Dominant vs. Master

[BDSM_Tourguide]

What's the difference between a dominant and a master? What do the words actually mean?

While no one can really tell anyone else what their title in BDSM really means, there are some widely accepted definitions for some words out there. For instance, there is an accepted BDSM community-wide definition for dominant and one for master.

The difference is mostly semantic, but understanding them might help some people to understand the type of partner for which they are looking or the type of relationship into which they want to place themselves. If nothing else, it will let some people know the best way to address themselves when speaking to members of their BDSM community.

Generally speaking, a dominant is a person that is willing to enter into a domestic 24/7 BDSM relationship with a submissive. A dominant's primary motivation, in most cases, is not TPE, corporal punishment, or excessive forms of bondage and sadism. A dominant enjoys the perceived power and control he has over his submissive and is focused more on the discipline, rules and control aspects of the relationship.

Different than a dominant is a master. Typically, a master want a TPE, 24/7, slavery type of relationship. He likes to exert full control over a submissive and will enjoy corporal punishment and, occasional sadism. He, too, wants power and control over his partner, but in a different way than a dominant does. A dominant is usually content to set rules and have them follwed through a routine of discipline and training. A master sets specific rules for all aspects of his partner's life, from what she will wear, to what she will eat, to how she will walk and talk in social situations. Most frequently, when someone refers to a TPE type relationship, they are going to refer to it in the sense of master and slave, not dominant and submissive.

There are other forms of 'dominant' roles in BDSM and kink, too. The sadist is one, the top is another. A sadist enjoy inflicting pain and receives sexual gratification from it. A top is a scene player, like a bottom or a switch, that enjoys occasional play and scening, but doesn't necessarily look for a 24/7 type relationship. In fact, most tops are kind of put off by the idea of living a 24/7 BDSM lifestyle. They want to play on the weekends and go to work on the weekdays. They want seperation of their lives, not constant immersion in the vanilla world or the BDSM world.

These definitions are not specific, by the way, and they are combinable. Just because you call yourself a dominant doesn't mean you won't administer corporal punishment, it just means you don't require the micromanagement of your submissive's entire life. Just because you are a sadist doesn't mean you don't enjoy the occasional topping every now and then just to see your favorite toy crawl before she gets her ass beaten.

As a rule, BDSM terms are often non-specific and blanketing. Unless you know exactly what your preferences are, I would recommend sticking to the general 'dominant' term. It's widely accepted and covers about everything, except topping. It's the term I prefer for myself.

And this doesn't even cover leather doms, daddies, spankophiles or the myriad other nomenclature given to the dominant side of BDSM lifestylers.

[pandemonium]

Whats a leather dom?

[BDSM_Tourguide]

Whats a leather dom?

A top or dominant living the leather lifestyle.

It's sort of a loose offshoot of BDSM, but mostly everyone has a leather fetish.

[allalone46]

Ok I have been on this and other sites and have been chastised(not here) when I inadvertantly refered to my self as a master even though I was never trained, nor mentored, nor had a slave. That is basicly why I refer to myself as a Dom and not a master, I have all the tendinsys and desires of what BDSM_Tourguide saids is a master tough I haven't had nor at this time have a slave (not for lack of looking) but becouse I was dresed down by others in this. And no I don't believe that thay were old guard but just ones with more knolage than I had a the time. Been studying a wile, and still learning.

[BDSM_Tourguide]

Everyone has to learn somewhere, allalone.

Usually, a master, in the most common sense, does have a mentor that teaches him the way of things, but so do dominants. So do submissives and slaves, for that matter.

Typically, when a person realizes they have dominant or submissives tendencies, they will seek out like-minded individuals to ask questions (Am I normal? and so on). What most people find is a community of people devoted to the safe practice of BDSM or leather or whatever the particular fetish is. Whether that community is online or real life, it doesn't really matter. What's important is that the person with the questons finds a place to have them answered.

Eventually, however, the new, curious person will find someone they seem to gravitate toward because they like that person's style or advice. That's usually when the mentoring begins. This happens more in real life communities than online, however, because the information online is usually readily available by performing a search for it. Which leads to another form of learning alltogether.

It is possible to be self-taught, too. To get your knowledge from articles and books, rather than from another person directly. Many well-known tops, bottoms, dominants, submissives, masters and slaves have written articles, books, and have opened websites for the public's perusal. The only bad thing about being self-taught is that there's no one to answer your questions. If the books, article or website doesn't have an answer to your question, then you might have a heck of a time finding someone that knows that answer.

That's why places like this are so nice to have. It gives people with questions a great place to come to find their answers and gain some extra knowledge.

[JakBird]

have been chastised(not here) when I inadvertantly refered to my self as a master even though I was never trained, nor mentored, nor had a slave.

Ask yourself why comments from anyone else are particularly relevant. Are these people self-proclaimed experts, or do they demonstrate any particular wisdom garnered from successful experience?

Dominant, master, whatever, it's all a state of mind. Sure there are pitfalls to avoid, and listening to others who have fallen into those pits is an excellent way of not repeating their mistakes, but don't put too much stock in what someone else claims to have accomplished. Trust your own judgment when that little voice tells you someone is full of it.

Consider when you hear this ubiquitous statement, "I have trained [insert arbitrarily large number] slaves/submissives for the last [insert substantial number of years], so I know what I'm doing." On face value it might seem plausible, but look at the implications. Is quantity actually better than quality? Would the claimant be more credible if the large number of slaves were only one or two instead? For myself, a statement like this is actually an admission of failure, failure to learn how to maintain a stable relationship for any length of time.

Twenty years of pounding one's head against a wall certainly qualifies for expertise in headaches but not much else. So look and listen, but don't take the derogatory comments too seriously.

[redEva]

Welcome to the board JackBird. I like the way you think hope to hear more from you.

People, usually have this tendency to like presenting themselves as and expert on any subject at hand. Truth is ones actions speak much louder than words – and most of those that try to put someone down do that just so that they could feel being bigger.

Alalone46 – you have pretty good idea what you are – and as long as you recognize you still have things to learn you are on the right path. Doubtless it is easier to learn from a “patron” , mentor of a sort – but that is not an easy thing to find. I found that more I talk to people about my fantasies, preferences and beliefs – better I know myself. So… reading (and not just fantasy stories but more serious material) and talking to the people that share interest is just swell way of learning.

[Dngnkeeper]

Ok I have been on this and other sites and have been chastised(not here) when I inadvertantly refered to my self as a master even though I was never trained, nor mentored, nor had a slave. That is basicly why I refer to myself as a Dom and not a master, I have all the tendinsys and desires of what BDSM_Tourguide saids is a master tough I haven't had nor at this time have a slave (not for lack of looking) but becouse I was dresed down by others in this. And no I don't believe that thay were old guard but just ones with more knolage than I had a the time. Been studying a wile, and still learning.

Now having others chastise you for your choice between Dom and Master is a new one on me. I've seen this before particulary in reference to submissive, slave, bottom etc. It must be an internet thing.

As TG pointed the choice of title for the most part is a quick way to advertise your preferences, similar to the "Hanky Code". So the choice of title is up to you.

In my experience it has mostly been since the publishing of BDSM books and the internet that the self tought avenue has come about. Prior to this, as was my case, you had to find someone to teach and mentor. Not to mention finding a partner. Another difference in the old and new is that many Doms etc would have begun their BDSM life on the bottom. But the one of the most important things that has caried over to the self tought arena is the concept of the mentor. Even though I have been arround a while I still need the wisdom and advise of others and someone to teach me the new things I want to learn.

Now TG I'm one for anaigies but I wouldnt have thought of that one. :rofl: So what the heck did I do to deserve 30 years?

P.S. Spell check is on the fritz.

[Nightstriker]

First off TG thanks again for something that has sparked more and more creative conversation about the lifestyle. Really these are absolutely fablous.

First I must say that I am still exploring things and am reletaviely new to the lifestyle. But I know who I am and what I beleive.

I for myself use the term Domminant. Though after looking at what TG has as definitions for both of the names I really don't fit into either of them fully.

I enjoy the control exchange that I would have with my sub...if I had one, and of the discipline and rule base that in TG's definition a Domminant would enjoy. Though I also identify with aspects of the Master Definition. I do enjoy as TG put it

A master sets specific rules for all aspects of his partner's life, from what she will wear, to what she will eat, to how she will walk and talk in social situations.

While still remaining within the limits of safe, sane, consensual, the last being the most important for me. So while I enjoy setting out limit as to what my sub would wear, walk, talk and all of that I am only willing to take what she is willing to give.

This is me, what I beleive. Thoguh one final though, the terms Domminant and Master, to me, mean sweet little other than describing your position in the social chain of BDSM.

The Domminant/Master have their submissive/slaves. Beyond this the words mean very little than as identification markers as to what your general prefrences are in the life.

For the Domminant/Master part the phrase "I am looking for a submissive/slave who is willing to become mine" would apply in my mind and if this is what you seek then use which ever term you want to refer to yourself as.

(Now what I am going to be saying next is a little off topic.)

While a submissive/slave would have a phrase simmilar to "I am looking for a Domminant/Master who is willing to take me as his/hers" Once again the terms are irrevelant only the broad general meanings that they carry mean anything.

Well that is my 2 cents.

[Dslave]

I have a very clear definition and difference between Dominant and Master, though, it is a bit different from any here.

First off, the way I see it, being a Dominant or a submissive is a natural thing. Even in the everyday vanilla world there are those that are dominant and those that are submissive. And, often times, as human behavior would have it, we have the potential to be both, depending on our circumstances. For instance, a man that is Dominant in the bedroom may very well be submissive in the company of his employer. We do choose one or the other out of natural survival instinct, however, it is also natural for their to be a heiarchy of dominance. Males in nature are mostly dominant, women are mostly submissive, and castrated or weaker males usually rank even lower than women because they have little or no use and therefore are extremely submissive being seen as even the weaker sex than women. And, in BDSM, often times, this heiarchy remains.

Okay, so how does all of this add up sexually and in BDSM? Well, a Dominant, for me, is a man that chooses to use his natural sexual dominant place during his sexual experiences. Being a Dominant, in my eyes, is simply being on "top" of things, being on the taking end rather than the giving end. (A submissive would be on the giving end.) If you are in a D/s relationship, it is much like dating. You can be very casual about it or you can be very serious about it. But, there is no vow of commitment between the Dominant or submissive. It is much like dating. Yes, there are several people that date seriously and monogamously, there are several people that even get engaged while dating. However, it is still not a marriage of total commitment.

Being a Master is like being a husband. There is TOTAL and COMPLETE commitment. (Or should be.) Many can be a "Dominant" (or a boyfriend) but very few can rise up to the challenge, commitment and responsibility of being a "Master" (or a husband). When you are a Dominant (or a submissive) you still have certain freedoms. You are truly and honestly in it for YOU (when it comes down to it) and it is rather easy to walk away from. When you are a Master (or a slave) in a M/s relationship you are in it for the both of you. You have made the commitment, you have exchanged the vows, you have a responsibility to the other person now and it isn't just for you. And, it is a whole lot more difficult to "walk away" (or at least should be).

You can say you are a Master or a dominant but it is your actions and level of commitment, knowledge and wisdom that make you one or the other.

[BDSM_Tourguide]

You can say you are a Master or a dominant but it is your actions and level of commitment, knowledge and wisdom that make you one or the other.

And I would disagree with you to my dying breath.

I don't consider myself a master, but that doesn't mean I'm any less commited than someone that does.

I have also forgotten more about BDSM than most people will ever know, but that, too, does not mean I want the moniker "Master" pasted in front of my name.

In my opinion, and as I stated in my opening post to this thread, the only difference between a dominant and master are their preferences in their types of relationships sought.

[Dslave]

You have every right to disagree. I was simply expressing my personal definition based on my experience with both Dominants and Masters in my own life. Mastering something is far different than Dominating it. Dominating something, for me, is a natural process. Mastering something is a learned process and a position that recquires commitment and responsibility. And, it seems to correlate somewhat with the dictionary or "formal" definition, as well.
The dictionary definition is :
Main Entry: 1mas·ter
Pronunciation: 'mas-t&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English magister & Old French maistre, both from Latin magister; akin to Latin magnus large -- more at MUCH
1 a (1) : a male teacher (2) : a person holding an academic degree higher than a bachelor's but lower than a doctor's b often capitalized : a revered religious leader c : a worker or artisan qualified to teach apprentices d (1) : an artist, performer, or player of consummate skill (2) : a great figure of the past (as in science or art) whose work serves as a model or ideal
2 a : one having authority over another : RULER, GOVERNOR b : one that conquers or masters : VICTOR, SUPERIOR <in this young, obscure challenger the champion found his master> c : a person licensed to command a merchant ship d (1) : one having control (2) : an owner especially of a slave or animal e : the employer especially of a servant f (1) dialect : HUSBAND (2) : the male head of a household
3 a (1) archaic : MR. (2) : a youth or boy too young to be called mister -- used as a title b : the eldest son of a Scottish viscount or baron
4 a : a presiding officer in an institution or society (as a college) b : any of several officers of court appointed to assist (as by hearing and reporting) a judge
5 a : a master mechanism or device b : an original from which copies can be made; especially : a master phonograph record or magnetic tape
- mas·ter·ship /-"ship/ noun

Main Entry: 1dom·i·nant
Pronunciation: -n&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin dominant-, dominans, present participle of dominari
1 : commanding, controlling, or prevailing over all others
2 : overlooking and commanding from a superior position
3 : of, relating to, or exerting ecological or genetic dominance4 : being the one of a pair of bodily structures that is the more effective or predominant in action <dominant eye>
- dom·i·nant·ly adverb
synonyms DOMINANT, PREDOMINANT, PARAMOUNT, PREPONDERANT mean superior to all others in influence or importance. DOMINANT applies to something that is uppermost because ruling or controlling <a dominant social class>. PREDOMINANT applies to something that exerts, often temporarily, the most marked influence <a predominant emotion>PARAMOUNT implies supremacy in importance, rank, or jurisdiction <unemployment was the paramount issue in the campaign>. PREPONDERANT applies to an element or factor that outweighs all others in influence or effect <preponderant evidence in her favor>.

[MrJerseyGuy]

LOL Dslave!!! If you think being either a Dominant or a Master is akin to being a husband...you have clearly never had a wife!!!

[sweetplymate]

LOL Dslave!!! If you think being either a Dominant or a Master is akin to being a husband...you have clearly never had a wife!!!

*lol* thats a good one, and i have to agree that i dont think any of these roles relate so much to a role in marriage tho there may be some correlating scenarios...i actually beleive they are much more complex and situation driven...and while i am here why not throw in my .02 as well...

my view on the matter is this...anyone (with permission) can dominate me, but my Master is the ruler of my heart and soul and body as well as my mind...even though we are not in a 24/7 relationship of this sort, he is first and foremost on my mind and always the center of my undivided attention...a dom would only be in secene-only capacity and he would never have the emotional control over me that my Master does....out of respect for someone within that scene capacity i might call him Sir, but there is only one whom i will call Master and that is because he has earned such a title from me as well as my devotion and love...

[Dslave]

LOL Dslave!!! If you think being either a Dominant or a Master is akin to being a husband...you have clearly never had a wife!!!

I was merely using those examples to compare levels of commitment. Comparing the commitment of a Dominant to a Master, to me, is like comparing the level of commitment of a boyfriend to a husband. I am NOT by any meaning of the word trying to say that being a Master is the exact same thing as being a husband. I know full well that the responsibilities and commitments are different. HOWEVER, I am saying that it IS a similiar level of commitment. Maybe, I should put it like this... You can play with an instrument OR you can Master an instrument. Being a Master of that instrument involves a high level of commitment and discipline it involves learning that instrument inside and out and bringing out the VERY BEST in that instrument. Playing with that instrument only involves knowing the "basics". It is when you become one with the instrument that you get the very best out of it and until you can put that kind of intensity into something you are never going to be the Master of it. It is the same, with a BDSM relationship. I could have compared the words Dominant and Master to a number of things. I chose the "boyfriend vs. husband" scenario simply because we ARE talking about relationships here. Very DIFFERENT levels of relationships, in my opinion. And, again, it is just my opinion. But, if you speak of the "Master" of anything, you ARE speaking of a different level of commitment and discipline and you are speaking of a union between the Master and the thing, person or pet it is Mastering. (Because you cannot be a Master of "nothing" because that is like being a King without a country.) And marriage is, after all, one of the most common "unions" there are. And, also something anyone (even beginners and vanillas) can relate to.

The thing that boggles my mind in the BDSM community, really, is that so many men call themselves Masters but are they? I have to wonder, half the time, what it is they are Mastering. I mean, you can call yourself a Master all you want but really until someone else calls you Master and your actions are displaying a Mastery over something (or someone), are you a Master? (Just something to think about.)

And, in fact, for a moment, let's take submissive and slave and compare them for a moment, to put it into perspective. A slave is completely and totally devoted to her Master's wishes. She lives for her Master. She has taken vows to serve her Master with all of her heart, mind and soul. Granted, it is not the same role of a wife but the level of commitment and responsibility is similiar enough to compare the two. And, it IS a different level of commitment than a sub. Just as a Dominant's level of commitment is much different than a Master's. And, no, I have never had a wife. I could never be a wife. I don't have the desire to take on the responsibilities as a wife as they ARE very different than being a slave. However, they are a similiar level of commitment and responsibility, though the commitment/responsibilities are different and trust me I acknowledge that.

[BDSM_Tourguide]

The thing that boggles my mind in the BDSM community, really, is that so many men call themselves Masters but are they? I have to wonder, half the time, what it is they are Mastering. I mean, you can call yourself a Master all you want but really until someone else calls you Master and your actions are displaying a Mastery over something (or someone), are you a Master?

This wasn't a thread designed to debate the differences in commitment or experience between a dominant and a master; it is actually supposed to be somewhat educational for people that aren't sure what to call themselves or what their desires might be. Hopefully, this debate isn't taking away from that experience.

I consider myself a dominant, but by Dslave's reasoning, I should consider myself a master. By my definitions, I am not, though.

If it all amounts to experience, then I have plenty. If my BDSM experience were compared, in years, to a prison term, I'd have served the max for manslaughter by now. That would, by the terms laid down by Dslave, force me to be a master.

However, if one were to go by my definitions, than I am a dominant. Not because I lack any serious commitment to the lifestyle, nor because I lack practical experience, but because the style of relationship I want is not in fitting with the generally accepted terminology of the MS relationship. In my view, it has nothing to do with commitment, it's based on preference of the type of relationship you want.

[Dslave]

This wasn't a thread designed to debate the differences in commitment or experience between a dominant and a master; it is actually supposed to be somewhat educational for people that aren't sure what to call themselves or what their desires might be. Hopefully, this debate isn't taking away from that experience.

My apologies, I thought this was a discussion board. I did not mean to take away from your post, if I did. I simply meant to give another perspective on things. Two photographers, two cameras, same exact subject can present some very interesting views. It is still the same subject. Nothing has changed except the presentation of it. Again, my apologies.

[Eclipsed]

I consider myself a dominant, but by Dslave's reasoning, I should consider myself a master. By my definitions, I am not, though.

I hope it's ok for me to add to this thread, although it seems kind of like an old topic. And I hope that maybe I can help Dslave clarify her point a little bit and maybe put some closure between her and TG's arguement... and I hope that I am not "taking away from the experience" as TG said...

Please correct me if I'm wrong Dslave, but my interpretation or understanding of what you are saying is that ur reasoning isn't unconditionally calling all those who have that experience a "Master." It seems like what you're trying to say that the level of experience or commitment should be a standard that those aspiring to the term "Master" should find themselves at, if not exceeding. It doesn't really matter what a person calls themselves, be it dominant or master. But a person considering using the term "Master" should understand the amount of experience and commitment involved.

If it all amounts to experience, then I have plenty. If my BDSM experience were compared, in years, to a prison term, I'd have served the max for manslaughter by now. That would, by the terms laid down by Dslave, force me to be a master.

Nobody should be able to force the term master or dominant, it should be a personal preference. But, TG, what I think Dslave is trying to say, is you could consider or call yourself a "Master" based on the amount of experience and/or commitment you have, not that you must be a Master because of that experience. You shouldn't consider yourself a master if you're lacking in that experience and/or commitment, and you should definitely not consider yourself a master based completely on the amount of control you place over your slave(subbie?) .

However, if one were to go by my definitions, than I am a dominant. Not because I lack any serious commitment to the lifestyle, nor because I lack practical experience, but because the style of relationship I want is not in fitting with the generally accepted terminology of the MS relationship. In my view, it has nothing to do with commitment, it's based on preference of the type of relationship you want.

I agree with what both TG and Dslave is saying, but to varying degrees. I think a "Master" doesn't necessarrily have to control everything they're slave does, although some of those signs should definitely be there. It doesn't necessarily have to be only a type of relationship. And I truly think that Dslave is trying to set a standard for those who want to call themselves a "Master," not saying that those who meet that standard or exceed it are required to call themselves "Master." Why can't the distinction be a blend of both? I hope that helped.

Ps I just stumbled on this thread looking for clarifications like this, mostly on "this" versus "that." I hope it was ok to add my 2 cents and please forgive me if I've stepped on anyone's toes.

[BDSM_Tourguide]

2 a : one having authority over another

1 : commanding, controlling, or prevailing over all others

Just by those definitions, I'd say they sound pretty similar to me.

In my opinion, being dominant or being a master has nothing to do with your genetics, or your natural ability to "rule" over someone else. It has to do simply with your choice of relationship style.

If you prefer a TPE relationship with all the formalities and trappings, and like to completely micromanage each task given to your partner, then I'd say you're probably more of a master than a dominant.

If you prefer to just lay down rules and enforce them by discipline, then you're probably more of a dominant.

Of course, I've said all that in my original post.

[ProjectEuropa]

What's the difference between a dominant and a master? What do the words actually mean?

I've always found all the titles in BDSM a little ambiguous since the fundemental rule is that the relationships are consensual.

How can a slave really be a slave if s/he can freely walk away from a relationship without even giving a reason? A 'slave' is owned property which is certainly not the case in BDSM. A 'slave' is owned property without the free will to negotiate the relationship. I can accept a submissive can freely submit him/herself to the dominant in a relationship and the dominant has to earn the respect and keep the respect of the submissive in order to keep him/her.

I always thought and obviuosly wrongly, a Master was someone who had mastered the art of BDSM i.e. the art of bondage or other such skill, like in renaisance times a Master painter was fully conversant in his art and able to mentor those that wanted to learn the art. I've been a spectator at a couple of scenes and was particularly impressed by one person I would gladly call a Master who conducted the proceedings with such fluidity and ease that he was obviously a Master of his craft.

OK I accept we conduct our relationships in the realms of fantasy and desire and it is in that context we label ourselves and I suppose ones title defines our position on the spectrum of kink.