Thoughts on who is really the Dom?

Discussion in 'General BDSM discussions' started by My Love My Lord, Dec 10, 2009.


  1. Click here for more.
    So, on another forum I'm on, there's a TON of threads of different types of slavery. I came across a paragraph though that I thought was interesting and wanted to get the thoughts from all of you.

    "Believe it or not, the dynamics of a BDSM relationship are often driven by the submissive, not by the dominant. The submissive sets the limits; the submissive decides what places can and can not be explored; the submissive has the ability to call a halt to the scene. The dominant, in many ways, is simply a facilitator. It's the dominant's job to create a setting where the people involved can explore the submissive's fantasies."

    The thread goes on the argue that since it is the sub that is in control of the scene, that in reality, it is the sub that holds the power and is therefore dominant.

    What are your thoughts on this?
  2. Sparrow69

    Sparrow69 Moderator

    Click here for more.
    while i agree in theory its not so cut and dry as it is in print. yes a sub does set those limits, and those conditions, but its often a give and take, and those limits are set by how much they trust and respect the will of the dom they have chosen. I'd say that while the sub does have power, so does the dom.

  3. Click here for more.
    I've often actually thought that . . . while I know I'm going against the grain here, I agree that the submissive is generally in practical control of the situation . . . the Dom is in charge physically and emotionally. Like all healthy relationships, there is a certain balance of power, but that power has many layers!

  4. Click here for more.
    Well, without one, the other will be comletely useless. Each needs the other, in order to create that amazing partnership. Both must work together, to get the perfect balance for them, so that they can both get whatever they desire from a session.
  5. Sparrow69

    Sparrow69 Moderator

    Click here for more.
    exactly, its a symbiotic relationship.

  6. Click here for more.
    So, Im going to play devils advocate here because I want to see where this goes… (don’t shoot me guys!!! And yes, I know I have not yet posted my own personal opinions… Lol)

    There are those that would argue that a Master would still be such without owning a sub/slave by sheer virtue of Mastering himself. But, can a sub/slave really be such without a Master to serve? That being said, is it truly a symbiotic relationship?

    And maybe this goes to the difference of what one’s looking for. If the goal is a session/scene, then yes, I agree with OLP and Sparrow. However, if the goal is a TPE type relationship, than I think that creates a different dynamic…

    Sparrow – I’ve been reading those books too much I think… lol
  7. Sparrow69

    Sparrow69 Moderator

    Click here for more.
    I'm glad you like them ;)

    In the response to your devils advocacy, I do the same: Is a sub not still a submissive to his/her own desires? I contend that while one can be without the other, 50 cents while still valuable, will never go as far as a dollar.

  8. Click here for more.
    I do, very much, thank you! :D

    Is a sub without a Master really submissive to her own desires, or is she simply a girl that has unfulfilled desires?

Share This Page