Archive for leadership

Spiritual Discipline: Who Is the Greatest?

Posted in Christianity, D/s, Dominance, Spiritual Discipline, Theology with tags , , , , , , on March 12, 2014 by Xajow

Yes, I know, this post is late. It should have been up about four days ago. Oh well. Anyway, today the topic is leadership. What sort of advice on leadership is found in the Bible? (Hey there, Dominants, you might want to pay attention.) There are a lot of lessons about leadership in the Bible, but I am going to focus on a pair of passages from the gospels. And just so you do not think the Spiritual Discipline column is somehow unrelated to the rest of the blog, I believe these passages have a bearing on how Dominants should handle leadership within D/s relationships. Continue reading

On Being a Dominant (part 3)

Posted in D/s, Dominance, Philosophy, Relationships, submission with tags , , , , , , on June 13, 2012 by Xajow

I know, I know. You’re all wondering what happened to me writing about BDSM stuff here. Well, buckle in, kiddies. Here we go.

There are misconceptions about how a Dominant looks after his submissive. Among them is that some females seem to think they are to be treated like princesses if they submit. But that is not how it works.

Dominants will do a little pampering now and again for their submissives. But D/s is not about the submissive getting a Dominant wrapped around her finger. That is topping from the bottom, and, in my opinion, not a healthy relationship. (Your mileage may vary.) I know many people say the submissive is in control of the D/s relationship, but I do not agree. Yes, if a safe word is being used, then when the submissive uses the safe word the Dominant has to stop. But is that the same as being in control of the relationship? I think it is not.

If you just play D/s games in the bedroom, then maybe the submissive is in control. But that is not, I think, a D/s relationship. That would be a vanilla relationship with some kinky sex on the side. And if that is all you want, there is nothing wrong with that.

In a 24/7 Dominance/submission relationship, however, one of the responsibilities of the Dominant is to train the submissive. A Dominant cannot train a submissive if the submissive is in control. Fair warning: I am going to use an analogy now that will annoy liberal feminist types. Some people do not understand how to train. I know a fellow who works at training dogs to be assistants for people with PTSD, autism, disabilities and the like. He told the story of being at the veterinarian’s office one time and talking to a woman who complained she could not keep her dog from jumping into people’s laps. Sure enough, her dog jumped into her lap, and as soon as it happened, the woman scratched the dog’s head and made with the goo-goo dog talk (like when people say to dogs, “you’re a good boy, yes you are, oh yes you are”) even though she was telling the dog it was bad. Of course she could not train the dog to stop jumping in people’s laps. She was rewarding the dog for its behavior. She was letting the dog determine when the dog got attention. The dog was in control. So the dog could not be trained to do what the owner wanted it to do. The owner had been trained to do what the dog wanted. If the submissive is in control, then the Dominant is not. Which means the Dominant will be dominant in name only. And he will be trained to do what the submissive—who is now the Dominant—wants him to do.

That is why I say in a healthy D/s relationship the submissive is not in control.

But a human submissive is not a dog! Yes, I know. The principle, however, remains. But the Dominant has to respect the submissive’s limits! Yes, of course. Respecting her limits, however, does not mean allowing her to control the relationship.

In comments about previous posts, Scot, a.k.a. the Dom Next Door, suggested my comments about being Dominant and about D/s relationships were describing a marriage. Maybe. But not a vanilla marriage. A lot of what I have said about D/s relationships is actually good advice for relationships in general. But here is were a 24/7 Dominant starts to separate the D/s relationship from the vanilla (or even the vanilla relationship with a little kink on the side). The Dominant is not sharing responsibility for leadership in the relationship with the submissive. The Dominant is the leader, the commander, the one in charge.

For many submissives, the need to submit is an undeniable desire. They do not just want it. They crave it. Some have described it as a fire in the belly of the submissive that is subdued only when dominated.

I cannot speak for all Dominants, but for me being Dominant is not a deep longing or desire. It simply is. When other people leave things undefined and disorganized, I will step in to do something about it. I stay out of politics at my church (every church has politics, but that is a discussion for another day) because I know, I will try to take over. I am not trying to be an arrogant ass. I do not think I know better than everyone else. It is simply my way. Not that I am even a great leader of people. I am not. And I do not have some burning desire to lead people. I am simply a Dominant. It is my nature.

Which means, I am one all the time. Contrary to what you may have heard, a Dominant is not only Dominant when he has a submissive. Maybe some are. I don’t know. The point being, this is not a hobby or a game to me. I can hide it, but I cannot turn it off.

As I think through how to explain this, I suppose that, in a sense, being a Dominant could be considered a desire. I desire to have a submissive. If I were in a vanilla relationship (and there have been a couple) I would want to be the Dominant still. Not because being a Dominant is a great need, but rather because to deny my nature becomes quite frustrating to me. If I repress it too much, it becomes unhealthy mentally and emotionally. Which actually explains a lot of things from before I understood the concept of being a Dominant.

So what does this have to do with training a submissive? This post is not really about training a submissive. This post is about why, in my opinion, the Dominant is the one in charge of a D/s relationship.

Am I saying a Dominant never submits? No. We submit to rules and laws and authority all the time. We stop at red traffic lights. We don’t jump ahead in the check out line at the store. We do not, if we are smart, mouth off to police.

Am I saying a Dominant never lets his submissive help him? No. If you are a Dominant, and you are ill, by all means, let your submissive take care of you. If you are a Dominant, and your submissive is an accountant (for example), then let her keep track of the money.

When I say the Dominant is the one in charge, I am not saying the Dominant never needs help or that the submissive becomes a puppet. There is still give and take in a D/s relationship. Part of being a Dominant is still to serve the submissive. The Dominant serves by taking care of the submissive, and also by teaching her and training her and by being the one in charge. Remember, the submissive needs to submit. By teaching her and training her and being the Dominant, the Dominant is addressing that need in the submissive.

The Dominant and the submissive give to each other. And when the Dominant is in charge, his dominance is something he gives to the submissive. When the submissive in in charge, this is something she takes from the Dominant. And, in my opinion, if a submissive tries to take control of the relationship, she should be punished for it.

1240+ words already. Apparently I like to hear myself type.

Your turn to talk. Am I right? Am I wrong? You respond, and I decide. Or something like that.

Some Comments About Leadership

Posted in Christianity, Fairness, Government, Morality, Philosophy, Politics, Religion, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , on May 7, 2012 by Xajow

A lot of people try to use the Bible as an excuse for promoting authoritarian policy in government. Moralists from the left and right promote their political agenda to control other people because it is supposedly what the Bible tells us to do. As you might guess, I have a problem with that. Not because I do not believe in the Bible, but because I do. Many people argue that we need government to feed the poor or tax the wealthy or protect marriage or keep prostitution illegal or any number of other things because the Bible in some way says we should. I do not agree.

What sort of government did God establish for Israel in the Old Testament? Was it one with a strong, central government that planned and controlled people’s lives? No, it was not. It was largely decentralized. When Israel demanded to have a king, God gave them a warning against it, and still they wanted a king. Getting one did not make them better in the long run.

Jesus taught that to be great and even to be a leader, is to be a servant first. One of several places in the Gospels where Jesus answers His disciples arguments about who among them would be the greatest, is Luke 22:24-27.

Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest. 25 And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’ 26 But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves. 27 For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves. (NKJV)

Back then, rulers and leaders often gave themselves titles like ‘benefactor’ as a way of promoting the idea their leadership and control was necessary for the nation. Today politicians do the same kind of thing. They proclaim themselves champions of the people and insist their political ideas are the only way to help people. Jesus contrasts those who want to be in control, i.e.  those who would sit at the table and command the servants, with those who serve. Jesus mentions those who exercise authoritarian control and then tells His disciples, “But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves.”

Keep this in mind when you look as Jesus’ admonitions to help those in need. Did Jesus teach that we are to tax (i.e. forcibly take money from) other people to feed the poor? No. He told individuals to give of themselves. Of whom was Jesus most critical? The Pharisees because they served their own interest in power and had made Jewish laws into a tool of oppression and control.

Matthew 5:20
For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. (NKJV)

Matthew 23:1-7
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ (NKJV)

Matthew 23:23-28
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. 24 Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. (NKJV)

These are just a few examples of Jesus’ about the Pharisees. And there is one often overlooked passage I would like to add to this discussion.

Matthew 17:24-26
When they had come to Capernaum, those who received the temple tax came to Peter and said, “Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?”

25 He said, “Yes.”

And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?”

26 Peter said to Him, “From strangers.”

Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free.”

My point is that while many people try to use the Bible to justify their support for various political policies they want to be enshrined in law, they are wrong. I believe Jesus makes clear that morality is about individuals making moral choices as individuals, not about forcing other people to obey laws.

If you want the government to have more of your money, then your responsibility is not to demand higher taxes, but to give your money to the government.

If you want to help the poor, then your responsibility is not to see that other people pay for a government run program, but for you to help the poor.

If you want more wealthy people contributing to programs that aid the poor and needy, then your responsibility is not to demand the government take more of the money from the wealthy, but to convince the wealthy to voluntarily give their money to help the poor and needy.

Your responsibility is not to use authority to take by force, which is what taxation does. You responsibility is to serve. Not to have the government make other people serve. Rather, for you to serve.

Yes, I know. No individual can do it alone. No one is arguing otherwise. No one is saying you cannot or should not get people to help you. What I am saying is that voluntary cooperation is moral and coerced action is not. There is no morality in paying taxes to help those in need because I have not made a choice to give or to help, only to obey the law. 

Lead not by ordering people to submit and comply, but by you engaging in the act of serving. If you want to see good done, then do it.

So when political leaders speak of making other people “pay their fair share” because we have an obligation to help the poor, the sick and the needy, they have missed the point. And when political leaders have opportunity to give more and they refuse to do so, it calls into question their fitness to lead.