"Real" Doms Aren't Real And Nor Are The Subs

[CopperKnob]

And fake Doms/subs aren't fake either

Buckle up buttercups. This is for the newbies and those wallies who think that they get to define a relationship/dynamic.

What makes a Dom or a sub "real" and what makes them "fake"?

It's an honest question guv'nor because I'm really, really intrigued by the comments/posts where we, the Fet community make such declarations.

Proclaiming some people to be "real" and others to be "not real" is a judgment that some of us seem to feel really confident and comfortable about making.

Sure, we have the posers.
The vanilla's who stop by thinking, here lie the easy people.
Those that use their 🍆 as dowsing rods for 🐈
The one's who decide they're 'alpha', thinking that that makes them more Domly/subly than others
The one's who lack understanding re explicit/informed consent
But really, are they fake or simply uneducated/inexperienced/incompatible with what we're looking for?

What is it that makes someone a real Dom/sub?
I mean, we're all real, even the catfishers and scammers, behind the pixels we're all human beings

There's no governing body for any of us regardless of our self appointed label. None of us need to pay an annual fee for a registering body.  So how do we know that they're real or otherwise?
NEWSFLASH
There is absolutely no true or right way to be a sub, Dom/me, Master, slave, Mistress, Daddy, Mommy, little, middle, Top, bottom, etc, etc so, as long as everyone is respecting one another, of age, following consent, and behaving with risk awareness we're good.

Not every Dom/me is going to require their sub to use a honorific after every sentence. Not every Master or Mistress controls their slave's daily life 24/7. Not every submissive is going to wear lingerie and heels, not every brat loves glitter, not every slave is a masochist or likes ***, not every little likes to color and not every Mummy/Daddy likes ageplay.

This does not make them "less real" of themselves or their chosen label. This means that they are aware of their particular desires and how they like to do things in their relationship. The fact that some believe they can tell others what would make them a "real" is amazing.

The only opinions that matter in any relationship are those of the people in it. End of story.

So if a very gentle firm man decides that his label is Daddy but he wants to be called Sir, anyone who wants to tell him otherwise should hush their mouth. If a lovely lady decides that she feels pet suits her best but you think she's more of a sub, hush your mouth, she gets to decide. Hell someone could decide they are the "Queen of Sheba" and if that works for their style of kink, good for them

Its a very simple concept really. You don't get to tell people how to label themselves. You don't get to tell them that they aren't "really" XYZ because they don't meet your definition/perception of the label. The spectrum of kink is too wide, it has depth, it's too beautiful a place to explore to be limited by shallow fools.

I've said before, a hundred Dom's can be in a room, dressed in black with all the impact toys around them, with the deepest growly voice and maybe I don't feel submissive towards anyone. That's because it's who they are to me, not what they do or call themselves. It's perception and perception is merely a lens or mindset from which we view people, events, and things. In other words, we believe what we perceive to be accurate, and we create our own realities based on those perceptions.

[Se****]

Kudos to you my friend you have dropped so much truth in this posting. I consider myself somewhat of a word Smith and I could not have laid that down any better. I absolutely 100% agree with what you have said and honestly I feel like what you have said could extend to other things outside of the kink community. I think we would all be better off if we practiced this in all aspects of our life.

[De****]

Thanks for this post, it's a shame, people's inclination to *** their definitions on others in such a subject sand beautiful realm was self exploration...... Honestly I think it's something that's in each of us, best we can do is be conscious and try to avoid falling into the trap.... Anyway, thanks again 🤗

[Bound_as_needed]

When I say "Fake Dom" it's some one who isn't the beautiful woman in the pictures. It's someone who stole those pictures from Facebook or Instagram even that person's personal website and using it extract $$ from subs. Being someone they are not. A sub is chatting on line with one of these people...who by the way know most of the lingo and really give the hard sell then immediately ask for a tribute or gift? If the sub as for any verification the Dom gets mad and talks about how the sub isn't serious blah blah blah. They don't like being questioned. I have two simple tests that prove at least to some degree that the person messaging is the person in the picture. Easy tests. It's not just for fake Dom's it's for fake hot women on line...just as bad. I have ratted out 350+ fake profiles of women and Doms the last 18 months!! Only had a dozen past the test. Look at that ratio? 350:12 is what it is. Instagram was killing me. 5-10 hot women a day wanting follow and contact me....they started dropping like flies. Most won't take test because they can't pass. Their next message to me is a block or closed profile. Reach out if you want to know??

[Se****]

6 minutes ago, Bound_as_needed said:

When I say "Fake Dom" it's some one who isn't the beautiful woman in the pictures. It's someone who stole those pictures from Facebook or Instagram even that person's personal website and using it extract $$ from subs. Being someone they are not. A sub is chatting on line with one of these people...who by the way know most of the lingo and really give the hard sell then immediately ask for a tribute or gift? If the sub as for any verification the Dom gets mad and talks about how the sub isn't serious blah blah blah. They don't like being questioned. I have two simple tests that prove at least to some degree that the person messaging is the person in the picture. Easy tests. It's not just for fake Dom's it's for fake hot women on line...just as bad. I have ratted out 350+ fake profiles of women and Doms the last 18 months!! Only had a dozen past the test. Look at that ratio? 350:12 is what it is. Instagram was killing me. 5-10 hot women a day wanting follow and contact me....they started dropping like flies. Most won't take test because they can't pass. Their next message to me is a block or closed profile. Reach out if you want to know??

I would absolutely love to know but it will not let me message you on your profile

[Se****]

Ww22

[CopperKnob]

10 minutes ago, Bound_as_needed said:

When I say "Fake Dom" it's some one who isn't the beautiful woman in the pictures. It's someone who stole those pictures from Facebook or Instagram even that person's personal website and using it extract $$ from subs. Being someone they are not. A sub is chatting on line with one of these people...who by the way know most of the lingo and really give the hard sell then immediately ask for a tribute or gift? If the sub as for any verification the Dom gets mad and talks about how the sub isn't serious blah blah blah. They don't like being questioned. I have two simple tests that prove at least to some degree that the person messaging is the person in the picture. Easy tests. It's not just for fake Dom's it's for fake hot women on line...just as bad. I have ratted out 350+ fake profiles of women and Doms the last 18 months!! Only had a dozen past the test. Look at that ratio? 350:12 is what it is. Instagram was killing me. 5-10 hot women a day wanting follow and contact me....they started dropping like flies. Most won't take test because they can't pass. Their next message to me is a block or closed profile. Reach out if you want to know??

Those are scammers/catfishers. Consider the fact that you can call them out means that they're uneducated/unexperienced in kink

[ge****]

39 minutes ago, Bound_as_needed said:

When I say "Fake Dom" it's some one who isn't the beautiful woman in the pictures. It's someone who stole those pictures from Facebook or Instagram even that person's personal website and using it extract $$ from subs. Being someone they are not. A sub is chatting on line with one of these people...who by the way know most of the lingo and really give the hard sell then immediately ask for a tribute or gift? If the sub as for any verification the Dom gets mad and talks about how the sub isn't serious blah blah blah. They don't like being questioned. I have two simple tests that prove at least to some degree that the person messaging is the person in the picture. Easy tests. It's not just for fake Dom's it's for fake hot women on line...just as bad. I have ratted out 350+ fake profiles of women and Doms the last 18 months!! Only had a dozen past the test. Look at that ratio? 350:12 is what it is. Instagram was killing me. 5-10 hot women a day wanting follow and contact me....they started dropping like flies. Most won't take test because they can't pass. Their next message to me is a block or closed profile. Reach out if you want to know??

Thing is though - those aren't "Fake Dom/mes" or not "Real Dom/mes" (in the sense of the OP) but just "fake" or "not real" (in the sense of who they are pretending to be) plain and simple.
.
They are, as CK says, the scammers/catfishers whose sole aim is to part people from their hard earned cash.

[ge****]

Another delightfully insightful thread CK and one we can all relate to dominants and submissives alike - and anyone using phrases like "real", "true" or "fake" attached to dominant, or submissive (funnily enough I'm not sure I've seen it applied to switch) immediately has me on my guard.
.
No-one gets to define my submissiveness or another's dominance other than me - I've known many dominants in my time and yet can honestly say I've only encountered a handful to whom I've felt submissive to, doesn't mean they're not dominants, just means they're not dominants for me.

[Deleted Member]

Respect and consent - that’s the key to being “real”

[Bound_as_needed]

39 minutes ago, Sewman said:

I would absolutely love to know but it will not let me message you on your profile

So you see these pictures of these beautiful hot Mistresses or young woman. Ask them to do a selfie doing something specific. I have them hold up the LAST 3 fingers on their right hand under their chin or put on a baseball cap, a blue shirt and stand in the kitchen smiling. If they are who they say they are they go do it. I've had some doctor up photos or sen a picture of a completely different person holding wrong number of fingers. 99% effective.

[Bound_as_needed]

7 minutes ago, PillowPrincess1 said:

Respect and consent - that’s the key to being “real”

I've read your profile Princess I wish we lived in the same state. Would enjoy being in your FLR. You appear to be fantastic and extremely real.

[Deleted Member]

I find most people and communities who use terms like "fake dom/sub" are mostly narcissists who are gaslighting others into believing they are the only safe space and nobody else is to be trusted. It was really bad when I was in Perth.

[littlemiss37]

When I say fake doms it's because they dirty talk straight away . The last one I had had decided to ask for a rope bunny to ptactice rope on . when I opened up my mum has been told she is most likely not well and will most likely need treatment  . Had the cheek to say we r friends . Friends don't ignore eachother and abandon eachother x

[E-dUbBs]

A long overdue post

[Deleted Member]

Thanks for the thoughtful post. I think there is an element to this particular discourse that is exacerbated by the fact conversations take place online, on platforms which are built more like marketplaces or dating sites than community forums (not saying it doesn't happen elsewhere too). As a couple of other people have said, there does seem to be a sense in which those terms 'read / fake' are used to self-promote, or stand out from the crowd, especially by men. It does also seem that predominantly 'real' actually means a particular type of behaviour, affect, speech, tone and practice. As a cis man kink has been a hugely valuable way for me to dismantle ideas about patriarchy, what it is to be a 'man' etc and it's sad to see the concept of 'authentic / real' bdsm practice being aligned with often hetronormative ideas of what a 'man' looks, sounds and acts like. I don't really know what my point is but thanks for raising the subject!

[ge****]

Another thought about the use of "real", "fake", "true" etc - is they seem to be used interchangeably as either a put down, or as Cal suggests as self-promotion - and that speaks volumes to me.
.
How many times do we see "You can't be a real/true dominant/submissive because you won't...." or "Only a real/true/genuine dominant/submissive would..." and other derivatives of the phrase as negative connotations?
.
Or on the flip side "As a real/true/genuine dominant/submissive this is what I do" or similar?
.
Neither hold much value to me - I decide who is real/true whatever by the person concerned demonstrating it to me through their actions not because they say so. Similarly as I said above someone isn't necessarily not real/true whatever just because we're not compatible for whatever reason.
.
Now it's undeniable that there are some out there who aren't informed or who've seen kink porn and think that's all there is to it - and yes a level of wariness comes into it then and is why it's important as an individual entering into this world to ensure we are sufficiently aware to be able to identify and differentiate.

[Si****]

This part of the world is too subjective to be using labels like objective taxonomy. Having a conflict with someone right now over this: she lives in a way that all these definitions are important and set in stone, that personal variations exist but that if we say x is what's happening, then it has to be the standard definition of x. For a guy like me who's been doing very light d/s and rope play, the words are new, and coming into this as an adult, I was never afforded the luxury of thinking that we can treat any one relationship as if it were directly comparable to another (as in "oh they're just not x enough, when they get there it'll be the same") and so I struggle with labels in the first place.

This is a difficult conversation to navigate through. Patience is necessary on all sides.

Take care folks

[ey****]

there's so much this topic brings out of me.

First off

Scammers/Catfish

They suck. Unfortunately dating scams are big *** (and the biggest target is actually women) and honestly; in a lot of case if you get contacted by a scammer you already kinda know, any engagement or setting them tests or whatever is just wasting your own time as much as anything else and can create false security as some do manage to pass the verification!   I would tell women NOT to do any kinda "prove your real" tasks because the person you are speaking to could very well be a catfish trying to get you to send them a verification they can forward to someone else.   Such is life.

Next off...

Kink, BDSM, etc is actually a pretty wide arc - the term BDSM was coined, 30 years ago, as an umbrella term relating to a lot of different elements of kink.  Kink in itself we know as a lot more than 30 years of history.  A lot of ideas of how Dominants should be, or how submissives should be are relatively new ideas and frankly bollocks.  There's also a HELL of a lot more to kink than Dominance and submission - even if these have become two catch all terms.

But this doesn't stop people from having their own view on how people should behave.  I mean, obviously there are key things we should all agree - the importance of consent (even in CNC - it's so important it's in there twice!) the importance of compatibility and that kink-heavy relationships take more work than vanilla relationships, not less, because they incorporate everything of vanilla relationships plus trying to navigate kink.

Other than that, some folk have very narrow views and a lot falls foul of 'no true scotsman fallacy' which when you boil down to "a real Dominant wouldn't", "a real submissive should" etc etc there aren't actually anyone who meets the contradictory requirements.

So really; we have to focus on who we are and what we want and treat people with different ideas as just, well, not suitable for a long term relationship rather than "fake" 

Interestingly, of course, it's often those with the narrow views who seem least happy and often struggle more to get what they want - but then perhaps it's easier to project this as "you're all fake" than acknowledging find compatible partners is hard and that also, well, we all could work on ourselves at times. 

[Matttster]

I agree that the terms “fake Dom and/or sub” is used a lot to describe people that either do not have much experience or that do not comply with what others deem to be “proper protocol”. As CopperKnob and others have noted, it is not about how experienced or trained or whatever means of classification others seem to exist, rather it is about what the people in the dynamic feel is right for them.

But on the other hand, there are many people that call themselves dominant because they want to be. Because of some movies and the readily available information, there seems to be a lot more people interested in kink than before. I understand there are scammers out there that need to be watched out for.

But there are those I consider fake. These are the people that misrepresent who/what they are. So either people who came across some bdsm porn, think it’s exciting and decide to be a dominant or submissive. The others fakes in my opinion are the narcissists and/or abusive people who claim to be dominant when in fact they are abusive. I have to many friends who meet a “Dom/me who starts demanding compliance with their wishes without having “earned” the rights.

There are also people claiming to be submissive, who immediately call some Sir/Master/Mistress/etc claiming to have no limits.

I feel dynamics must be built on mutual respect and consent. Regardless if it is a 24/7 dynamic or if it is a session at a dungeon.

[do****]

Well stated all I like this conversation I have a sub that is trying to define what “they” say it should be and just has a hard time relating to life is life and this is not a black and white situation it’s a living organic relations ship

[Wy****]

I’m not really a fan of this extreme deconstructionism. I think there are some things that all D’s share in common and all subs share in common which makes them what they are.
For example at the end of the day subs submit (or at least have the inclination to). The form of the submission can vary widely and is as unique as the people involved, but it is still the core of what a sub is and does in relation to a D.
If a sub does not submit and has no intention to ever do so (I’m not talking about subs who are waiting for or assessing a worthy D) is that person a sub? I think not. That is a fake sub. Same goes with D’s. Just my two cents

[ge****]

6 hours ago, WyldKatt said:

I’m not really a fan of this extreme deconstructionism. I think there are some things that all D’s share in common and all subs share in common which makes them what they are.
For example at the end of the day subs submit (or at least have the inclination to). The form of the submission can vary widely and is as unique as the people involved, but it is still the core of what a sub is and does in relation to a D.
If a sub does not submit and has no intention to ever do so (I’m not talking about subs who are waiting for or assessing a worthy D) is that person a sub? I think not. That is a fake sub. Same goes with D’s. Just my two cents

Of course there are very basic high level tenets that define a role, but I don't believe CK was referring to those with her OP - it's the "can vary wildly and is as unique as the people involved" element of your post she's referring to.
.
The kind of thing we see regularly here where for example someone's submissiveness is questioned because they say they won't do a specific thing, or because they dare question a dominant - or where a dominant has a specific approach and way of doing things that others say is the "wrong" way - so long as all involved in the dynamic are happy, informed, consenting and following basic safety principles etc is all that matters - doesn't make them any less "real", "true" or "genuine"

[ey****]

I think one of the problems at times is kink and BDSM are both actually very wide - and as I say above D/s, Dominance and submission, is only a pretty small part of it.

But, everyone seems to go to Dominant and submissive as catch-all terms.

And some of this is understandable - because there are people who literally only see things as "are you Dom or sub (or fake)" when it might actually be.... well actually, I'm not really submissive I just like - I dunno, I like seeing women in leather or latex, I have a foot fetish, the idea of these play scenes is also something that interests me, with or without sex

"Oh, so you're a bottom?" - actually no, because the term bottom has been co-opted by kink and is often used derogatory, a bottom is actually a male who enjoys receiving during anal sex, typically with another man.

or it might be - I'm not technically a Dominant, but, when I cane or flog someone I get aroused. "Oh, you're a sadist?" well not really because it's not the *** I get off on and it's only flogging or caning others I enjoy, that this fictitious person might not enjoy other *** based ***.  "Oh, so you're a Top", again, no, a Top is a man who enjoys giving during anal sex.  

For a lot of people in quick conversation it's probably much easier to say "Dominant" or "submissive" than to list their individual interests or scenarios - that's only actually relevant if you're going to play or have a relationship together.

[Deleted Member]

You’ve said what I’d been thinking for about 2 years!