Of Sheep amd Warriors

[Alex Bragi]

I think I understand what the author is trying to say here, but it’s all just a little too condescending and parochial for me. I think too, who ever has written this has tried too hard to simplify a very complex issue—human behavior.

I certainly don’t appreciate the word “sheep” in reference to the majority of people who aren’t “...always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle...” (One of many rather odd analogies use in this article)

Ok, I confess, by the author’s definition I’m a "sheep" 99% of the time but, if need be, I can be as strong, aggressive, and protective and any “warrior”. (I noted also, with interest here, the correct use of "sheep"—all in lower case, and “Warrior" as if to insinuate some sort of superiority.)

With all due respect, regarding Lord Hemloc’s introduction: “MOST” Real Time Dominants in this Lifestyle are Warriors...” as opposed to what—submissives who are wimps—“sheep” in need of protection by the “warrior’ from the “wolves”? Surely it’s incorrect to assume that just because a man, or woman, happens to have a leaning towards being sexual dominanr—a kink if you like—that they’re more than likely be a part of some kind of quasi alpha army within our society, as is alluded to here. Many men and women in positions of power and responsibility in their day to day lives enjoy the freedom and release of being sexually submissive.

Actually, having pondered this a little more, I think I might have been more open to the ideas express here had the concept not been linked/likened to dominants and submissives. I hope the author would have approved of having his essay associated with bdsm.