For a Sapiosexual Submissive Female I Have Yet to Meet

For a Sapiosexual Submissive Female I Have Yet to Meet

OpenDom​(dom male) • Nov 23, 2018

I wrote this yesterday to pass the time on a long flight. A legitimate opinion? Pretentious name-dropping? Incomprehensible heteronormative imperialist ranting? Any opinions/comments/praise/insults from any readers would be appreciated...

-------------------------------------------

While I sit on a plane crossing twelve time zones, I consider the many explicit and implicit definitions of dominant I have encountered. My mind drifts through a garden of dogma, Horace, and the tragedy of contemporary education.

Every time someone worships the ideological purity of the “real” dominant and excoriates the “fake” one, I find myself at a loss. But then, I find myself at a loss any time I try to gain clarity on people’s attempts to use rhetoric to show how their own tastes or religious beliefs are truer than those of others.

When Horace says "de Gustibus non est disputandum", he doesn’t merely nail the answer to Wittenberg’s doors: he blows the doors off. Why can’t people see it? Why has monotheism been palatable in the West for the past two millennia? How did the tolerance of polytheism get killed by ascetic halfwits from the East and West Banks of the Jordan? Worse, how have we allowed those bearded cretins to take over the world? Is it because the early generations had, along with zeal, better swords?

Why does the hegemony of simplistic thinking continue in the third millennium? Is it because Abraham’s spawn runs the world? Is it because the world has more recently fed on the implicit ethnocentrism of cultural relativism instead of on the breast milk of Homer, Heraclitus, Euripides, Sappho, and on bone-marrow nourishment of Lucretius, Cicero, Horace and Virgil? Petrarch, Montaigne and Bernini knew the gifts of the classical world like they knew the backs of their hardworn hands. Even de Sade and Krafft-Ebing did. Today, not so much. I tend to think the answer to both questions is “yes”, and I end up hoist on my own petard, with thinking as rigid of those I find so pathetic and contemptible.

When I put on a Medievalist’s reading glasses, defining real and fake dominants comes through allegory: the “real dominant” dines with Hector at Percival’s right hand, and the “fake dominant” dines with Achilles at Mordred’s left.

From my perspective as a wannabe animist in the beginning of the third millennium, allegory based in Arthurian romance may be resonant, and it may be beautiful, but it is no more comforting than writing “the sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new.” Thanks to uncritical thinking and toleration of logical fallacies, the prejudiced, dogmatic and inexpressive definitions will never disappear, no matter how I try to comfort myself with “whatever gets you through the night” and “feed love where you find it.”

If you accept the notion of multiple gender identities, why do you attempt to distinguish between the real dominant and the fake one?

Fudbar​(dom male){❤️❤️❤️} • Nov 23, 2018

In 2688, humanity has built a utopia thanks to the music of Wyld Stallyns. The supreme beings of this world instruct Rufus (Carlin) to travel back in time by a time machine disguised as a phone booth to give aid to Bill and Ted to ensure they pass their class. Rufus lands by the two as they work on their report near a Circle K. As he introduces himself, a second phone booth lands nearby and future versions Bill and Ted come out, proving their identity to their younger selves and telling them to trust Rufus before they leave. Rufus offers to show the teens how the machine works, taking them to Austria in 1805 where Napoleon Bonaparte is commanding the French army. Assured the machine works, Rufus, Bill and Ted return to the present, though Napoleon, knocked back by an explosion, is caught in the phone booth's wake and dragged with them. Back at Ted's house, Rufus provides the teens additional instructions and then leaves. The two find Napoleon nearby, and come upon an idea of taking historical figures from the past to bring them to the present to complete their report. They leave Napoleon with Ted's younger brother Deacon and set out.

Separately, they gain the trust of Billy the Kid from 1879 and Socrates from 410 BC and bring them along. They next land in 14th century medieval England and see two princesses who flirt with them. In their attempt to see the princesses, they are caught by their father, the local duke, and ordered to be beheaded, but they are rescued by Billy and Socrates. Ted suggests that since they still have time before their report is due, they go for extra credit and set out to obtain more historical figures, including Sigmund Freud, Ludwig van Beethoven, Joan of Arc, Genghis Khan and Abraham Lincoln. With no more space in the booth, they decide to return home, but end up at the Circle K, witnessing their younger selves on the night before the report. They repeat their advice to them about Rufus, and then ask Rufus how to get to their present time.

Back in their current timeframe, with hours before the report presentation, Bill and Ted leave the historical figures at the local mall to experience San Dimas, while they try to track down Napoleon, whom Deacon had ditched the previous night. They find Napoleon at the Waterloo water park, but by the time they return to the mall, the historical figures have caused a commotion and are now in jail under Ted's dad's watch. They develop a plan to use the time machine to plant elements to help free the historical figures, and make their way to the school, barely arriving in time for their presentation. With the help of the historical figures, the two give an impressive presentation that assures they pass the course.

After returning the historical figures, Bill and Ted return to practice, when Rufus shows up with the two princesses in tow, having rescued them himself since he knows they will be their wives and bandmates in the future. As the band starts to play, terribly, Rufus explains to the audience "They do get better."

Allie Kat​(sub trans woman){DarkFox} • Nov 23, 2018

@opendom (hopefully i am replying to you correctly)

So in the beginning was an open invitation to any and all commentors and saying that all readers are appreciated, so hopefully it's ok with you that i reply haha.

So, for the "real Dom" question. That is something that i don't enjoy seeing either. It really expresses a lack of understanding in all parties who even dane to discuss it. There is no such thing as "the" real Dom. Only a such thing as "the right Dom for me". Which i feel is what most people are looking for. However, in their quest to do so, they very often try to get people to agree with them on what "the perfect Dom" /should/ look like. I see how you likened this to religion. I think that people do this as a subconcious effort to make it easier to find what they are looking for. If they have a whole group working toward their same goal, then it's easier for them to find. Basically, the same reason :The Cage" exists. The problem is, it eventually ends up as a cult. They forget the subconcious reason they started to clump together like-minded people and start to see themselves as prophets or visionaries of a movement, and that everyone should think and act like they do. Why does this happen? Because humans are weak minded and weak willed. Humans will always be self-serving, and if you follow that line of logic, you will inevitably unravel the mystery of every action and reaction of human beings.

Now that leads me into the next point of discussion. Your writing seemed to have very stron anti-christian undertones. It also seemed to have a lack of understanding of where it came from, what it is (meant) to be, and how it became so popular.

So it started by being the only popular god who accepted all. Most gods at the time were very picky. Only the best could serve them, or only people of one nation could serve them. This message of love and acceptance was radical, and it spread like wild-fire. Then kings began to fear this fast-spreading radical movement and began murdering any followers. The followers who were persecuted, set such great examples that they became martyrs which increased power in the movement.

Now, fast-forward to the middle ages, the Christian church has become a global superpower. It was made up of and ran by human beings, which as we know are /self/ serving. So they acted as any /nation/ did in the middle ages. Conquest, war, takeover and shady deals. This is not any excuse of the behavior, as much as it is an explination. This conquest behavior of course, spread the ideologies of the church even further and fear with Tradition did the rest. At its darkest hour when it seemed the Church had completely lost itself, Martin Luthar started a protestant movement. This helped the Church get back to it's original message of love and acceptance, long enough to come to America. From there, it has snowballed into an elitest group who (like the "real Dom" group) believe they have all the answers and everyone should do exactly as they do. They see themselves and visionaries and prophets among the religion and are having a strong hand in killing it.

There are those of us though, who know it's roots, know it's real message and are doing everything they can to preserve it. The real message is True Love, Wisdom and Faith. Where you have these, you have Christianity. That core, is what keeps the religion alive, despite all the poison and toxic sludge so many people pour into it. So that is to answer your question as to why it is still "paletable" in the west. Hopefully that helps.

OpenDom​(dom male) • Nov 23, 2018

Thanks, Fudbar! Wonderful answer, but wasn't Rufus played by Chris Rock?

"[The story of the Fisher King] begins with the king as a boy, having to spend the night alone in the forest to prove his courage so he can become king. Now while he is spending the night alone he's visited by a sacred vision. Out of the fire appears the holy grail, symbol of God's divine grace. And a voice said to the boy, "You shall be keeper of the grail so that it may heal the hearts of men." But the boy was blinded by greater visions of a life filled with power and glory and beauty. And in this state of radical amazement he felt for a brief moment not like a boy, but invincible, like God, so he reached into the fire to take the grail, and the grail vanished, leaving him with his hand in the fire to be terribly wounded. Now as this boy grew older, his wound grew deeper. Until one day, life for him lost its reason. He had no faith in any man, not even himself. He couldn't love or feel loved. He was sick with experience. He began to die. One day a fool wandered into the castle and found the king alone. And being a fool, he was simple minded, he didn't see a king. He only saw a man alone and in pain. And he asked the king, "What ails you friend?" The king replied, "I'm thirsty. I need some water to cool my throat". So the fool took a cup from beside his bed, filled it with water and handed it to the king. As the king began to drink, he realized his wound was healed. He looked in his hands and there was the holy grail, that which he sought all of his life. And he turned to the fool and said with amazement, "How can you find that which my brightest and bravest could not?" And the fool replied, "I don't know. I only knew that you were thirsty. (Parry, in *The Fisher King*, dir. Gilliam)

So, since Percival is the fool in most retellings, it's cold comfort to think that my interpretation is correct and we're looking at another 670 years of rule by the bungled and the botched and their stupid definitions of the real and the fake dominant.

Still, your response at least helps me feel less alone in facing a wait which will outlast us by 650 years. Back to Samuel Beckett, friend. <3

Fudbar​(dom male){❤️❤️❤️} • Nov 23, 2018

@OpenDom.. I think you're thinking of Bernie Casey (RIP) who was every stern black man in the 80's. Also NFL 1st round wide receiver pick in 1961.

The Bacon Separation there is one degree, both in 1988's "Im Gonna Get You, Sucka!"

Miss Magdalena​(sub female){FreeSpirit} • Nov 23, 2018

This was an interesting read. I can see how some may have difficulty getting through it though, but perhaps that was on purpose? You raise an interesting question, but given how after asking it, you then laid said question upon an assorted bed of philosophical and theological name and quotation roughage, it feels like it gets a little lost. I think my biggest take away from this writing, while interesting, is me asking myself, was he being serious with his question, or is he joking? That is my opinion on the writing itself.
On the off-chance you were being earnest in your desire to spark a conversation about the fake vs real Dom, I’d happily give my opinion there too.
I can’t and I won’t speak for anyone else but based on both my personal experience and observations, I think that a lot of it comes down to human comprehension. More often than not we as people like to put labels on things. Labels don’t inherently have to be bad and given how we are taught as kids and continuing in and through adulthood, in a positive light, it’s used as a tool for comprehension. I think however, the older we get, the harder it becomes to label things that aren’t black and white, or to distinguish between what is fact and what is opinion. We could get into the whole, what makes something a “fact”, but trying to stay on topic here, when viewed in the light, it isn’t that hard to see, how the fake vs real comes in to effect.
I would hazard to guess, that if you asked people what they viewed as real or fake you may come up with a few similar responses....I suspect the “insta-dom” would probably be in there, along with the “sociopath”, and the “abuser”. Based on what I have read, seen, and experienced here, I’d say the general consensus believes these to be Fake Doms. Not that the people themselves are fake, no they are very real, but in terms of how a Dominant is defined, they don’t typically fit under that label. Now, again I did say general consensus, obviously not everyone feels this way, there are plenty of people who’s views will differ.
After you get past those three examples of generally accepted fakes, you come into what I personally feel is the grey matter. It becomes less objective and more subjective. You will find that those with more influence, better means of articulating themselves, and charisma will likely be at the forefront of what is “right and/or wrong”. Being at the forefront doesn’t mean they live within the public eye, they exist both in our public and private conversations. In my opinion this happens for a variety of different reasons, but I’d say a lot of it revolves around insecurity. Insecurity stemming from a lack of experience, lack of ability or desire for critical thinking, lack of personal insight or desire to be insightful, or a combination of them all.
This may come off as negative, but it’s not my intention to be so, just my rather blunt interpretation of how I not only see lots of communities operate, but the world as a whole. Until a person understands their surroundings and gains personal experience and understanding of how to interpret things in their own way, they are likely to end up being strongly influenced and/or following along with someone, somewhere along the way. I don’t think there is anything specifically wrong with that, as I lump it into the whole, process of learning and growing. Self-discovery. Everyone comes out of this process a bit different as well.
This is my subjective based view-point on how we have then “Real” vs “Fake” Dom label we have today.

MasterBear​(other butch) • Nov 23, 2018

What is the intent of the writing ?

Fudbar​(dom male){❤️❤️❤️} • Nov 23, 2018

"When will she cum?"

Given the existence as uttered forth in the public works of Puncher and Wattmann of a personal God quaquaquaqua with white beard quaquaquaqua outside time without extension who from the heights of divine apathia divine athambia divine aphasia loves us dearly with some exceptions for reasons unknown but time will tell and suffers like the divine Miranda with those who for reasons unknown but time will tell are plunged in torment plunged in fire whose fire flames if that continues and who can doubt it will fire the firmament that is to say blast hell to heaven so blue still and calm so calm with a calm which even though intermittent is better than nothing but not so fast and considering what is more that as a result of the labours left unfinished crowned by the Acacacacademy of Anthropopopometry of Essy-in-Possy of Testew and Cunard it is established beyond all doubt all other doubt than that which clings to the labours of men that as a result of the labours unfinished of Testew and Cunard it is established as hereinafter but not so fast for reasons unknown that as a result of the public works of Puncher and Wattmann it is established beyond all doubt that in view of the labours of Fartov and Belcher left unfinished for reasons unknown of Testew and Cunard left unfinished it is established what many deny that man in Possy of Testew and Cunard that man in Essy that man in short that man in brief in spite of the strides of alimentation and defecation is seen to waste and pine waste and pine and concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown in spite of the strides of physical culture the practice of sports such as tennis football running cycling swimming flying floating riding gliding conating camogie skating tennis of all kinds dying flying sports of all sorts autumn summer winter winter tennis of all kinds hockey of all sorts penicilline and succedanea in a word I resume and concurrently simultaneously for reasons unknown to shrink and dwindle in spite of the tennis I resume flying gliding golf over nine and eighteen holes tennis of all sorts in a word for reasons unknown in Feckham Peckham Fulham Clapham namely concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown but time will tell to shrink and dwindle I resume Fulham Clapham in a word the dead loss per caput since the death of Bishop Berkeley being to the tune of one inch four ounce per caput approximately by and large more or less to the nearest decimal good measure round figures stark naked in the stockinged feet in Connemara in a word for reasons unknown no matter what matter the facts are there and considering what is more much more grave that in the light of the labours lost of Steinweg and Peterman it appears what is more much more grave that in the light the light the light of the labours lost of Steinweg and Peterman that in the plains in the mountains by the seas by the rivers running water running fire the air is the same and then the earth namely the air and then the earth in the great cold the great dark the air and the earth abode of stones in the great cold alas alas in the year of their Lord six hundred and something the air the earth the sea the earth abode of stones in the great deeps the great cold an sea on land and in the air I resume for reasons unknown in spite of the tennis the facts are there but time will tell I resume alas alas on on in short in fine on on abode of stones who can doubt it I resume but not so fast I resume the skull to shrink and waste and concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown in spite of the tennis on on the beard the flames the tears the stones so blue so calm alas alas on on the skull the skull the skull the skull in Connemara in spite of the tennis the labours abandoned left unfinished graver still abode of stones in a word I resume alas alas abandoned unfinished the skull the skull in Connemara in spite of the tennis the skull alas the stones Cunard tennis... the stones... so calm... Cunard... unfinished...

Ingénue{VK} • Nov 23, 2018

Horrors. Feckham Peckham? My eyes bleed.

I couldn't relate to any of the intellectual masturbation going on above (ooh subby belowness).

I couldn't tell me if it was fake or real.

Do I need some more book-learning?

Goes off to lament lack of classical and philosophical grounding.

Peckham shopping centre is quite nice.

What does 'sapiosexual' mean?

Resilient Pearl​(other female){Protected} • Nov 23, 2018

@Fudbar: I feel like this should have ended with:

“If Bill—traveling 70 miles per hour (mph)—leaves the assembly headed towards San Dimas mall, at the same time Ted—traveling 60 mph leaves headed for the phone booth, ‘when’ and where do they meet, and what grade do they get?”