On Being Dominant
By Jack Rinella
On preparing to speak in Springfield, MO this weekend I posted a
request for questions to their newsgroup and a reader submitted a question
about "What advice would you give someone who is becoming a Dom."
Well there's a mouthful and not an easily answered question, but
I'll try.
Before I do, though, I'd like to make note of my writing style.
You
will see that I compound this essay by my unwillingness to call
someone a dominant or a submissive. These words are adjectives, not nouns, and
I refuse to use them wrongly. Having a dominant personality does not make someone
dominant. Being on the dominant side of a relationship doesn't necessarily give
someone the right to insist on the title of "Dom" or "Domme."
If you look at my family tree there are one or two "Don
Battaglia"
ancestors. Don and Donna are titles bestowed by Kings and Lords
and our corruption of them into Dom makes no sense to me. But that is my
minority opinion. Another minority opinion that I have, based on four years of struggle
at the hands of teachers of French, is that Domme has no accent mark on the
"e" and so the "e" is silent. Thank you very much. I sure can
be picky, can't I? I guess it's because of my dominant butnon-aggressive
personality.
For starters I began thinking about myself and what kind of
qualities I thought I had which made me a dominant player: Extroverted but not aggressive,
Controlling but not overbearing, Decisive but not impetuous, Consistent,
Confident but not cocky about it, Honest and open, Persuasive, Selfish but
caring, Responsible, Having a strong sense ofself, Able to articulate that
sense of self, and Respectful of others.
What is most notable about this list is that many of the characteristics
can be said to apply to a submissive personality as
well as to a dominant one. As usual, a discussion about kinky
folks is fundamentally a discussion about human beings. Too often we disregard
this very real fact and think that as soon as we put on fetish clothing we
cease to be
human. Simply put, the manners that your kindergarten teacher
tried to teach you apply even when you are playing in the dungeon.
So I'm extroverted but not aggressive. I would be loathe to say
that introverts can't be dominant, but there is an element of being pro-active and
out-going that seems to be necessary, since domination in this context is as
much leadership as anything else. I necessitates some amount of directive-ness.
I qualify this trait with "but not aggressive." I do so because
aggressiveness can portray the idea of violence, trespass, and disregard of the
wishes and consent of others and hence is notappropriate as a characteristic of
a healthy dominant personality.
You see, what I am alluding to here is that the appearance of
being dominant is not the same as being dominant, at least not when applied to the
context of what it is that we do. That's why one of the characteristics that I
listed was "Respectful of others." We all share the same human
condition and therefore we are deserving of the same respect that we ourselves
desire.
Now the experienced dominant participant knows that respect comes
in many shades and hues. Additionally the interactions between two consenting
adults is highly dependent upon the type of relationship that the two have negotiated.
What this means in practice is that the way a M/s couple relate to one another
is entirely different than how they might be expected to relate to everyone
else. As Patrick says "I'm Jack Rinella's slave, not anyone else's."
That's why I eschew the title Dom and
don't insist on being called Master Jack or Master Rinella. At
present I am only master to Patrick and so I am only dominant in
my relationship to him, not to anyone else.
Of course I get lots of deference, probably because of my gray hair
and the remarkable size of my dick, but I neither expect it nor require it. I
hope, though, that I am appreciative of it when I receive it. One of the
characteristics that ought to be noted in the best masters is that they
understand the need for humility. Being masterful is differentthan being
prideful.
I once wrote a column (it's on my website) called "Confidence
Makes a Master." It's also included in my book, "The Compleat
Slave." No one wants to own a slave who lacks confidence either, but since
direction, control, and decision-making are all part and parcel of mastery,
then it stands to reason that the master must be confident enough in him or herself
and in his or her relationship to the slave that he or she (doesn'tt his PC
gender stuff make for difficult sentences?) can direct, control, and decide.
That leads to another thought. The primary control that the
dominant partner must exercise is over him or herself. If you can't
control your own actions and desires you will never be able to control those of
another. Control of another creates the necessity of being responsible. The gift
that a submissive partner bestows is primarily that of surrender to the will of
the other. The only thing that makes such a gift reasonable, responsible (on
the part of the submissive partner) and tenable is that the gift comes with the
requirement that the dominant partner accepts responsibility for the safety,
care, and well-being of his or her property.
I guess this is as good a place as any to make note of the wide
variations in the expression of a dominant personality. There is,
though we sometimes fail to recognize it, a difference between a
master/slave (M/s) relationship and one that is dominant/submissive (D/s).
Though they are near one another on the continuum of relationships, they are
probably most easily differentiated by the intensity of control that is given.
They vary, then, by degrees defined by how much time is spent
together, by what one partner surrenders or retains, and by the necessities of career,
family, and health. Examples include the fact that a long distance relationship
mitigates the possibility of more intense control being exerted, as does the
fact of a submissive partner being at work, having children in the home, or
being of ill-health.
Additionally partners may agree to leave some aspects of a
relationship out of the boundaries of control. For instance, finances may not
be surrendered to the dominant partner. In fact it could be that the submissive
partner not only retains control over his or her own finances but might be in
charge of the master's banking accounts as well, though this would be more of a
service than exercising true control. I, for one, would love to have a slave
pay my bills for me.
Lastly, what this boils down to is that the successfully dominant
partner accepts his or her domination of other as healthy,
empowering to all in the relationship, consensual, and morally good. It boils
down to self-acceptance of one's personality and therefore the ability to live
it authentically.
I think of this almost every night. Dinner is over and my mother
taught me to help clear the table. Instead I get up, say thank you and do whatever
I damn well please, leaving an after-dinner mess for Patrick to clean up. Doing
so is simply part and parcel of my standing with him. I am master of the home
and therefore act as such. Leaving him to do the dishes is one of the ways I
exercise control. He agrees with and enjoys that I do so. It is as simple as
that and for me to do otherwise, in my home, would erode and eventually destroy
our relationship.
When I'm in your home, I'll act differently, unless of course you
want to be my slave too.
Have a great week. You can leave me email at mrjackr@leathermail.com
or visit my website at
http://leatherviews.c.topica.com/maakBRKabFSUubn9Zx6b/
where you
can subscribe to this column and receive it weekly.
Copyright 2008 by Jack Rinella, all rights reserved.