..I correct myself then.. :)
[22:36] <raven^Ron> Ron: if people aren't scared they should be..I know of a sub that is a raving lunatic, but online she spends a great deal of time appearing to be very charming...then she starts threatening to kill people and herself...
[22:36] <raven^Ron> Ron: when she doesn't take her meds..
[22:36] <bella{D}> ACK!
[22:36] <BloodTear> Here in Sweden ppl think of BDSM like a Dom is a person who hits the sub when it pleases him and treats the sub like trash..and i hate it..so here in sweden BDSM is VERY closed...
[22:36] <bella{D}> interesting....tho, you get some of that in the States as well....
[22:37] <Draco> That was the public opinion here 10 years ago Bloodtear
[22:37] <raven^Ron> Ahh..here's eomthing we didn't touch on..so what is a dominant's "role" in the relationship?
[22:37] <Rorschach> So I guess my "You mean it isn't?" question wouldn't go over well then?
[22:37] <Draco> Leader...
[22:37] <bella{D}> one with honey butter?
[22:37] * bella{D} apologizes....
[22:37] <BloodTear> yeah but here there are no groups no place to find ppl who have the same intrests because no one here knows they exist..because if ppl knows the persons who are into BDSM they will be acused to the polic for abuse....the law here is very weird
[22:38] <raven^Ron> that sounds a lot like the US BloodTear
[22:38] <raven^Ron> (the laws I mean)
[22:38] <raven^Ron> Ron: and here I'd thought Europe was much more open about it..
[22:38] <Draco> That is why it was just mostly gay S/M here for a long time...
[22:38] <bella{D}> the dominant's role is leader, trainer, mentor, confidante, protector, lover, and in charge of where the bruises go...*smiles*
[22:39] <BloodTear> yepp..the part that i think is very weird is that id 2 persons "play" and another finds out they can acuse the Dom for abuse even if the sub wanted it....
[22:39] <Draco> Too much hassel from the law...
[22:39] <raven^Ron> LOL bella..good one!
[22:39] * ayli likes it!!!
[22:39] <ayli> yay bella
[22:39] <bella{D}> depending...it could be any or none of those...
[22:39] <bella{D}> lol
[22:39] <siren`de`soir{SDS}> *smiling @ bella{D}
[22:39] <raven^Ron> does a person have to be actively giving "orders" to be dominant?
[22:39] <ayli> no
[22:39] <bella{D}> NO
[22:39] <BloodTear> no
[22:39] <raven^Ron> why not?
[22:39] <Draco> I will remember that definition little one...
[22:40] * bella{D} blushes....
[22:40] <raven^Ron> Ron: A dominant reserves the last word on any subject...and maybe the first word too..
[22:40] <raven^Ron> raven giggles
[22:40] <Draco> I never give orders I ask politely...
[22:40] <bella{D}> ever so on occasion....
[22:40] <raven^Ron> Ron: me too Draco..then I ask a little less politely...*then* I give an order
[22:40] <ayli> I think just because someone isn't standing over top of you telling you what to do, or smacking you, doesn't mean you wouldn't be doing things to please them anyways
[22:40] <raven^Ron> *raven is glad she hasn't gotten the "order" stage yet...<giggle> klingon boy comes with that I think
[22:41] <bella{D}> lol
[22:41] <Draco> If it gets to the last one she usually is out of arms reach....LOL
[22:41] <ayli> so they would be dominant.. just because your the submissive in the relationship
[22:41] <BloodTear> Orders shall not have to be given...the 2 ppl should be bound so much that orders does not have to exist....well in a play orders are proper but otherwise asking is enough
[22:41] * bella{D} <----- has learned to be quick
[22:41] * ayli shakes her head.. no no no klingon boy.. nu uh
[22:41] <raven^Ron> LOL Draco
[22:41] <raven^Ron> Ron: LOL Draco
[22:41] <raven^Ron> I'm with you on that one ayli!
[22:41] * BloodTear <------ very very sloooow
[22:41] <Draco> The orders are usually just for fun or effect...
[22:41] <Soulhuntr> ::thinks:: Perhapse I am confused as to what an 'order' is.
[22:41] <ayli> once his forhead sticks out.. just run.. don't wait for order
[22:41] * BloodTear agrees with Draco
[22:42] <raven^Ron> Ken..."do this!" " do that!"
[22:42] <Soulhuntr> Even if I am "asking" politely, it is an order. The language is not important.
[22:42] <raven^Ron> Ron: an order is a request delievered in a forceful tone sans politenes..a do this or else
[22:42] <Draco> Fetch instead of please get that...
[22:42] <raven^Ron> LOLOL Draco
[22:42] <raven^Ron> Ron: LOL Draco
[22:42] <raven^Ron> to most sub's their dom's request is an order...
[22:42] <bella{D}> no comment....lol
[22:43] <Soulhuntr> ::thinking:: Why is the syntactic sugar so important that one can say a dominant "shouldn't" have to use the order form?
[22:43] <raven^Ron> unless of course, the sub has the right to tell the dom "get it yourself!"
[22:43] <ayli> go make breakfast please (nice request) make breakfast now (order)
[22:43] <bella{D}> Ken, it isn't that he shouldn't...but he shouldnt' HAVE to to be considered dominant.
[22:43] <raven^Ron> no one said they couldn't...my question was simply can one still be a dominant even if they aren't constantly saying "do this" "get that" "do this now please" or however the "order" is worded
[22:43] <Soulhuntr> Then I give orders all the time :)
[22:44] <Soulhuntr> Ah... then yes, of course. Dominance is measured by the ability to obtain compliance, not the language used.
[22:44] <Draco> Most polite asking is a form of ordering but to deliver ultimatums is just a fall back for those that need the sense of dominance themselve( or just fun play)
[22:44] <raven^Ron> so if it isn't the active speaking of "orders" (no matter how worded) what is dominance?
[22:45] <raven^Ron> agreed Draco...
[22:45] <BloodTear> dominance is full control
[22:45] <ayli> knowledge of control?
[22:45] <ayli> "i know he's in charge, he doesn't NEED to tell me he is?"
[22:45] <BloodTear> contriling the situation..and having full knowlegde of it
[22:47] <Draco> yes Bloodtear that is a great way to look at it...
[22:47] <Draco> No need to bluster you and the sub both know who is dominant...
[22:48] <Draco> That is usually the road to a goood working relationship..
[22:48] <bella{D}> dominance is the ability to inspire the desire to obey or comply
[22:48] <Soulhuntr> Inspire OR compell
[22:48] <Soulhuntr> Inportant addition :)
[22:48] <bella{D}> i sit corrected...*smile*
[22:48] * ayli smiles.. thats a good description bella
[22:48] <raven^Ron> Ron: yes bella
[22:48] <raven^Ron> I agree bella :)
[22:48] <raven^Ron> and yes..compell fits as well actually..:)
[22:48] <Soulhuntr> Of course, I dont see lacking politness to be an "ultimatum" or a sign of weakness.
[22:49] <ayli> uhh
[22:49] <Soulhuntr> If I tell Kimiko to "go to bed now" that is neither, it is simply that I am not in the mood to be polite.
[22:49] <raven^Ron> Ron: I would say lacking politeness is a matter of personal style or preference..
[22:49] <ayli> who said being polite was a strength?
[22:49] <raven^Ron> I didn't ayli..
[22:50] <bella{D}> personally, being told something like 'go to bed' is alot easier to take than that softly spoken...'no, please, go to bed...now if you would...'..with the mocking smile
[22:50] <Draco> Politeness is not needed but rudeness just for e3ffect is nit either..
[22:50] <Soulhuntr> I agree bella.
[22:50] * ayli laughs
[22:50] <raven^Ron> I tend to get told "It's bedtime Love"...and I know that means Go the fuck to bed now!
[22:50] * raven^Ron giggles
[22:50] <raven^Ron> LOL bella
[22:50] <ayli> "I think you need to go find your bed now kimmie"
[22:50] <Draco> ROFL
[22:50] <raven^Ron> Ron: I agree Draco
[22:50] <siren`de`soir{SDS}> giggles at raven^Ron
[22:50] <Soulhuntr> To be honest, I generally shorten it to "goodnight"
[22:50] <raven^Ron> That works too ayli!
[22:51] <raven^Ron> good night wouldn't work..he says that to me, and I respond "night hon! sleep well..love you"
[22:51] <Draco> But that still is not rude just dirrect..
[22:51] <raven^Ron> now if he were to say "good night means get your ass in bed"..it would work..
[22:51] <Soulhuntr> So then the term "order" really doesnt have any negative connotation.
[22:51] <Draco> But the need to order to show control does...
[22:51] <raven^Ron> how so Draco?
[22:51] <bella{D}> no....but if one cannot get control without ordering....there is a problem in my opinion
[22:52] <raven^Ron> Ron goes to take a shower..Night all :)
[22:52] *** raven^Ron is now known as raven{Az}
[22:52] <bella{D}> lol
[22:52] <Soulhuntr> Of course, rudeness has it's place... it gets someones attention when that attention is needed. I know very few perfect subs who dont need an occasional verbal slap.
[22:52] <siren`de`soir{SDS}> aren't orders just direction...neither good nor bad?
[22:52] <Draco> If I need to bellow or be gruf I did not establish that I am in charge...
[22:52] <raven{Az}> I have to agree with that Ken...there are times where rudeness can snap someone back to attention..
[22:53] <Soulhuntr> Harldy... sometimes bellowing or gruffness is how some subs DEFINE who is in charge :)
[22:53] <ayli> ussually if it gets to the point of someone being rude to me to get my attetion, they aren't going to get anything but an angry kimmie
[22:53] <bella{D}> and on the other side of that...if i responded negatively to anything BUT polite requests, there would also be a problem.
[22:53] <ayli> or a crying one
[22:53] <bella{D}> and sometimes that is the point ayli
[22:53] <Draco> But I do not "need to" that makes a big difference. I still do but it is more for others than me...
[22:53] <Soulhuntr> I know at least one girl who will simply laugh at you if you try and issue an order in a sugary polite way :) Where as "lay the fuck down" works well.
[22:54] <raven{Az}> Why would using the word "Please" or a polite tone of vocie be "sugary"?
[22:54] <Soulhuntr> Well, it IS more sugary than not. I am not using it in a bad way, simply as a synonym for polite.
[22:54] <bella{D}> but then it is a different approach for a different situation...not that you can only garner respect IF you are terse
[22:55] <Draco> I know that type to and they are not my preference but can deal with them.. I am very loud and gruf when needed..
[22:55] <raven{Az}> Ron: That wouldn't suit my style Ken, so that sub and I wouldn't get along
[22:55] * bella{D} nods....VERY loud...
[22:55] <Soulhuntr> Ron - of course, but it wouldnt be something that would really let you understand anything about the dom in question.
[22:55] <raven{Az}> I guess that's a matter of opinion...
[22:56] <ayli> I think.. if you Need to be an asshole.. to get someone listen to you.. then your not a very good dominant
[22:56] <raven{Az}> Ron: hmmm..perhaps not
[22:56] <raven{Az}> Ron: he might be a real sweetheart of a guy underneath that gruff loud brutish exeterior..naaahhh
[22:56] <Soulhuntr> ayli - except asshole would be a personal judgment - so the best one could really say is that they would not be dominant in trelation to you.
[22:56] <Soulhuntr> ::shrugs::
[22:56] <ayli> Ken..
[22:56] <ayli> if you can get what you want/need from someone.. by saying, do this now
[22:57] <Soulhuntr> I find it is always difficult to understand others if we are looking at them purely through our own prejudices.
[22:57] <Draco> It comes down to the need to be blustery here. If it is needed for the sub then sure use it. If you need it to feel dominant then you are probably not...
[22:57] <ayli> and you feel the need to yell/scream/jump up and down.. what was the point??
[22:57] <ayli> they might still do what you wanted them to, but there was no need for it?
[22:57] <bella{D}> it can also be a cultural difference....Japanese Masters have a totally different take on how to approach someone subordinant to them
[22:57] <raven{Az}> I think it would depend on how often the "dom" were gruff etc. If the person literally could not think of any other way to gain the respect and obedience of the submissive other than to yell at him/her constantly until the sub obeys out of fear..then I agree with ayli..they would not be dominant in my opinion...they'd just be an asshole
[22:57] <Soulhuntr> ayli - except you can tell none of that from simply looking at a relationship/couple from the outside.
[22:58] <ayli> Why should the sub need to be yelled at?
[22:58] <Soulhuntr> Of course, the term "dominant" includes domination through fear.
[22:58] <raven{Az}> Ron: I disagree raven..it may be what the sub needs and the style of the dominant. I'm polite beacuse I grew up that way. But not everyone needs or wants that
[22:58] <raven{Az}> true Ron...
[22:58] <ayli> if she respects the dominant, why does she need him to yell before she can listen
[22:58] <Soulhuntr> ayli - I couldnt begin to tell you - but I have met one or two who would need it :)
[22:58] * ayli tilts her head
[22:58] <bella{D}> ayli..it can also be used in training...or to create a specific mindset...
[22:58] <raven{Az}> it might be the whole "take control" thing...some seem to need the dom to continually "take" control of them..maybe in that case, yelling would be a way of doing that..
[22:59] <Soulhuntr> I have met one at least who DEFINED dominant in her head as someone who would yell at her.
[22:59] <Draco> I can scare a pitbull by being polite so that is not it eiter. Fear need not come from tone....
[22:59] <Soulhuntr> All her life peopel had tip-toed aroudn her, if you yell at her she will simply drop to her knees. And it's pretty too :)
[22:59] <bella{D}> if you cringe everytime someone verbally 'hits' you, then that can be trained out of you and make you stronger by getting yelled at...a lot...
[23:00] <ayli> I don't agree with that bella
[23:00] <Soulhuntr> True enough bella. I know of another submissive who was trained just that way by an asian owner.
[23:00] <Soulhuntr> You get stronger. Or you break and leave.
[23:00] <bella{D}> *smiles*...ty Ken...ayli...it is a legitimate training technique...it works physically as well
[23:00] <bella{D}> exactly Ken
[23:01] <raven{Az}> I can see how yelling at someone who can't handle being yelled at in order to train them to be able to handle it might work...personaly, I don't like it thoough
[23:01] <Soulhuntr> Not every change one wants to make in another can come from respect and polite requests. Sometimes force is needed.
[23:01] <Draco> Then that works for her Ken . Cool I like it when they find what works but I only raise my voice more than a little if I am angry . then there should be fear if I am angry . Someone really has to mess up for that..
[23:01] <Soulhuntr> And theres nothing wrong with that Draco... but unless I knew the sub in question I would not judge a dominant who was yelling at her.
[23:01] * bella{D} nods ....fear..yes....big fear....
[23:02] <Draco> No not at all.
[23:02] <ayli> I don't see how it would work.. I think they might stop cringing at the yelling.. just to get you to stop.. it wouldn't remove the fear though
[23:02] <Draco> Again I judge on there need to do that to get a responce from anyone..
[23:02] <Soulhuntr> Si in the abstract then I cant say something like "if you need to yell all the time then you arent being dominant"
[23:02] <bella{D}> it would depend on how it was gone about ayli...
[23:02] <ayli> it would just transfer the fear to you.. they are afraid YOU are going to yell at them.. so they stop cringing to stop the yelling
[23:03] <raven{Az}> it would work simply because eventually one stops fearing something they have come into contact with over and over and weren't "hurt" by it
[23:03] <Soulhuntr> ayli - that is not universally true.
[23:03] <bella{D}> possibly, but not necessarily....
[23:03] <Soulhuntr> Dor some the fear of someone yelling is because yelling was a preface to a physical blow... if you yell at them but dont hit that fear will go away.
[23:03] <bella{D}> i was afraid of being punched due to the ex....i would cringe and overreact at the mere thought....that has been trained out of me...but i do not fear Draco punching me
[23:03] <Draco> Fear as a whole is usually learned. If people yelled all your life it will not cause fear.
[23:04] <Draco> ASking with an evil look might do it ...
[23:04] <Soulhuntr> But then, I dont see fear as a negative motivator in many cases. It's OK if a sub does something from fear.
[23:04] <bella{D}> yes raven....it builds a tolerance...
[23:04] <Draco> Often it is ok.
[23:05] <BloodTear> if a person gets yelled at all life..it will not cause fear, only hate
[23:05] <Draco> But I dought it is needed in dealing with everyone you meet...
[23:05] <ayli> maybe it differs from person to person.
[23:05] <raven{Az}> I think it might depend on the person's personality and the situation of yelling as to whether or not the person learns to fear being yelled at or to tolerate it..or to hate
[23:05] *** BloodTear is now known as BloodLord
[23:05] <Draco> Some doms think everyone should fear them and if you do not you do not belong in the scene.
[23:05] <Rorschach> Well, it's after midnight here. I'm off. It's been an interesting discussion. G'night all
[23:05] <bella{D}> it also depends on if you WANT that to be trained out ayli....
[23:06] <raven{Az}> some fear exists in any BDSM relationship..and it should I think..
[23:06] <Draco> But is fear the only thing needed...
[23:06] <BloodLord> raven{Az} not fear but respect
[23:07] <raven{Az}> no Draco..not by a long shot...respect and trust are required as well...
[23:07] <raven{Az}> and depending on point of view, one could add love and a whole host of other "requirements"
[23:07] <BloodLord> i believe that in a relationship no one should fear the other..
[23:07] <raven{Az}> but fear exists..and I think it should to a certain extent ..
[23:07] <bella{D}> it depends on your definition of fear BL
[23:07] <Draco> That is not a wide held belief in alot of groups unfortunately..
[23:07] <raven{Az}> It depends on how you define fear..
[23:08] <Soulhuntr> A relationship based purely on fear fits the definition of dominance
[23:08] <Draco> And abuse as well ...
[23:08] <bella{D}> fear is healthy when playing with sharp things...or single tails...
[23:08] <ayli> a relationship based purely on fear?
[23:08] <BloodLord> fear is when a person is scared for another..and i believe that no one should be scared of the other in a relationship
[23:09] <BloodLord> bella{D} yes but that is fear in play
[23:09] <BloodLord> i meant fear outside the play
[23:09] <Soulhuntr> fear of punishment is a good thing.
[23:09] <raven{Az}> I think a relationship based solely on fear fits abuse more than dominance..
[23:09] <bella{D}> fear of disappointment
[23:09] <bella{D}> fear of failure
[23:09] <Soulhuntr> fear of losing a domiants interest
[23:10] <ayli> that doesn't sound very healthy to me Ken.
[23:10] <Soulhuntr> Why not?
[23:10] <BloodLord> if 2 persons respects each other and full trust in each other then i don't believe that there can exist suck a thing as failure
[23:10] <Soulhuntr> anyone who doesnt realize they could lose the interest of their partner is kidding themselves :)
[23:10] <Draco> Or fear of loss of repect by other doms. It does work both ways sometimes...
[23:10] <Soulhuntr> :;confused:: Why shouldnt Kimiko fear failing me simply because she respects me?
[23:11] <bella{D}> of course there is BL....my standards for myself are such that i WILL fail sometimes...
[23:11] <Soulhuntr> I would think her respect of me would INCREASE her fear of failing me.
[23:11] <Draco> Some of us set up our subs for failure ..It is a great learning tool...
[23:11] <bella{D}> and certain tasks have been set that Draco hs known i would fail at.
[23:11] <bella{D}> lol
[23:11] <Draco> LOL
[23:11] <BloodLord> hehe well such failure yes :)
[23:12] <Soulhuntr> Of course Kimiko shoudl fear failing me, and she should fear losing my interest. This is a simple fact of her life.
[23:12] <raven{Az}> fear of failing the dom is normal I suppose..but not if that fear is high enough as to paralyze the sub from even trying...
[23:12] <bella{D}> i fear that i will fail in many areas....they increase my desire to not do so...lest complacency steal in
[23:12] * ladycobra{L^C} whispers to ayli what is the question that we are all talking about in here I am getting a sense but maybe not the whole thing???
[23:12] <Draco> But is it all that motivates her?
[23:12] <Soulhuntr> On the other hand, I cant use setting Kimiko up to fail as a tool - it would crush her.
[23:12] <raven{Az}> though I don't know if fearing losing the dom's interest is good or not...fearing that would mean the sub has no security in their position...that the relationship is "temporary"...I don't think that's a good idea if one is wanting a long term relationship
[23:13] <Soulhuntr> the trick raven is to train someone to act even when faced with fear.
[23:13] <ayli> I think it's moved off the origanal question ladycobra
[23:13] <Draco> That again is just a style difference for different subs...
[23:13] <ayli> what is domination is the topic though :)
[23:13] <Soulhuntr> Total security == complacency.
[23:13] <bella{D}> yup yup
[23:13] <raven{Az}> There has to be more than fear that motivates the sub...as I said, I do not think obedience based solely on fear of the dom is dominance nor D/s...
[23:13] <Draco> I agree to a point.
[23:13] <raven{Az}> but that's my opinion..
[23:13] <Soulhuntr> Besides, I would be lying to imply that my interest was permanent and unshakable.
[23:13] <bella{D}> complacency = stagnation
[23:14] <ladycobra{L^C}> ahh I feel Domination is giving to yourself body and soul to one that being the Master
[23:14] <raven{Az}> and since we have moved into another topic..I will end the logging poart of discussion (END OF DISCUSSION FOR LOGGING PURPOSES)

**Note added April 20, 2001: Due to the discussion of fear continuing I decided to leave it in the log and double "title" this discussion log. The fear discussion was interesting while it lasted, so I figured I would leave it in even though it didn't last much longer. Raven Shadowborne

(back to log)

[23:14] <Draco> Some security is needed but not that arrogant I can do no wrong type..
[23:14] <raven{Az}> wouldn't that be submission ladycobra{L^C}?
[23:14] <ayli> if, your only motivated by fear, after awhile, your probably going to figure.. why bother, he's going to find someone else at some point Anyways.. it's back to complacency
[23:14] <raven{Az}> I agree with that Draco...:)
[23:14] <Soulhuntr> The simple reality is tha tbetter, cuter, more dedicated and more obedient submissives exist out there - and I have limited time and resources. Her position is secure until she is no longer the best tool for her job.
[23:14] <ladycobra{L^C}> yes indded
[23:15] <ayli> thats.. cold Ken
[23:15] <bella{D}> but that is the difference between a purely D/s relationship and one that is based on a love relationship as well.
[23:15] <bella{D}> it is only cold ayli if he is misleading kimi into thinking otherwise
[23:15] <Draco> Some are based on far less and are much less kind..
[23:15] <ladycobra{L^C}> my Master is not only my Master but my husband
[23:15] <raven{Az}> I realize such relationships exist Ken but I personally would not enter into one like that. I want to be more than a "temporary maid" until someone "better" or "cuter" comes along...
[23:16] <raven{Az}> true Draco..
[23:16] <Soulhuntr> of course bella ... (and yes it is ayli) - but the important realization is that my romantic relationship with Kimiko is apart from our BDSM one. So while she may no longer be the best tool for my house she will always have my love and friendship.
[23:17] <bella{D}> ayli...some people are not looking for love...but for service...think of old fashioned butlers and such...
[23:18] <bella{D}> just because it is not your preference, or mine, does not make it a null choice for others.
[23:18] <ladycobra{L^C}> i like bondage though *smiles* tis my home heheh
[23:18] <ladycobra{L^C}> as opposed to undernet or dalnet hehe
[23:26] <raven{Az}> well all..time for me to shut down for the night..
[23:26] <raven{Az}> Night all :)