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