Many here will perhaps disagree with the following analogy.

I am admitably far from politically correct.

I am speaking to the spiritual side of the house to a large extent, which is often regulated to the "back of the bus" when it comes to such discussions.

Despite personal opinions on so called "switches" and the like: ( and if you identify yourself as such try not to be offended I do not judge your choice to wield the quirt or submit to the lash of others when the fancy may strike you)

The premise that one is a better dominant becuase thay have took on the role of a submissive before is a wholey spurious corelation. There are many roads to understanding one's slave. None require that you try to become what you are not.

In the military we have a saying that for one to be a good leader they must be first a good follower. I use it myself when instructing other dominants in the art.

This makes for a quandary for those that do not understand the inhierent difference between instruction in dominance and instruction in military matters.

In the military there exists two types of personel:

Officers,

and Enlisted.

There also exists in the hierarchy of dominion, two distinct types of people.

Dominants and submissive's.

(Again do not be offended if you call yourself a "switch")

(and when I say this I am speaking to those people who's choice coincides with thier nature to be predominantly dominant or submissive, not thier choice to play this way or that in some game of the bedroom)

Seeking tutelage as a dominant is not any different in the regaurd that one must accept the fact that thier own position in the hierarchy of dominion may be inferior to that of anothers at any given time.

For instance I may defer to my slave in certian matters depending on the situation.

Just as a good military officer many times defers to thier enlisted personel's expertise.

Hence one may seek instruction from many scources. For instance enlisted personel often train officers. I myself have found the majority of my best instruction in the art of dominion to be had from "submissives".

The leader of men in such circumstances does not however become something he is not he does not falsely portray himself as enlisted if he is an officer.

The officers (as with dominants) may have a hierarchy established between each other etc. Just as the enlisted personel (or submissives do).

The officers do not however take off thier rank and become enlisted personel.

The "dominant" does not put on a collar and suddenly become a "submissive".

Most dominants require absolute honesty from thier submissives, just as the slave has put her ultimate trust in the honesty of her owner.

As Ragoczy has pointed out as a dominant, a man of strong will; is not just some self appointed title, but resides within his very heart of hearts.

To submit oneself as a submissive does is quite impossible to honestly accomplish when one is truely dominant and rails against one's very nature.

This sence of honesty and mutual respect is sacred to the Master/Slave relationship....


... as it should be within all relationships.