Vincit Qui Se Vincit: On Dominance

I wrote this post four years ago when I was 23 and actively, completely immersed in learning everything I could about the BDSM subculture— not just aesthetics and the fun surface level, but history, methodology and function. It was my entire life, and I was certainly writing from that perspective— which has evolved greatly since then. Looking back, there’s a few things I would tweak— and many things I wouldn’t, that I think stand strongly as they are. As I’ve been cooking a rough draft on magic & madness, this old essay that never really saw the light of day (I shared it on a now-defunct Patreon; I wish academia wasn’t such a clusterfuck or maybe I’d publish) has been crossing my mind. I present it as I wrote it at the time… and at that time, presenting education in that realm mattered to me, whereas now it truly does not. I am not interested in teaching the public how to be kinky, nor in “normalizing” that which is inherently not normal. I am interested in viewing and discussing kink as one methodology among many as an in-road to divinity; viewing the core current of the kind of paganism I do as human vitality, the life force current— of experience as the key to all meaningful insight, a crucial repeated theme in Celtic mythology & mysticism. The potency of our cauldrons (portals in the body), especially the Cauldron of Motion/the heart/of vocation… is increased for its “turning,” which is said to be turned through holy pilgrimages, great sorrow, or great- divine- joy; divine joy explicitly includes sexual ecstasy. Read The Cauldron of Poesy for yourself.

Mine is not a virginal religion; instead of martyrdom I revere sovereignty, instead of forgiveness I strive for hospitality, and when I say “sacred” I do not mean abstinence and withholding: I mean an in-road to the divine. So, have an old essay that’s been newly revisiting my mind, and stay tuned for future writings.

Vincit qui se vincit, I called this piece— he conquers, who conquers himself.

—————————- 
Dominance and strength are often equated, seen as synonymous. This piece is to clearly distinguish, define and discuss the separation of social dominance, i.e. being a “dominant person”-- from sexual dominance, or to be a Dominant within the context of BDSM. To do this, I will first define some primary terms to the best of my understanding and proceed from there. The dictionary definition of dominant is “Most important, powerful, influential”-- we’ll be looking beyond that.

This piece is about dominance, but it is necessary to define the surrounding and related terms to adequately discuss it.

Definitions/Core terms

Top: The active giver, deliverer of sensation-- to facilitate an experience for a receptive partner.

Bottom: To receive sensation; to experience sensation as the receptive party. No relinquishment of power nor obedience implied. There is no emotional or energetic surrender to the other person individually; at most, one may experience surrender to the experience or the process of what’s occurring. There are a wide variety of reasons why someone may choose to bottom and not submit. Curiosity-- pain management-- comfort-- religion-- psychodrama. I will discuss some of this separately.

Note: power bottom is a gay term for an individual who aggressively, energetically enjoys bottoming-- particularly with a level of sass and ferocity.

Dominant: To wield earned, cultivated power-- to have a healthy relationship with power, both holding and wielding it. This power is steeped in authority instead of force, and it is innately relational. Power given -- power held. To lead.

Submissive: To yield power, to surrender control in one or more realms, to follow. This does not mean releasing any and all body/mind autonomy: surrender is possible only with boundaries of safety, based on trust. Submission in an erotic or sexual context does not implicitly indicate a follower or leader nature: there are many reasons for and styles of submission. 

Switch: A switch’s experience with power exchange is not limited to wielding or yielding it; a switch holds the capacity and interest for both dominance and submission. Individual switches may identify more with one expression than the other, but a percentage; 50-50, 80-20, is not implied by definition— simply preferred by some individuals.

Related terms

Omega: This term strikes me as related, but is not necessarily part of BDSM vocabulary. I heard the term omega as it exists within what may neutrally be called male culture, though to me it simply speaks to a more animalistic truth, not male or female by nature. It is based on the pack life of wolves, which I am more symbolically familiar with than literally. An omega can be a leader or follower, contextually-- not bound to or necessarily existing in structures of hierarchy, not inherently weak, but not attached to visible displays of strength regardless of circumstance. An omega assesses situations, and chooses when to exert power, when to relinquish it. BDSM people may find that to be a natural description for we’d call a switch. From where I’m sitting, the alpha/beta/omega structure is specifically delineating identity in terms of power, exerted and held. To be alpha is to have and exert power; to be beta is for a naturally subordinate/follower type person to release the power they do have-- to be omega is to have power that is exerted variably, at individual discretion. That is not literally equivalent to switch, but it covers overlapping territory.

Note: With wolves, the omega’s variable nature can induce just the right amount of chaos for play and bonding to occur-- capable of taking the brunt of other wolves’ displays of strength without caving into a permanently subordinate position. They aren’t weak; sometimes they just want to be chased. Perhaps feeling like prey is an adrenaline rush, sharpening their skills and mind.

Service top: One who takes on the role of top in order to facilitate a fantasy/experience; one who tops in service to another or their desires. They may not be actually dominant or sadistic.

Alpha submissive: Alpha submissives strongly iterate that they are not inherently submissive people, but very dominant people- or alpha personalities- who choose to gift their submission; they emphasize the need for their submission to be earned.

So those markers are separate from submission itself, how exactly? Good question.  All submission is a choice. Submission without choice is plainly abuse. So to me, this phrase is both inaccurate and suggests implications of submission in general that I find to be damaging, as well as just plain catty and hurtful. All submission is a gift worthy of being earned, cherished and protected-- not simply the ones that are displayed with aggression or heightened intensity. 

This identification seems to be a sign of fear, insecurity over being perceived as weak due to their sexuality. But again: submission is always a choice, for all varieties of submissive.

Of course there are different types of submissive, some more obsequious or aggressive than others, as there are different types of individual-- and it follows that the style of dominance that will complement them will be suited to their own nature and disposition. 

I’ve often found that what people who identify as alpha submissives are trying to convey is a more aggressive, intense and often animalistic nature-- which reflects in how they require their submission to be earned, and in how it is given. The actual meaning feels a bit redundant of primal, omega or often a variety of switch. This is anecdotal and not uniformly definitive, but every self-identified alpha submissive I’ve ever met, was a bisexual switch who had a primary relationship with a dominant male and maintained additional relationships with submissive females.

One could say that alpha sub is reminiscent of power bottom- though power bottom doesn’t have quite the same level of implication and judgement that “alpha sub” carries. 

Not all courting rituals are created equal, be that for a conventional romantic relationship or a dominant and submissive dynamic/relationship (not all D/s dynamics are romantic). For someone who identifies strongly with what they deem to be their “alpha” nature, perhaps trials that include more physical aggression or outward displays of dominance may win them over-- whereas for other kinds of submissives, a softer touch is more reassuring. Regardless, these again are simply differences in style, preference, intent, function-- but to imply the need for earning is where that distinction lies, is missing the mark and unkindly perpetuating falsehood. Sexual submission does not implicitly indicate a follower or leader nature, and no one way of expressing that dance is superior or inferior in nature.

What “alpha submissive” does is put a finger on the pulsing undercurrent of insecurity and fear in the conversation surrounding power exchange, which is what I intend to discuss here. Within BDSM, there is constant anxiety over so-called “pure dominance.” A group of chest-thumping players announcing non ducor, duco- “I am not led, I lead.” What are you leading? What does that even mean?

What It Aint (Yes, a Josh Turner reference):

If you would, look back at my definition of dominant. Now look back here. What does it mean to have a healthy relationship with power? I’m going to start with what dominance isn’t.

Brute force- be that emotional or physical- is not dominance. Being healthy and physically capable is, of course, important inasmuch as it speaks to personal discipline. But sheer physicality is not where dominance lies: as we mentioned prior, top only pertains to the facilitation of primarily physical experience. That may be done in service to the bottom-- to their fantasy, or some aim they’re trying to achieve. Is your piercer or tattoo artist dominating you, or helping you bring your goal and vision to life? That is the role of a service top. 

In addition, individuals new to their own exploration can often confuse being domineering or controlling for dominance. This is not the way.

Adaptability

Strength is not defined by sexual expression/identification. Especially if it’s inconsistent with your actual truth and your relationship dynamic. I am not a service top/dom, but for dominance to be meaningful and embody true strength, it must not be only about the self or personal pleasure/preferences.

In fact, this willingness to step away from prestige, recognition and constantly asserting dominance is recommended by Sun Tzu in The Art of War: “If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.” 

So, clearly, dominance is more than simply holding a whip, giving an order, giving yourself a title. The magic ingredient to real dominance is strength, authority, and a continuously reflective, self aware, healthy relationship with power. But true strength, true power, goes beyond. To be dominant is to use one’s full faculties to guide and lead with the experiences you have undergone, into (for the submissive) the unknown. Strength, though, can be wielded on any side… so it is not necessary to be sexually dominant to maintain strength. 

Interdependence & the Whole

Something else I wish to say, and that I’ve not seen much mention of, is that dominance is not actually superior. It is not superior to the other personality types, and it should not necessarily be strived for, particularly when that is not how a person is built. An actually balanced, successful community, and by extension society, is built up of more than type-a personalities. In fact, this is somewhat discussed in terms of collectivist versus individualistic societies: in collectivist societies, the needs of the community, or of the family unit or tribe in a larger sense are valued and prioritized. With individualistic modern societies like in the United States, it’s me-first. Obviously it is important to care for yourself, but look around you. Do you truly believe stepping away from an interdependent tribal modality has been a net positive-- or is that another isolating blow of the modern world? This is not an academic research piece, so I am not claiming objectivity. I am a heathen, and I was in a BDSM family. I strongly believe in living tribally. In my view-- deeper than my view as a (now-former) professional domme, though that is a factor-- dominance is not superior. Dominant people are necessary, as well as submissives, switches, and every other manifestation of the human soul. Leaders are necessary, and by definition it follows that followers are necessary as part of one cooperative whole.

I believe we glorify being a “consistently dominant” person, being an alpha across the board: when what I find to be key is not so much the outward expression, as much as the capability and capacity to be effective. “Water shapes its course according to the nature of the ground over which it flows;” Tao Te Ching.

No sexual dominant is 100% dogmatically in control, at all times. I believe all humans experience the need and desire for relief and catharsis in some way-- some just choose to engage that in the sexual or kink realm, while others do not. Perhaps it feels safer or more productive for some people to engage that need in an unrelated spiritual practice, or psychoanalysis. These choices are not superior or inferior, simply different. The choice to address that urge outside of sexuality does not make someone inherently stronger, more dominant, or more powerful than someone who does.

However, I do believe one is inherently limited if one does not choose to experience what they inflict on others, on themselves first-- and if they do not undergo the receptive trial element of BDSM themselves first, to experience all they will inflict on others on themselves first, then I find the depth of their connection to be clearly limited. Some are comfortable with hitting that wall; I am not. 

Skin in the Game

The acknowledgement of receiving experience in yourself is what gives you the understanding of what it is you wield. Without empathy, power is egotistical abuse. The responsibility of a dominant goes beyond being in service to their partner: it is to be a conduit of balance, energy beyond themselves or their partner, or the both of them together. 

My former mentor included this quote, from Pat Califia, on her Fetlife page: 

“It is always wrong to wield power if you are not prepared to accept the consequences for your actions and do the work it takes to use your strength and authority with precision and fairness. A good leader is many peoples’ servant. If being trained to become a perfect servant sounds too humiliation, you are not strong enough to withstand the temptations of wielding power.”

If being submissive is humiliating to you, what respect do you actually have for those who are submitting to you? Can you respect them? Do you envy them, perhaps? To rest, to receive, to grow: these are human experiences, not dominant or submissive experiences.

Expectation, stereotypical masculinity and “should” 

Ironically, there is a lifestyle presumed to accompany the label “dominant.” That is not always assumed with sexual submission, though there is stigma. Despite that stigma, sexual submission can be characterized as the release of an otherwise dominant person-- even vanilla people know the stereotype of the CEO by day, submissive by night. Dominance, though, is not afforded much nuance: it is seen as the continuation of a perpetually in-charge individual, or even the expression of a broken, abusive person-- for example, the character of Christian Grey. There is a powerful sense of expectation surrounding dominance-- how it “should” appear, what a dominant person “should” do. To never break character, perhaps to show as little emotion as possible while executing the performance of societal expectations.

The stereotype is this: being dominant is thought of as being masculine. Being masculine is thought of as being dominant. 

Whether or not this is spoken, it is thought-- even in the most progressive of circles. Let us cut the shit and accept that, so I can move to saying: the concept of dominance itself, of strength itself as inherently, exclusively male is simply not true. Intuitively, we know this. To relegate strength to masculinity is to define strength as mere physicality: strength itself is not confined to that expression alone. Masculine and feminine strength are different, and I still find it useful to examine their separate expressions: but neither is superior or inferior to the other. This has been discussed ad nauseam by more educated thinkers than myself, and I have little desire to participate in mainstream gender debates nor the overall modern discussion around it, so I will leave it at that. 

But why is it that we truly believe that someone is more capable of holding power, who only ever wields it? It gives this sense of being unconquerable, undefeated: the flaw is that it is coming from a place of defeat. To never enter battle is not to be the victor: it is to refuse contest at all. This is what can breed laziness, arrogance and entitlement. Additionally, this may impress natural follower types who will admire this as consistency, the courage of your convictions-- which only further enables this logic. 

I think we intuitively know better than to fully buy into this: but I’m going to further follow that train of thought for a moment longer. To more directly return to masculinity: when the masculine expectation is to take what you want, to be assertive, to seize and possess-- submission seems antithetical. Release? Surrender? That’s for the other side. This is another contradiction: when release is what is desired or needed, is the dominant course of action not to pursue that? Ultimately: If one desires X, the dominant thing to do is to pursue X while examining the meaning of it in one’s life. A dominant person can be sexually submissive, sexually dominant, a switch, a primal-- any side of the spectrum. To know intention and function are robustly meaningful.

Another illustration of the error in that logic is the existence of people who identify as sexually submissive but are obviously not obedient followers of people: the “submissive” who knows exactly who they are, demands exactly what they want, and continues to take care of business. In my mind, the core stereotype fueling much of the fear, anxiety and insecurity here simply does not hold up. 

Sometimes, though not always, people with this inclination have suffered severe trauma and/or abuse in their past, and the concept of willingly surrendering to harm is beyond them; not only would it not be erotic, but potentially triggering. This almost feels like the conversation around forgiveness, or moving on after abuse as well: the pressure of it can be worse than the actual choice. Most people have some concept of “facing your fears,” but when you are not ready to do it, haven’t developed a different frame for it, and don’t have a sense of mental and emotional safety around it-- you are unlikely to fully learn from the experience, and may end up re-traumatizing yourself instead. It is reasonable to hold back when it is not safe to act, especially if there is no one trustworthy to hold space for you. Granted, it’s hard to ever feel ready, and that can’t be a reason to stay in your past forever-- but what I mean by that is being thoroughly in your trauma as opposed to knowing you are separate from it, and the ability to have a modicum of clarity and vision around that. This must be done in order to move forward. 

The goal of this is not to advocate for anyone to change their sexuality, their orientation. It is to account for the fullness of the spectrum, begin to touch on the depth of what is being invoked with BDSM and the nature of power and its exchange. 

As a person with deep involvement in BDSM, I constantly see men shying away from anywhere but the “top”--anywhere but holding and wielding power. I think this is partially due to the somewhat public nature of being involved in a community; few people are naturally comfortable with presenting their full selves up to be judged, which is entirely fair. But it’s also due to, well, the male fear of being judged by their female partners: will she think I am less of a man? Will she think less of me? It is more comfortable to wear this mask that doesn’t fit, than to risk female rejection. I don’t think the majority of men feel safe exploring submission or simply bottoming, when it may be nurturing, relieving or just fun. 

But really, men suffer quite intensely from sexual stereotyping beyond that: look at the stereotype that “men are dogs,” men literally always want sex, etc. Men are individuals, and in my experience very, very few of them “always” want sex. Men want intimacy, validation, and support like anyone else, and sadly many of them don’t know how to seek it outside of sex-- considering this society isn’t largely conducive to positive male bonding, to male initiation. Male sexuality is a complex and nuanced realm, and all of us suffer for relegating it to a simple machine-like desire to just fuck. I can’t tell you how many times men have admitted to me an interest in bisexuality that they’ve never explored, and scarcely even thought about. I cannot tell you how many times men have made it clear that they’re in charge of so very much in their lives, but they need to let go for once. If I were to make a proposal for a wider change, it would be for us collectively to step out of a sense of fear around male sexuality, and truly listen. Listen hard, empathetically, without judgement, without trying to fit anyone into a preexisting box. Just listen.

Back to topic; the framing of male submissive as a loser, as less of a man has been destructive overall. On an immediate level it results in otherwise curious men veering away from submissive/bottom play. In a more nuanced sense, this has a significant negative mental impact on men who already identify as submissive, and may or may not have sufficient mental resilience to ignore this harmful narrative. When submission is framed as being lesser, having no power to begin with, the context of the scene alone: what you consistently jerk off to, consistently lust after and strive towards can become a form of self-conditioning. Even without the help of anyone else, you are physically training your own brain with the mantra of inadequacy. “I really am a loser. I really am less of a man.”

What this does to many self aware/self identified sexually submissive-inclined men is really to make them hate themselves, or at the least massively decrease their self-esteem and self-worth. In turn, that makes them bitter, resentful and more likely to treat the women in their lives poorly: trying to covertly manipulate them into becoming more like their dominatrix fantasy-- to become sick of their shit and respond in anger, yelling or “putting them in their place”, to cheat on them and satisfy some cuckold fantasy they’re too ashamed to admit-- and/or putting them on some unfairly inhuman Madonna-Whore pedestal. It can create an air of jealousy and even hatred towards other men: he gets what I can’t. I wish I was like him.

Now, this is not to preach against consensual humiliation or degradation within the safety of ritual space, within the context of responsible BDSM. While fetishizing can result in an insidious form of self-conditioning that enables and encourages low self-worth, the difference between play resulting in enabling and play resulting in catharsis depends on the authenticity of all involved: does the submissive know themselves and have genuine intentions they’re bringing to the table, and does the dominant have a healthy relationship with power? 

This can make or break not only a scene, but in a way, the people involved. 

The examination & reflection part of cultivating power, and simply of knowing yourself, may be in asking yourself questions that look like this. What purpose is BDSM serving in your life, or what purpose do you wish it to serve? Relief? Catharsis? Building self-esteem, or self-worth? Is it simply how you express intimacy, love, connection? Some combination of all of these? BDSM, like magick, is both an amplifier and a haven. It is where people go to seek peace, processing, growth and initiation.

Plainly said: To be constantly “dominant” in terms of never relinquishing command, is actually to be weak. It’s rigidity; inability to change and adapt with environment and circumstances. We know those people: unable to turn it off. Flexing, virtue signalling at every turn. Is this really dominance? Is this strength?
We know it’s not.

What I am preaching against, if anything, is specifically the wholesale framing of male submission as inadequacy, as undesirable beta bullshit. 

Knights were submissive-- often fighting in honor of, for the favor of a Lady in particular (who he may not ever even have a consummate sexual relationship with). The Roman Praetorian guard was submissive. Men in the military are submissive. There are many different types of submission, but I enjoy this one as a superior frame for male submission than the beta loser narrative. It is actually in line, not at odds, with traditional masculinity. In this narrative, the individual man is capable and powerful in his own right, and the gift of his service is a valuable offering, held by one who inspires focus, nurturing, strength and guidance-- and often serving a higher good. Submission here is not to wholly debase himself, but to honor his own abilities and allow himself to derive pride, pleasure, and self-improvement/self-realization with the inspiration of his domme, sitting in the authentic power-not force of the Divine Feminine. 

Of course, that is a frame for actual submission. As far as bottoming goes: sensation is sensation. Activity is activity. And as I said earlier: if you desire X, the dominant thing to do is to pursue X.

An alpha type person will be happy with being in charge through most situations in their life, but all people can be capable of achieving success in their lives without the outward expression of alpha-ness if it doesn’t fit; if one’s primary predisposition is to be a follower, then becoming driven by a worthy higher power will be effective towards your fulfillment. You will be successful if you know what it is you value, what your principles are, and working under something in alignment with that. Know yourself, and use what it is you actually are to your advantage-- strength is always an option.

Dramatic as it may be in comparison, I love stanza 71 of Havamal, the counsel of One-Eyed Odin:

“A limping man can ride a horse,

A handless man can herd,

A deaf man can fight and win.

It’s better even to be blind

Than fuel for the funeral pyre;

What can a dead man do?”

In addition, stanza 13 of Skirnismal, or The Journey of Skirnir on Behalf of Frey, states: “There’s always a better choice than cowardice.”

Strength is always an option.

There is the wholeness of who you are, how you express, what drives you... and there’s experiencing the human cycles of action, rest, growth and release. These have nothing to do with being submissive or dominant, active or passive, but with being alive. To cut out the section of rest, growth, or release from that cycle is to take away from one’s own balance. 

Ultimately, my understanding of strength, the fuel of dominance and a choice for all humans, can be surmised with this: 

“To be strong does not mean to sprout muscles and flex. It means meeting one's own numinosity without fleeing, actively living with the wild nature in one's own way. It means to be able to learn, to be able to stand what we know. It means to stand and live.” Women Who Run With the Wolves, Dr. Clarissa Pinkola-Estes