A question

[thir]

A random thought that comes to me from time to time: why is there so incredibly much more talk about subs than there is about dominants? By subs as well, I think?

I have noticed this on many lists.

[Snark]

Why is there more talk about gold than iron?

[leo9]

Why is there more talk about gold than iron?

Ah, irony?

[Zarine13]

I spoke to someone recently about their views on submission. They stated that a sub is a sub for a reason, to learn something and to evolve into a better being. I think that is a lot of it in a nutshell. Subs need 'training' and to 'reflect' and 'guidance' and so many other things according to a lot of people. Dominants on the other hand, are not viewed as needing all of this. A lot of people seem to think Doms come in this perfect package that needs no work or instruction.

Hence the many many more discussions about subs.

[denuseri]

And yet to be a good dominant one needs just as much trainning.

[Zarine13]

Just to clarify: By no means am I saying that dominants do not need just as much (more really) training and guidance and instruction.

[DeityorDevil]

Ah, irony?

*groan* Haha.

I think the Dom journey and refining process is much more internal than external, in my own case. For me, it's more a process of settling into myself, and less concerned with outside input from others. Not that it is unvalued, but always ends up re-filtered to hold meaning for me. Although I have a natural tendency to push others' envelopes (as it were) there is absolutely- as denuseri and Zarine mentioned- a process of learning what is enough, or too much, and where the balance lies. But that is also extremely specific to each individual sub. Left to my own devices, I push things as far as I possibly can, before coming against a "hard" limit. Probably also why more discussion centers around subs.

Although I'm pleased and flattered if the end result of my process is the appearance that I simply arrived in a perfect package. That's exactly what I was going for.

[denuseri]

And to answer thir's original question:

Fragile Egos and Fear are imho the two main reasons one sees more discussions by and about submissives as both subject and initiator of subjects. That and actual dominants are far more rare to begin with.

See, it is one thing to type dominant into one's profile, anyone can do that... but it's an entirely different thing all together to possess the balls to really be one in real life.

[Snark]

I guess "balls" is correct enough...There is a difference between being "dominant" and being an "asshole". Some people can't tell the difference. In some there is no difference. I'm NOT a submissive, I get a bit testy (read pissed off) when someone tries to be "dominant" or just ballsy to me. I don't try to dominate my SO, though at times I think that is what is desired. When I ask a question, I get a question in reply. I can't tell if that is passivity or passive/aggression. I suspect the former. To be a true "dominant" and to be dominant over another means to take responsibility from or for another person. That, to me, is the greater issue. Doms/Dommes definitely need the greater "training" or direction. The submissive is giving over their responsibility. If the individual they are submitting to either doesn't know how or abuses that responsibility, then both lose. In my initial response I was comparing the "gold" that a submissive represents, i.e. someone who relinquishes their personal responsibility - that rare value of an individual, to someone who has the strength of "iron" (NO, NOT IRon, Wiz.) In reality, thir's initial question is quite valid. Why isn't there more discussion about what a Dom/Domme should need or be? The Dom/Domme certainly has a greater opportunity to do harm to the sub. While I would like to have the "power" that being the dominant in a relationship represents, I'm old enough and experienced enough to realize that I don't necessarily want the dual responsibility it requires.

[DeityorDevil]

I definitely agree, Snark. There is tremendous responsibility involved, essentially holding the needs and trust of another person- in some cases a fragile person, as denuseri hinted at- in ones hands.

[13'sbadkitty]

is it possible that subs aren't afraid to look like they don't know and that there is a certain amount of ego that comes with dominant territory regardless of it being deservedly there? That people who are given so much power to hold someones life in their hands don't want to seem afraid or unsure of that responsibility? My Master always tells me that I am the one with the power as I get to be the one who says "stop" and he has to listen to that. I am not always so sure of that as when I am blindfolded strung up and gagged, just holding a bandana for protection my life is turned over to him to do with as he wishes right???
I agree that growth needs to occur on both sub and dom/domme but I wonder if just acknowledging being anything less than perfect makes it seem less like we should as subs give them that?

[brwneydgirl]

I agree, thir. Subs talk about their submission; feelings surrounding it, ways to show it, how to grow in it. Doms sometimes chime in on these topics but I agree that there are far more subs doing the talking than doms.

Could it be that there are just more subs than doms, generally? And to further this question, female doms...where are they??

[Keltar]

From what I have noticed there appears to be a rather large female base on this board overall and women do tend to be far better with talking about matters be it their expressions, emotions or sharing their feelings or any questions they might have. Maybe it's a stereotype but women do tend to be able to communicate more openly with one another even if the subject matter might make them a little red in the face. Being here online they are able to ask what they want without some people in life labeling them unfairly or judging them too harshly, now you can say men can do the same and your right that men can do the same as well. However men for the most part are not always so communicative even online, they can be, some more then others and if one does look around at the threads it's easy to see that many have added their opinions and thoughts where they had something to say but for the most part I believe men doms especially tend to rather read up on things then ask and when they have a thought on a subject they'll state it.

The journey by doms and subs can echo one another but they are different paths, those who are submissive do tend to have more things to work through if not questions based on the actions they are possibly willing to do. Doms on the other hand often seem to know better what they want or what they desire even if they do have a few things to work out.

Of course mileage may vary from person to person as the case may dictate.

[DeityorDevil]

For my own communications, I tend to mull things over before responding in any way, and answer most of my own questions myself, rather than look outward for answers. Mileage varies, but a few really good points have been brought up. The sheer numbers of subs v. Dom/mes, and similarly the numbers of especially female subs v. any Dom/mes, as well as the generally laconic nature of male/masculine communications, all probably have something to do with the balance of topics taking place.

[Ozme52]

Why is there more talk about gold than iron?

KROM!! (Not amongst warriors.)

[Ozme52]

I spoke to someone recently about their views on submission. They stated that a sub is a sub for a reason, to learn something and to evolve into a better being. I think that is a lot of it in a nutshell. Subs need 'training' and to 'reflect' and 'guidance' and so many other things according to a lot of people. Dominants on the other hand, are not viewed as needing all of this. A lot of people seem to think Doms come in this perfect package that needs no work or instruction.

Hence the many many more discussions about subs.

Sort of biased, from the dominant perspective, and somewhat formulaic. I'd almost say, from the perspective of an online dominant with little or no life experience, vanilla or lifestyle.

Everyone learns, everyone trains, everyone grows. One of the nice things about D/s is we get to go on a journey with complementary goals together.

To answer thir's question, I think that there is an expectation that a dominant who shows weakness is somehow inadequate. So they, meaning we, tend not to share their doubts. They rarely talk about themselves. And they rarely call on other dominants for help for "competitive" reasons, as if they might lose their submissive(s) to predatory dominants.

And perhaps it's partly because we are an architype (sp) and we tend to solve our own problems and rarely question ourselves. I know I feel like I'm an open book, yet have never come online with an issue or concern.

I just mostly complain about not enough people coming out to meet me on my travels. LOL

[Ozme52]

That and actual dominants are far more rare to begin with.

See, it is one thing to type dominant into one's profile, anyone can do that... but it's an entirely different thing all together to possess the balls to really be one in real life.

In part, my point clearly stated. thx denu.

[CaptainZeus]

Personally I think (as Ozme does) that it's because dominants naturally tend to be more confident, and are less likely to admit that they too need guidance and training (perhaps more than subs, in reality).
Subs potentially chat more to blow off steam, perhaps. Not to say they get stressed as if they have a job, but because it can generate some intense personal feelings that otherwise can only be shared with their dom. And who doesn't like the occasional chat with like-minded people?

[leo9]

I think denu has hit it right on the nail. Doms are not supposed to need training, it's supposed to be just part of our wonderful domly nature to know instinctively what to do and what our subs need. Which is, of course, BS. My ex-slave taught me at least as much as I taught her; she had a hundred subtle ways to let me know what she needed without doing anything unsubmissive like asking or telling me.

I'm reminded of the saying that Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire was famous for, but backwards in high heels. Subs may have to do as much teaching as Doms, but without being able to just come out and say it. On the plus side, they're allowed to talk about it.

[thir]

Personally I think (as Ozme does) that it's because dominants naturally tend to be more confident, and are less likely to admit that they too need guidance and training (perhaps more than subs, in reality).

See, to me this is self-contradictory. I do not think that doms are nessecarily more confident, because if they were, they would dare to ask if they needed info. It is the responsible thing to do when to are you the one with the responsiblity - and we all need info.

And a lot of subs are confident. Contrary to what is said here often, I do not think subs are a class of fragile little flowers ;-)

And there are posts here and there that points towards this being a problem for a number of doms.

who doesn't like the occasional chat with like-minded people?

ehm - doms? ;-)

[thir]

To answer thir's question, I think that there is an expectation that a dominant who shows weakness is somehow inadequate. So they, meaning we, tend not to share their doubts.

I believe you touch on something very important here. (A lot of) subs want their dom to be=perfect, or in other words, an icon, a statue, a stone top, not being able to be yourself, but adapting to the needs or demands of others.
See, that to me is the worst kind of topping from the bottom that there is, and the least talked about.

Comments, guys?

They rarely talk about themselves. And they rarely call on other dominants for help for "competitive" reasons, as if they might lose their submissive(s) to predatory dominants.

I do so hope that this is not true. But if it is, I can tell you that Dommes have more honour!

[DeityorDevil]

Good question. I know I'm not made of stone, by a long shot. Nor do I have any desire to be. The emotion and feeling involved, for me, is as vital (or more so) to me as thd physical. I've come across situations with subs like that in the past, and very quickly ended things, because I don't enjoy being treated like a stereotype or a trick. (For the purpose of clarification, I use "trick" to mean any sexual partner whose individuality isn't particularly important to the other.)

To the "fragile sub" point, my partner has suggested I need a Tonka truck sub. Versatile and virtually indestructible, because a broken toy is no fun for me to play with. So I'd certainly hope not all subs are fragile little flowers...

[thir]

See, it is one thing to type dominant into one's profile, anyone can do that... but it's an entirely different thing all together to possess the balls to really be one in real life.

And the exact same thing can be said about subs ;-)))

Except I do not think it takes balls. I think it takes intelligence and compasssion.

[denuseri]

One must also have a considerable amount of courage to actually submit fully in real life as well; it is not an easy thing to place one's self at the complete and utter mercy of another after all.

[Ozme52]

Personally I think (as Ozme does) that it's because dominants naturally tend to be more confident, and are less likely to admit that they too need guidance and training (perhaps more than subs, in reality).

Actually I said we're expected to be more confident and therefore act to that expectation. A world of difference.