Submission Is Earned, Too: A Warning About Men Who Call Themselves Doms

[Va****]

1 hour ago, jaxnorth said:

You know what's interesting about this line of reasoning is even when the woman is submissive in this case she still like not well I don't know how to describe she's still in charge, makes her submission seem like a game or a role play

Because she can choose?

[ge****]

Yes, everyone knows that but what is seldom understood or spoken about (and is actually even more true) is that Dominance is earned. The fact is that there are far more fake submissives out there... almost by definition. Using words like "Sir" or "Daddy" do not make you a real submissive... Going on a date or consenting to penetrative sex does not make you real submissive... Wearing sexy outfits does not make you a real submissive... Even engaging in kink acts usually assigned to the submissive (like being subject to being tied up or restrained) does not make you a real submissive.

I see tons of discourse among Dominants showing that they appreciate and are sensitive to the needs of a submissive and they pretty much have to be in order to successfully engage in this kind of lifestyle at all... because otherwise, they just won't find partners. On the other hand. There is rich dialog all over this site where Dominants are frequently stating it and challenging one another to ensure that they are respecting the needs, boundaries, and vulnerabilities of submissives.

On the other hand, it would appear that so-called submissives rarely appreciate what it really takes for a Dominant to give their dominance over to a submissive. Giving dominance is a tremendous function of energy but more importantly trust and vulnerability (arguably far more so than the vulnerability that the submissive exposes through their submission) and I am afraid that very few people who consider themselves "submissives" have ever really created a safe space for their Dominant to truly be dominant. There needs to be much more discourse around this because it is extremely common for people to label themselves submissive simply as a way to attract attention.

Your advise is arguably even more relevant to Dominants who have to maintain their standards, who have to stop confusing their capacity to endure disappointment with their capacity to be dominant... Who do not become better Dominants by making themselves smaller so that an inadequate submissive can feel bigger... Who do not prove devootiom by accepting inconsistency... and who do not owe continued access simply because you've already invested time, trust, and vulnerability.

Being willing to dominate and lead does not mean being obligated to do so for just anyone.

My hope is that you will realize that your advise is even more pertinent to Dominants and that by taking an honest look at what counts for "submissive" these days, you may see that this advise is even more important for Dominants to observe.

[Va****]

1 hour ago, gentleman_in_nyc said:

Yes, everyone knows that but what is seldom understood or spoken about (and is actually even more true) is that Dominance is earned. The fact is that there are far more fake submissives out there... almost by definition. Using words like "Sir" or "Daddy" do not make you a real submissive... Going on a date or consenting to penetrative sex does not make you real submissive... Wearing sexy outfits does not make you a real submissive... Even engaging in kink acts usually assigned to the submissive (like being subject to being tied up or restrained) does not make you a real submissive.

I see tons of discourse among Dominants showing that they appreciate and are sensitive to the needs of a submissive and they pretty much have to be in order to successfully engage in this kind of lifestyle at all... because otherwise, they just won't find partners. On the other hand. There is rich dialog all over this site where Dominants are frequently stating it and challenging one another to ensure that they are respecting the needs, boundaries, and vulnerabilities of submissives.

On the other hand, it would appear that so-called submissives rarely appreciate what it really takes for a Dominant to give their dominance over to a submissive. Giving dominance is a tremendous function of energy but more importantly trust and vulnerability (arguably far more so than the vulnerability that the submissive exposes through their submission) and I am afraid that very few people who consider themselves "submissives" have ever really created a safe space for their Dominant to truly be dominant. There needs to be much more discourse around this because it is extremely common for people to label themselves submissive simply as a way to attract attention.

Your advise is arguably even more relevant to Dominants who have to maintain their standards, who have to stop confusing their capacity to endure disappointment with their capacity to be dominant... Who do not become better Dominants by making themselves smaller so that an inadequate submissive can feel bigger... Who do not prove devootiom by accepting inconsistency... and who do not owe continued access simply because you've already invested time, trust, and vulnerability.

Being willing to dominate and lead does not mean being obligated to do so for just anyone.

My hope is that you will realize that your advise is even more pertinent to Dominants and that by taking an honest look at what counts for "submissive" these days, you may see that this advise is even more important for Dominants to observe.

Is this a counter argument? I’m just not understanding the point of this whole monologue. At no point did I claim my statements to be mutually exclusive in any structure capacity? I am simply writing from the only viewpoint I am capable of which is that of a submissive so listen if you are not able to simply see a parallel of equality and let a fucking lightbulb go off without having to blather on about how you have this wild counter idea to my statements then what even are you doing?

You wrote this whole thing to try to twist what I said to say I’m really only speaking about dominance and quite frankly I really only wasn’t speaking about you. You’ve made it very clear given how you took this how you spun this and how you presented your argument, precisely the type of “Dom”you are.

On another note, I gave ADVICE not ADVISE.

You want a soapbox? Build your own with something better than the Fet version of “Nuh-Uhhh” 🙄.

Be serious.

[Cu****]

Thank you for taking the time to write this. I wish I'd read it before my first D/s dynamic.

[da****]

I can't lead the unwilling personally.
Some submissive need a hard Dom, and that's okay, it's just not my cup of tea.

[Va****]

2 hours ago, dallas25470 said:

I can't lead the unwilling personally.
Some submissive need a hard Dom, and that's okay, it's just not my cup of tea.

The worthy don’t encounter the unwilling.

[Mr****]

9 hours ago, ValOMar said:

Is this a counter argument? I’m just not understanding the point of this whole monologue. At no point did I claim my statements to be mutually exclusive in any structure capacity? I am simply writing from the only viewpoint I am capable of which is that of a submissive so listen if you are not able to simply see a parallel of equality and let a fucking lightbulb go off without having to blather on about how you have this wild counter idea to my statements then what even are you doing?

You wrote this whole thing to try to twist what I said to say I’m really only speaking about dominance and quite frankly I really only wasn’t speaking about you. You’ve made it very clear given how you took this how you spun this and how you presented your argument, precisely the type of “Dom”you are.

On another note, I gave ADVICE not ADVISE.

You want a soapbox? Build your own with something better than the Fet version of “Nuh-Uhhh” 🙄.

Be serious.

@ValOMar Save your energy. You were clear to those willing to listen. If you wish to expand, that's fine; but rest assured, you don't need to.