Ladies and Subs important question from Doms.

[Ko****]

Ladies and subs alike, can a Dom be a Dom in need? Or is a Dom only a Dom if he/she has their shit together?

2 examples:

1. The younger Dom.
He has not had an easy life and has not had a break from it, so he has goals but may need housing or *** to get him there.

2. Older Dom.
He has gone through life and knows his worth but now has child support and the possible looming ex-wife and kids. Also, add to the scenario that he might also need housing if kicked out by his ex-wife but still able to pay for himself on a budget.

If he takes care of you even though he has trouble taking care of himself, would you still consider him a worthy enough Dom to be able to put your trust in him to fulfill your submissive needs?

[Submissive_summer]

Submission isn’t about worshipping a flawless man or woman... it’s about choosing someone whose leadership you believe in... even when life isn’t perfect...

A Dom can absolutely be “a Dom in need" Dominance isn’t measured by how perfect someone’s life looks on paper.... It’s measured by their integrity... their consistency....their communication... their ability to lead with intention... the way they hold space for their submissive.... Life circumstances don’t take away someone’s dominance and having needs doesn’t suddenly make them unworthy of trust

[Deleted Member]

In both of those circumstances, I think the man should focus on sorting those elements of his life out first. Not on establishing a relationship. I'd say the same to anyone, it's nothing to do really with domination. It's about priorities. It doesn't lessen their value as a Dom - it's just timing.

[La****]

A Dom without his shit together isn't going to be my Dom, bc I have my shit together and I value that.

That's not to say they can't be a Dom, but they can't be my Dom.

Similarly, I wouldn't be offended if a Dom said I was an unsuitable sub for them bc they value health, and I eat too much cake and drink too much wine to be a size 6.

[Th****]

Having your "shit together" can be somewhat subjective and look different from one person's idea of what that means to the next. Your examples however are pretty specific and I'm going to agree with what @fififufu said in their response. I would also say the same thing to anyone, even someone totally vanilla, focus on getting those major things sorted out before looking to get into a relationship. 

If someone can afford to manage their finances with a partner but not on their own then they should look for a *roommate* not a relationship. Wanting to start a relationship in order to have somewhere to live is not a good reason to want a relationship, kink or vanilla is irrelevant. 

[Ko****]

There is a misconception about Dom 2.
Ladies think he doesn't have his shit together because he can't pay extravagant meals or designer bags, but that's because he has had everything taken away from him. He pays for his previous family and pays for himself. 2 homes to pay for. He has his shit together but has been dragged down by a scorned woman.

Dom 1 is a gamble, I've been told as long as he has a clear set drive to better himself even if goal 1, 2 , and 3 fail, if he strives for betterness, a sub is willing to be his pillar.

[ey****]

51 minutes ago, Kojisama said:

He pays for his previous family and pays for himself. 2 homes to pay for. He has his shit together but has been dragged down by a scorned woman.

So if he is bitter about a previous relationship breakdown he does not have his shit together - and is a liability

Someone, however, who is acceptant that relationships breakdown and of course is upholding his duty to supporting any *** etc then he has his shit together.

Mind. If someone is still living with a partner and is about to get kicked out - they have more pressing matters than finding another relationship! 

[Deleted Member]

56 minutes ago, Kojisama said:

There is a misconception about Dom 2.
Ladies think he doesn't have his shit together because he can't pay extravagant meals or designer bags, but that's because he has had everything taken away from him. He pays for his previous family and pays for himself. 2 homes to pay for. He has his shit together but has been dragged down by a scorned woman.

Dom 1 is a gamble, I've been told as long as he has a clear set drive to better himself even if goal 1, 2 , and 3 fail, if he strives for betterness, a sub is willing to be his pillar.

I think I have second thoughts now you've clarified. A dom who talks about women in this way isn't worth my time.

[ey****]

On the whole there's often no golden rule.  People in general aren't seeking perfection. But, I guess, are seeking accountability.  

There's also plenty of scenarios, such as the ones above, where someone currently should have higher priorities than seeking a new relationship, particularly one where they are being a Dominant.

[Deleted Member]

Both are still Doms if theyre both respecting limits, safewords and aftercare and being risk aware.

I would choose neither scenario.

[Do****]

I think your situation in life is irrelevant if you can get yourself into your own headspace and relate to your sub in your own dynamic. If you can create that for you and them, in a suitable physical setting, then what’s going on in your broader life situation is not relevant.

[bl****]

Hard no for me if the Dominant person doesn't have their shit together. Im not handing over my trust to anyone incapable of managing their own life.
.
Now, as a Top, for a negotiated scene. I would take part in bottoming for play if the kink skills were a match for mine.

[ey****]

I guess also on the flip... would a Dominant not see a submissive who was in one of the above scenarios as somewhat of a risk also?

Like - would you take on a submissive who was still living with her ex and about to potentially be made homeless and seek custardy of offspring?    or take on a sub who was young and broke and needed secure housing?

and perhaps in both scenarios you could say.... ah... but I have housing.   OK, so what if it doesn't work out?  And this can be the same in any relationship which moves to cohabiting but this was someone who already relied on you for housing? You couldn't move through normal relationship stages.    Do they feel they have to go beyond what they're happy to do in order to remain in housing?

Like, even not specifically answering the question - but - for any scenario of "would you take this person on, if...." a counter question is if you would take someone on in a similar circumstance? And if so, does this create an uneven power structure?  Because consent is about being able to say no without caveats or consequences.  

[he****]

I feel if anyone does not have their lives stabilized, it would be hard to give your full focus to another as needed. It would nit matter if dom or sub. I think you need to be stable to truly be able to put the effort into another individual deserved in any relationship or dynamic.

[Ko****]

When things go wrong guys at work like to say "well in a perfect world...". The joke is that it's not a perfect world and things aren't always going to be peachy.
So for those adamant about you wouldn't take on a risky Dom or risky sub, what if yours and their world was peachy, but after being together 1 or both of your worlds collapse, Are you saying that you would leave the relationship because they no longer have their shit together?
I would believe that it's about surmising whether the person is capable of indeed having their shit together and if they have proven in the past thats possible, I would say why not give them a chance, right?

[Deleted Member]

30 minutes ago, Kojisama said:

When things go wrong guys at work like to say "well in a perfect world...". The joke is that it's not a perfect world and things aren't always going to be peachy.
So for those adamant about you wouldn't take on a risky Dom or risky sub, what if yours and their world was peachy, but after being together 1 or both of your worlds collapse, Are you saying that you would leave the relationship because they no longer have their shit together?
I would believe that it's about surmising whether the person is capable of indeed having their shit together and if they have proven in the past thats possible, I would say why not give them a chance, right?

You're asking a different question than in your original OP. And you haven't replied to what people have commented thus far. It seems as though you're looking for approval not discussion.

[Ja****]

I dont care mutch about that, i am piki on character that must be a match. Have hat it the way, she is Dom but given me control outside the bedroom ...so i can fix. Was a nice time and No regretz.

[Ko****]

Adding to the discussion @fififufu . There is alot to digest with every comment being valid points. I wouldn't be able to respond to every single comment honestly as the title says it's more of a community discussion.

[Deleted Member]

17 minutes ago, Kojisama said:

Adding to the discussion @fififufu . There is alot to digest with every comment being valid points. I wouldn't be able to respond to every single comment honestly as the title says it's more of a community discussion.

You haven't replied to a single comment. You've just added more of your own opinion.

[ey****]

6 hours ago, Kojisama said:

So for those adamant about you wouldn't take on a risky Dom or risky sub, what if yours and their world was peachy, but after being together 1 or both of your worlds collapse, Are you saying that you would leave the relationship because they no longer have their shit together?

This is an entirely different topic of conversation but then the question here is under what scenario? And what is your level of relationship?

Like if you've been in a relationship to any description with someone for a year or two and then, say, they lose their job through no fault of their own and struggle for work - then maybe it's less risky to move them in

Or say, they run into financial difficulties, say, they live in the US and get a medical bill - again, there's things you can support them with

In these scenarios it isn't about someone trying to find a relationship when there are pressing priorities - they're already in one.  However the dynamic of the relationship MAY change to support the change in circumstances.  But that can be two ways, in either the space/flexibility you need to give the other person or the change they have to give you.

 

 

[Ko****]

I see where your getting at but your talking about 1-2yrs which would be understandable but let's say Dom 1 gets his "shit together " momentarily and in that time of dating period which could be 1-3months finds a sub before life throws another curve ball at him. Are you saying it would be immediately a no for you?
Dom 2 may never be able to get his "shit together" because of prior reservations...does that mean he never gets a chance at another relationship/happiness?

[ey****]

I guess in the case of Dom 1 as far as the sub was aware 'shit was together' - whether there's some form of curve ball like losing a job or needing new accommodation or whatever... then regardless of what happens next.... any other argument was moot, there was no reason for someone not to start dating/relationship with him.

For Dom 2.   A lot depends on the situation right now.  Nobody is owed a chance.  And that's brutal but honest.  And there's factors go against anyone cos not everyone is playing on the same field.  Where is he in the hypothetical scenario? Moved out the house - got somewhere of his own, paying support but has little disposable income, sees offspring on weekends?  That's the priority right there.  And circumstances improve.  A promotion or payrise at work. Period for paying support lapsing. Taking up interests or hobbies which don't drain disposable income which gives a chance to meet someone. Hell, trying to meet someone via online dating - plans don't have to cost the earth and can be made around priorities.

I don't see what the disadvantage is there?    

 

[me****]

Absolutely. Its what they do for you on the emotional level that counts to me.