Contact Info --

Email us --



Our Other Blogs --
We are three adults living in a polyamorous triad family. The content here is intended for an adult audience. If you are not an adult, please leave now.

2/09/2012

Dominant?

Our anonymous Louisville commenter responded to the last post with another comment and a question:


Yes, I am the one from Louisville, and I do apologize for my snarky tone. ... But I am trying to understand what it means to be truly dominant ... Is it generally true that in an extended relationship, such as a polyamorous marriage, that the dominant's happiness, health, choices are "all important"? When I read other blogs of people who seem to be in long-term committed relationships, it is generally phrased that the well-being of the family or the group, both dominant and submissives, are all important.  Obviously I have no understanding of who you or your family is ... if you can explain to me what, in your view, it means to be dominant and what role the happiness, health and choices of non-dominants should play in a polyamorous marriage, I would be grateful.


I imagine that the question was directed to Tom, although the phrasing is somewhat convoluted and confusing.  It might be that He will, at some point, choose to respond from His perspective -- or maybe not.  In any event, here is my take on the subject.


I want to begin with the characterization of our relationship as a "polyamorous marriage."  Tom and T are married.  WE are not married.  In absolute terms, there is no such thing as a "polyamorous marriage.  The laws and customs across the United States declare that marriage is "between one man and one woman."  In a very few places, the gender specificity of that has begun to shift, and gay and lesbian people are being granted the right to marry.  The law is, however, absolutely immovable with regard to the numerosity of marriage:  ONE and ONE.  Period.


We are polyamorous.  We love, with full knowledge and consent of all partners, in a non-traditional triad configuration.  The three of us are dedicated and committed to one another.  We love each other.  We do all of the ordinary and everyday things that most couples do together.  The only real difference is that we are three instead of two.  The unspoken potential that we may at some point include more within that circle is a fact.  We are not, however, nor can we hope to be, married under the current laws.


Another reality for us is that our relationships include elements that are rooted in BDSM.  We engage in power exchange dynamics.  What that means is that we intentionally shift the balance of personal power and choice between us in ways that meet our personal needs and inclinations.  Within that context, Tom identifies as Dominant, T identifies as submissive, and I identify as slave.  The struggles of the last year have given us cause to question what that means for all of us, and to evaluate what we might decide to do about that going forward.  Those questions are still, mostly, unanswered.  He has, lately, begun to entertain the idea that we need to form a new "covenant."  

As to the "central" question regarding the nature of dominance, that is (like so much in the lifestyle) very specific to the particular relationships.  Dominance is not a singular, easily definable thing.  The three of us never claim to be gurus, and so what I can speak to is the way it works in our family, and our relationships.  We have, for all of our years together, chosen to structure our lives around Tom.  He has been the root and core and guiding force of our family.  What He wanted, needed, liked -- all of this really did shape our days, and determine our direction.  His vision and His dreaming moved us forward.  That has not ever meant that T and I were unhappy or uncared for.  It did mean that we deferred to Him in just about everything.  That pleased Him, and it pleased the two of us.  

I suspect that the confusion (and sense of negative judgement) that our Louisville commenter expresses stems from the "dominant mystique" that is promulgated on the Interwebs.  Whether one reads material written by submissives or dominants, there is a tendency to draw the top half of the power exchange in glowing terms -- the knight in shining armor; larger than life.  From the submissive point of view, that is really a status thing:  a mostly unacknowledged "my dominant is better than your dominant" thing.  I don't know what drives the dominant types to participate in defining themselves as nearly perfect.  Maybe that is a "sales" pitch; or a form of arrogance; or just acceding to the cultural expectations.  Whatever energizes that, it creates all sorts of hyperbole.  Dominants, within the mythology of the lifestyle, are all wise, strong, confident, self-aware, self-controlled, empathetic, imaginative, inventive, caring, intuitive, understanding, mature, virile, handsome, inscrutable, emotionally stable, smart, on and on and on...  


We are, within the lifestyle community,  sometimes reluctant to state, clearly and unequivocably, that our dominant people are, first and always, people.  They have all the same quirks and oddities of other people.  Dominants put their pants on one leg at a time, just like mortal men.  Too, it is my belief that the dominant personality is inclined to a few characteristics that are less attractive than the usual litany.  Dominant types can be arrogant, selfish, critical, arbitrary, dictatorial, overbearing, bossy, domineering, and even mean sometimes.  They tend to want what they want, and that can build into a sense of entitlement.  Not always, of course, but the risk is real.  "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."  


We Herons are not models to be emulated.  Our lives and our relationship should not be viewed as a model or a prescriptive for anyone else.  We are who we are, and we've made our share of stunningly awful mistakes.  Don't try this at home.  We got trapped in a web woven by addiction.  Typical of the course of alcoholism, things progressed from manageable in the beginning to not manageable at the end.  Each of us played our part.  He drank for years and years, and over time, He drank a lot.  T and I covered for the drinking in a whole variety of ways.  I never, ever confronted His alcohol use in any effective fashion.  I complained some, but He would growl and snarl, and I would back off.  I sat in on dozens and dozens of doctor appointments with Him, and listened mutely while He told them that He would have a "couple" of drinks a day.  I didn't have the courage to stand in the face of His anger and rage.  I did not anticipate the consequences of my cowardice.  My weakness did not serve Him well.  Addiction explains His actions, decisions, and choices. I have no excuses at all.


I don't know if I answered the question asked.  I don't know if I've shed any light on these topics.  Maybe I'm just talking to myself.


Sue 

10 comments:

  1. Ahh Sue.. you are NEVER just talking to yourself here. I mean. maybe you are, ( I talk to myself way too much sometimes) but you are not the only one reading it and taking lessons from it, and from all 3 of you.

    My step dad did much the same thing with my mom. He didn't speak at the doctors about her drinking getting worse and worse, even when she was dying from the alcohol. He wanted to 'protect her privacy'... and so, it turns out that not eating and taking cuminadin dissolves the stomach and intestines. By the time Dad talked to the Doc honestly, mom was on life support. Now.. he wishes.. he had acted earlier. He carries her death heavy on his shoulders, and I tell him, she made her choice. She didn't tell the doc the truth about the alcohol, or the not eating for days. Just that she hadn't been very hungry lately. And she lied when she told Dad the doc said for her to drink some Gatorade for the electrolytes. So.. we make our choices, and live or die by them. But those on the sidelines, can do our best to not bear responsibility for not trying to help save them when they can't save themselves. At least.. we know we tried.

    Warm hugs to all,
    Mystress

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mystress -- I do appreciate the impetus to stop me from taking more than my share of the responsibility here. I don't think I am doing that -- truthfully. I do know, for a certainty however, that I might have been of more service to Him if I'd been more willing to stand in the face of His anger. Although that seemed impossible and unthinkable at the time, it feels like it would have been preferable to what we've all had to endure as the alternative. "Should've" is never of much value unless it teaches us something that we might do better should the situation arise... I just don't want to miss the lesson here.

      Sue

      Delete
  2. Thank you for the thoughtful response. I will withdraw from the conversation

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lou -- You are welcome for the response. Thank you for the question that evoked it. I understand if you feel this conversation is of no further interest to you. If that is true, then by all means, go your way. However, I do not think you should feel you need to withdraw. You've done nothing offensive, and you are welcome here.

      Sue

      Delete
  3. That is very kind of you. I am interested in the discussions your blog evokes I have read the blog through from its beginning, in its various incarnations. You have such a distinctive voice, and you have offered so much of your life to readers--it's hard not to feel as If I know you. (Though you, of course know nothing about me, which makes the conversation unbalanced.). And yes, I understand that you are not legally married. It's just that a lot of it sounds like married life!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Sue.. hindsight is always 20/20 isn't it? I would never have guessed that a suicide call would result in the horridly damaging on-going nightmare that Tom was and has been and is still being subjected to. One would expect them to be handled as a sympathetic medical case, not a criminal one. I have and continue to learn from your family's experience's. I think more then one of us is learning along with you and the family.

    Warmly..
    Mystress

    ReplyDelete
  5. I smiled at the "my dominant is better than your dominant" thing. And nodded along with the next couple of paragraphs. I think you've hit the nail on the head with the good qualities and the bad. And you are never just talking to yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Impish13:58 PM

    Thanks, Sue. This a well written, thoughtful piece. I enjoyed it a great deal and - learned something.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ordalie12:31 AM

    Sue, you're not talking to yourself, period! You don't know how many times in the day I've been thinking about what I had read here in the morning and coming back to read it again. Thank you for all your interesting posts!
    I marvelled at your litany of adjectives: "wise, strong, confident, self-aware, self-controlled, empathetic, imaginative, inventive, caring, intuitive, understanding, mature, virile, handsome, inscrutable, emotionally stable, smart" and also "arrogant, selfish, critical, arbitrary, dictatorial, overbearing, bossy, domineering, and even mean sometimes". I couldn't have found half of them even at gunpoint.

    You say marriage is between one man and one woman. Fair enough! So does the law turn a blind eye to polygamy in fundamentalist Mormons?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ordalie -- The law does not "turn a blind eye" to polygamy, even within the fundamentalist Mormon community. There is no "official" sanction of multiple marriage -- not even from the "official" Mormon church hierarchy. I think that we only see prosecutions when there is some other "aggravating" circumstance for prosecutorial types to hang their hats on, but the law is not on the side of polygamy (more properly called polygyny) or any other sort of multiple marriage.

      Sue

      Delete

Something to add? Enter the conversation with us.