Masks

Reading this post on Jen's blog, and the comments in response thereto, I got to thinking about the whole question of image, and the real person behind said image.

It's complicated for Dominants. All effective leaders in any sphere of human endreavor have a mask. The CEO of the company you work for, politicians, professoinal atheletes at the highest level of their sport, etc., all have a mask. A public persona that doesn't necessarily hide the real person underenath but which serves to help them maintain focus. The mask could be humor, graciousness, intellectual curiosity, generosity, openness, almost anything. The mask draws people in, and at the same time holds them at bay, without their always necessarily realizing that they are being held at bay. The mask is not a scam or a trick; it is the part that the Dominant keeps on the public side of the shell. It's real . . . it's just not everything.

This isn't a bad thing, really, becasue the mask is, hopefully, a reflection of something real about the person behind it. In fact, any leader whose mask is so at odds with the real person underneath is almost always found wanting by potential followers, often for reasons the potential followers can't quite articulate. But nonetheless such people are rejected much more than they are embraced. Most people hate 99% of all politicians for precisely this reason: Instead of choosing a mask they try to reflect all things simultaneously and that always comes off as completely fake.

That the mask reflect the real person in some way is even more important for Dominants, since what they are leading is so much more encompassing than what your boss or Lance Armstrong is leading. A Dominant seeks to own the whole person. The trust that S/he seeks to lead the submissive into is that of the submissive's very life. To inspire that kind of trust requires a Person whose mask is not only a reflection of the real Person but a completely integrated part of that Person. Without that, there can be no real Dominance, and, thus, no true submission.

Now, back to Jen's post (sorry to take such a long way around). Jen wrote:

"Ok, let's use the words nurturing, caring, sweet, soft, mushy, lovey, quiet, etc. Isn't that the place you get to when the coast is clear? When you trust a man so much that you can show him that place in you where that resides? Or do I have to be that way right off the bat so that anyone can trample over my heart right then and there? Why does a woman need to be vulnerable? Especially a woman who does not exist in a stereotypical role? What does it take to have a man interested in this woman if I do not wear my heart on my sleeve?"

I'd say . . .

1. You don't get to any place. You are where You are. The mask, in effect, clears the coast in and of itself. It shows where You are, but not what it took for You to get there. It inspires those You wish to lead to want to follow and preserves the parts of You what will unfold to the other as time progresses.

2. An effective, real mask, makes Us less like a pincushion for the random hurts that life and love and sex seem to want to deal Us. I don't adovacte anyone, in either role, putting everyting out there, right up front. It is emotionally (and potentially physically) dangerous, and, to most people, off-putting.

3. A Woman of course doesn't need to be vulnerable. Or sweet, or nuturing, or any of those other classically "female" traits. But in order to Dominate, over a long haul, I find that sexual chemistry, while wonderful, can only cover a few other issues, not a multitude. So little of life is overtly sexual that there has to be more. And, while "how was your day? now bend over, slut" might work for a Pro Domme, in a non-financial relationship lasting longer than 1 hour, there has to be something more. Something real. And that, for either Sex, is going to be something that at times might feel a lot like vulnerability in some ways, Dominant position notwithstanding.

4. Anyone, submissive or otherwise, who needs You to wear Your heart on Your sleeve up front in order to be interested in You is either woefully unimaginitive and/or an emotional vamnpire, and thus to be avoided at all costs.

OK, ended up a lot longer than I'd planned on. More on this complicated stew of a topic another time.