Dominance and Submission, (with apologies to Blue Oyster Cult) :)

Dominance and Submission, (with apologies to Blue Oyster Cul

skyrich​(dom male){rottenbrat} • Mar 28, 2020

Some people claim to be dominant, other claim submissive. But is it really that simple? What does it mean to be dominant or submissive? Should a dominant dominate everyone? Should a submissive submit to everyone? Dear God, people, please tell me you mentally answered "no"!

Consider a number-line. We all learned about these in primary school. You have positive numbers going to the right off to infinity and negative numbers going off to the left to negative infinity. Let's arbitrarily call the negative numbers "submissive", and the positive numbers "dominant". I'm not saying that submissiveness is a negative trait, I'm demonstrating that submission and dominance are equal and opposing traits. Each person can then place themselves somewhere on the number-line, and we can do some match-making. A strong dominant, (say, +10), may not make a good match with a mild submissive, (say, -1). He would overwhelm her and possibly destroy her. Likewise a weak dominant, (+1) and a confident, strong sub, (-10) are a poor match. Likely she'd end up dominating him and resenting him for it.

But even this is not sufficient, I think. Life is not static, it is a complex, dynamic, adaptive system. It is complex: there are many parts. It is dynamic: these parts are always changing. It is adaptive: A change in part A induces change in parts B, C, D, and E, which then induce changes in other parts, and so on, quite often inducing a change back in A. it is a system: it works together. We call it "life", because, well, "volkswagon" was taken already, and it would've been too confusing.

I'm a dominant -- does that mean I dominate every situation and every person I come across? Hell no! For example, if I'm stopped by a cop, it's "yes, Sir/M'am" and "no, Sir/M'am", even if he or she is 20 years younger than me. I don't try to dominate this situation , because I know that doing so would have unfortunate, and uncomfortable consequences for me, such as getting locked up in a small cage with a much larger man, named "Bubba", who has entirely flexible sexual proclivities. I do not like submitting to the cop, but I understand the necessity of it. So, you see, my dominance is dynamic it adapts to the situation at hand. It would be inconceivably stupid of me not to recognize this. And I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid.

So it is with the submissive as well. There are often times when she must dominate a situation or even a person, again she may not like it, but it may be necessary.

Credit where it's due: This post also inspired by a comment from Jolene, to wit:


Honestly, Jolene, I'm not stalking you. Your responses to my material have been insightful, intelligent and a delightful source of inspiration. Good girl!

MeisterGerald​(dom male) • Mar 28, 2020

All good points once again, Skyrich. I would point out that it's not the best example to put on a linear scale. Consider switches, for example. They might exist at drastically different points on that linear scale from moment to moment.

I'd also like to say that you are speaking of dominance and submission *as they pertain to sexual activity and partnership*. This does not extend to every aspect of life in the outside world, as you noted in your TPE post.

I'm not sure it's helpful or correct to view day to day life situations as requiring a 'dominant" or "submissive" response, or interpreting them through that lens.

skyrich​(dom male){rottenbrat} • Mar 28, 2020

Quite possibly, but as I stated the scale isn't static at all. Also, I've not much experience with switches. So... <shrug>



Well, certainly I mean in a relationship context when I was speaking of "match-making". But, really, we all dominate or submit to various aspects and things in our lives. To dominate is to take control over and responsibility for. To submit, is to relinquish control, to accept the situation as it is."

"God grand me the serenity to accept, (submit to), the things I cannot change, the courage to change, (dominate), the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

This doesn't just apply in the bedroom, and not just for sex. For me, it's part of a model for life, a philosophy based upon natural order. As an alpha, I naturally take leadership in situations where my expertise merits. Again, this isn't what I do, but what I am. Leadership is a form on dominion. My point is that dominance isn't always about domination, just as submissive isn't always about submission. It's responsibility and commitment.

Now, do I see the whole world as opportunities for dominance or submission? Of course not! That'd be silly. Well... OK, I'm often silly. Don't worry 'bout it, though. Eventually you get used to my sense of humor!

Island girl​(sub female){Yes owned.} • Mar 28, 2020

So back to your scale. When I was married, I managed the finances, I managed the household, I planned pretty much everything we did. My (then) husband didn't have any money sense and I had to remain in control. Frankly, I'm a strong, opinionated Scorpio. My sister sub in my current relationship also owns her own market research company (I own the farm/business where we all work and live). We are both strong females who happen to be submissive. Our Master falls at the +10+ end of the scale. That part is easy. How to rate us? That's a different story. I start to think the stronger they are, the harder they fall... Anyway, where a sub falls on the scale. Isn't that a function of how far she's/they have allowed themselves to submit to their Dom? Or, is it their capacity to submit that you are measuring? How do you know?

skyrich​(dom male){rottenbrat} • Mar 28, 2020

Nature abhors a vacuum. I do believe that in any relationship where guidance is lacking from the one, the other(s) will make up for it for better or worse. This is part of my philosophy of Natural Order. (Perhaps I should do a post on that).



I don't believe at all in astrology. Having said that I'm a textbook Taurus.



Awesome! But, submission is *not* weakness. Quite the contrary, it takes enormous strength. And, I think you proved my point with regards to the dynamics of the continuum. One can be submissive in situation A, and dominate in situation B, it is not a contradiction.



Yes, her tendency towards submissiveness, her natural desire to submit. And again, the scale isn't static, but dynamic, depending on experience, the situation, who she is interacting with, and her, for lack of a better word, evolution. The same, of course goes for him. And, for the record, I don't know, and I'm not the one measuring. Where each person places themselves on the scale is up to them. It's a question of the strength of the desire for commitment, on her part, and the strength of his desire to assume responsibility, and the dynamics of the situation/environment. No person can judge an other's desire.

But, please don't take this post too seriously it was meant lightheartedly, and as I said, a bit of silliness.

MasterBear​(other butch) • Mar 29, 2020

For me it is that simple.
No a D or M type should not attempt to dominate everyone . That is non consensual.


You are allowed to dominate ONLY those that you have negotiated with.

No an s type should NOT submit to everyone. That is non consensual.

They only submit to those that they have negotiated to do that with.


Identity should be seperate from entitlement.
Just because I am my beloveds Master does not mean others are required to serve me or that I am in any way entitled to that.

DaddyDrago​(dom male){LilAmethys} • Mar 29, 2020

Dominance and submission in this context are extremely subjective. Without some form of legitimacy, definition or expectation we can't correctly place anything honestly on the integer scale. I could taut I am 100+ on the scale until someone who is honestly 100+ comes along and puts me to shame. See the conundrum? What one person values as a dominant or submissive trait then becomes subjective. The age old argument of you're not dominant because you eat pussy. Or you're not submissive because you voice what you like. There can be no TRUE way to measure either by anyone else's lens but the owner who is making the claim. Even, but not limited to, any of the claims which I am about to purport. My lens is just that, MINE. As such, I willingly accept and invite all to disagree. Or, conversely, agree. Either way, it makes no difference to my station or view.

I resonate with the query. Is it so linear and simple to just say, "I am dominant." Or, "I am submissive." Again, I quantify that with, it can be that simple. IF there were qualifiers that pointed to the reality. The biggest one being, the individual themselves believes they are what they say they are. After all, in the end that's all that truly matters anyways.

Pointing to a particular 'skill' or 'trait' can become a futile exercise because the waters become too muddied with what others perceive as honest or factual through their lens. The argument of pussy or having a voice.

Question:

Do you believe that dominance is made up of key factors such as integrity, compassion, kindness, understanding, patience, self-control, strength, stability, consistency?

I dare say no one would argue such as dominant traits (conversely, those same traits could describe an s type. The difference is how those are viewed and used by the lens of the owner). Using that as a baseline for truth, in what way did you fail to be dominant with your interaction with the hypothetical police encounter? You were well within the 'characteristics' of what a dominant would do. Or are you speaking only of what a dominant "does" inside a dynamic? Even then dominance, in my opinion, is less about the exertion of force (what we do) and more of who we are. Our character. As such, how can we separate that out say from the cashier at the convenience store? I don't think one can. We carry our character with us wherever we go. Oh, the point made of consensual or non-consensual is absolutely the boundary, we don't "dominate" the cashier, that would be non-consensual. And yet, we are still dominant. SO the determination comes back down to what we EACH define as dominate. I would say I dominate every interaction I engage in. NOT from a non-consensual stand point but from a permissive encouragement. The axiom, "The integrity of dominance is the inspiration of submission" comes to mind. Or, "The craft of a master is not imposing dominance, but winning submission." To 'dominate' is to, in my opinion, own one's character in such a way that it fosters connection. Engenders warmth, kindness, ease, peace and structure. We aren't doing so non-consensually with the cashier if we are keeping our interactions within the context of the degree of consent understood and accepted. Exertion intimates extending ourselves beyond our own borders and capabilities. While I am all for growth, evolution, stretching one's self for the sake of betterment, I dare say doing so to the extent that we must 'exert' our wills or enforce our character to others is a futile effort that is largely unfruitful and mostly non-consensual. Even within a negotiated dynamic, exertion becomes a constant maintenance and an exhausting depletion of one's personal energy. Staying true to our own character, submissive and dominant alike, we both consent to the power exchange.

I digress,

We ebb and flow as HUMANS. We stand within our character always. Those core and intrinsic values with which each of us personally pivot from as our clear compass. If we identify as a d type then we do so. If we identify as an s type then we do so. Regardless of the moment we find ourselves in, anyone else's view or measurement that they see contrary to our assertion.

If we do not use such linear thinking or define ourselves thusly aren't we shifting sands?
Do we have an authentic claim to say we are either this or that as a person? We don't argue that we are all human. No one says, "Well, I am human usually but not to everyone, I don't want to force another into a non-consensual space."

Which leads me back to my main point.
Dominance and submission become subjective otherwise. Which, ultimately, it is. Subjective to the owner of said subject. I say I am dominant, therefore I am (I think, therefore I am). How I define that, how I quantify that personally (not collectively) is mine. Another could easily speak otherwise of my dominance and see it differently. They are entitled and applauded. Just as I hope to be received.

Just my thoughts.

Thank you for your sharing and insight. Always an honest pleasure.

Dellydoodah​(neither female) • Mar 29, 2020

Nice cat

skyrich​(dom male){rottenbrat} • Mar 30, 2020

Yes, exactly.


Does a cop negotiate for your submission to his authority? Or does he just dominate the *situation*?


I hope you didn't derive from this that *THAT* was what I was suggesting? I believe I've made that quite clear, not only in this post, but in each and every one of my other posts. I never said that she should submit to *everyone*, it would be utterly *stupid* to do that, even if she did it with consent.



Again, hopefully, I've made that readily apparent in all of my posts. Anyone who expects every sub to serve them, is not a dominant, nor a master. There's another term for that: HNG.

skyrich​(dom male){rottenbrat} • Mar 30, 2020

Yes, but aren't they *always* so?



*Bingo*



Yes, this was the point I was making.



Add responsibility and leadership to that list, and I believe I've made that abundantly clear in my other posts.



Well said! In the hypothetical police encounter: *Being* a dominant, is very different from *dominating* a situation. The former is what a person, fundamentally *is*, the latter being something someone *does*. Very, different things, entirely.



Again, well said. Or, as Plato put it: "The surest path to honor is to be in reality that which we claim to be."



I couldn't agree more.



Thank you as well, and I return the compliments. <insert hand-clap emoji here>