So I have something that’s been on my mind for awhile. I’ve long defined myself as polyamorous, meaning I can love more than one person at a time and be involved with more than one person at a time. It’s just something very natural for me. Why not love more than one person? The more love, the better in my mind. Ideally those people also love each other, making it a more equal relationship, but it’s not always necessary.

That being said, I’ve noticed this very strong sentiment that a submissive can have no more than one dominant at a time. There’s that old saying from the Bible:

No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.” – Luke 16:13

Much like I question most every other part of the Bible, I question this as well. I guess what really started me thinking about this was MinxGrrl’s post about having more than one Daddy because each plays a different role for her. I found myself relating to that post because everything I had been conditioned up until that point told me that when you have a Daddy, you have one Daddy.

Why do we have such strict rules about that? People, regardless of their role in my life, fulfill different purposes. Each brings and contributes something different to my life. So far I have found no single person to provide everything I need for me. That may be because I’m young and I’m still searching for my “soulmate,” if you believe in that term. I believe though that it’s because there is no one person who can provide me everything I need emotionally, physically, spiritually and intellectually. Hell, I am a complex person and finding someone do to each as well as I need them to is beyond difficult.

I’ve talked with a lot of dominants in my time, male or female. I’ve experienced different ways of being dominant and I’ve dabbled in being dominant myself. I can definitely see both sides here. There is an inherent¬†territoriality¬†that comes along with natural dominance. You want what is yours. I don’t share well myself in fact. I also understand though that we all need different things, some of which I can’t or am not able to provide for someone. I have strengths, weaknesses, dislikes and likes, just like everybody else. Finding someone to match them perfectly is difficult, if not impossible.

In my time searching for a dominant, I will admit to juggling a few at a time. It seems like there are more people who call themselves “dominant” than there are actual dominants out there. Fakers and players abound. Of the population of dominants leftover after you take away all the ones who can’t actually provide what they say they can, there aren’t that many good ones leftover. The ones that are left are either taken or don’t quite fit with me, but usually I find one or two aspects of their style or what they offer to be appealing.

Each person in my life is there for a specific reason. Dominants are no different. Why is the long held rule that a submissive can have only one dominant there? My only guess is people do not want to share. I completely understand it, but at the same time I feel we may be doing a disservice to submissives by having that general rule. If someone can provide to you what your primary dominant doesn’t, why shouldn’t you consider experiencing the opportunity with that person? Limiting yourself will only limit your experiences in life. I am a person who wants to experience as much as I can in this life. If that involves having more than one dominant at a given time, then so be it.

To me, it seems there are ways to work around scheduling, tasks, goals, physical things, etc. Sure, having two dominants controlling a submissive in a given scene will probably not work. I’ve never experienced co-topping in person, but to me it seems like two natural dominants will only end up butting heads more than working together smoothly. One of the dominant personalities will ultimately have to take second fiddle and while that can flip flop during the scene, it seems to me that would make the dominants more switches than pure dominants. There’s nothing wrong with that by any means. I consider myself a switch and can see myself co-topping as long as there is that natural ebb and flow of power between the tops.

My challenge is this now – finding people who understand and agree with this. From the conversations I’ve had with dominants, this seems to be one of their least favorite things to talk about. They want to talk about them, about me, about the news, about the weather, but they don’t want to talk about the possibility that I may not get everything I need and want out of them. That I may need to search for what is lacking in other people.

It’s a hard road I’m on, being polyamorous, polyfuckerous (a term a friend of mine coined) and polydomerous. It’s one that is fraught with heartache and accusations. But it’s one I can’t see myself not being on. I am what I am and while it may grow and evolve, I don’t see this certain aspect of my personality fading for now or a long time afterward.

One thought on “Poly-dom-orous?

  1. LoveEqualsEDWARD

    I’ve learned (along the way) that no ONE person can be 100% of what we need. Perhaps 60% or maybe even 70% (although, in my experience it’s more like 53%, but that’s just a technicality). But to believe that ONE person can fulfill ALL of another person’s need/desires/being? Nope. No way.

    Sometimes I wonder if we truly WERE meant to be a 1-partner society. After all, life is such a long stretch of road and as we travel upon it, we change, evolve, meet new people, want different things, etc. I can’t imagine that throughout this entire journey, that we’re meant to go through it with a single other person. I just don’t buy it.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *