Do submissive’s really know what the pressure is like to be seen as a demigod at times? Alright, the term demigod may be a slight exaggeration. Still, if a submissive has learned to expect the dominant has all the answers just because they are "The Dominant" that tends to produce a very high expectation of perfection... one that none of us in my humble opinion are ever going to be able to sustain.

I know it isn't a universally held belief that dominants know all, at least not to people that aren't playing games. The myths of the "all knowing" dominant are generally the product of the imagination or hopes of those who have developed fantastic expectations rather than allowing that dominance is merely the ying to their submissive yang. I don't believe it is the opposite of submission as some seem to believe. Rather it may well be submission or perhaps intimacy through control, or at least it should be IMHO. I can predict the gallows going up for me saying that so I'll explain then pull out my trusty samurai sword to defend myself.

To be the opposite of submission, dominance would have to be a condition without emotion, without caring, without honesty, communication, desire, respect and acceptance. Dominance isn't or certainly shouldn't be that. To be the opposite of submission would mean not surrendering the heart, opening the mind, sharing the fears and joys. It would mean being a cold-hearted bastard always; not caring, treasuring or placing value on the submission. Although in fantasies that might get someone off, it hardly translates into day to day behavior that I'd personally find any value in. In reality it is my experience and I suspect and hope the experience of many others, that being given power by a submissive is an affirmation of trust and the acceptance of myself as a decent and trustworthy human being and not a god. It allows and encourages me to be better, to be the best I can be. The same virtues a dominant wants from a submissive must be what a dominant gives a submissive, e.g. openness, trust, communication, passion, fidelity, sharing of emotions, honesty and a honest look at the soul including the fears, dreams, hopes and needs.

There are plenty of submissives and dominants who feel a dominant must be in control at all times; that any failure to be so or any lapse into mundane human behavior such as anger, sadness, fear or tears is a sign of incompetence or weakness. That in itself is too widely believed IMHO, and cruelly unfair and limiting to both sides. I can't say how many times I've seen a dominant trashed because their behavior indicated they weren't calculating, able to restrain or contain emotions or orchestrate appearances; that they had emotions, principles worth fighting for and passion that couldn't be restrained was a reason for condemnation. What the hell is that all about anyway? What does dom-like mean in that context?

I've personally been attacked at times for lashing out when something or someone has pushed landmines; when I've attacked over a principle that is near and dear to me. Insinuations or direct statements accusing my own behavior as not being "dom-like" are ludicrous. Who is that mythological being who doesn't feel, who won't make mistakes, or who must rise above human emotion in order to appear god-like? Control is not a condition or an absolute, it is a tool which isn't perfect and one which takes effort and care to wield yet which the use of can never be perfect.

Some actually believe that losing control is a sign of weakness or of being a poor dominant. Not even the Christian Son of God was in control at all times, he got angry when the temple of his God was defiled by the money changers and lashed out with violence. The God of Christians, Jews and Muslims had some pretty violent reactions to things his submissive worshipping masses did. Sending a race into slavery, forcing a forty year tour of the Sinai, drowning all but one family on earth, nuking cities, turning people to salt and letting innocent Job suffer to make a point certainly would be condemned if they were put in the context of some people's impressions and expectations of D/s. That doesn't even get into the Hell thing, yet too many in our lifestyle would hold dominants to a higher standard. That is completely asinine.

I hope the truth is that we try. We try to be right more than we are wrong. We try to be the best we can. It is my hope that I'm my best when I'm being human even if that means being fallible, although I strive to be as perfect as I can. There are a lot of definitions for strong in the context of dominance. It could be strict; it could be a shoulder to cry on or a crutch. It could be a foundation or example. It can be relentless honor and a will that can overcome fear and sustain hope and optimism in the face of terror and doubt. It can be the will, compassion and decency to not abuse or use in ways that diminish the gift we are given.

Being strong can also be accepting in the face of mistakes, fears and doubt. What sub wouldn't expect their dominant to listen, to care, to hold them when they are saddened or hurt, to sustain them when they are ready to emotionally or physically collapse? What sub wants a dominant so much in control that they can't accept being fallible? How can value or growth in a sub be judged when the dominant feels they must appear infallible? After all if a Dominant's own expectations are so warped and unrealistic how can he honestly appreciate the efforts, pains and dedication of any sub. In my opinion it takes a human, a fallible, empathetic and caring human to give those things.

So where does the stereotype "all knowing", always in control dominant come from? It is certainly reasonable to expect any dominant to be completely in control during a scene, that isn't what I'm getting at. It is certainly reasonable to expect a dominant to have a clue about what he wants, expects, where he is going with the submissive and what he won't give, what he wants and is willing to give in return. It is certainly reasonable for a dominant to be expected to read the signs, learn the desires fantasies and the desperate needs of a submissive and work...work hard to make them happen in a safe, caring, sane and consensual way. It is certainly reasonable for a dominant to consider what they want, what the sub wants and what is doable. It is certainly reasonable for a dominant to question a submissive and it is reasonable and often necessary for a submissive to question a dominant. If the myth of always being in control is to be believed then how does a submissive know when tenderness isn't calculated for effect or love isn't a manipulated response? When is there spontaneity? How can any action be seen as coming from the heart, and who would really want a relationship with someone who could control their heart? For any submissives who want to share themselves rather than be a toy or unthinking possession these should be very important questions as well as for any dominant eager to be seen to be in complete control. If you feel you are, then nothing emotional coming from you can be accepted without a measure of doubt.

This may be going all over the place but I hope it is clear enough to make some limited sense. The bottom line is that real people know that real dominants don't know all, that they do make mistakes, that they are human. Unfortunately too many don't know that. Too many submissives are expecting things that can't be done; a level of self control, strength, intelligence, empathy and psychic ability that is unreasonable. Too many dominants won't tolerate a submissive that doesn't look at them as if those things were not only possible but real. That smacks of immaturity, insecurity and tragic unfairness. It is a caricature of reality and a cruel limitation to what should be an enlightening and joyous release from the mundane vanilla.

What is said about Dominant's knowing all is funny because humor is normally something based on sarcasm, truth or assumption taken to a ridiculous extreme. Sometimes it seems reasonable and perhaps even wise (another dom-like quality I sometimes have when I'm not being stupid) to look at things that are funny and make sure the underlying condition which is being exaggerated to a ridiculous extreme is understood.

All this in no way means a Dominant shouldn't consider and honor the responsibilities of ownership. The Dominant must try to be as empathetic, as resourceful, insightful and understanding as possible. There is honor in doing your best. A submissive has every right to expect the dominant to be the best he can; to be the best for himself and for her.

This is just one dominants point of view and can't be right for all. I'm throwing down the gauntlet to others. Too often dominants relish encouraging a mysterious aura. That has its place but it is much better in my experience when it can be done while being seen as a real person able to screw up, fail, feel and yet still come off as a person deserving the devotion, love and submission of another human.