two paradigms, and domism
While domism comes in a lot of forms, facets, ways, places, etc, one particular thread of domism I tend to encounter a lot I see as tying back to/coming out of a particular [domist] paradigm. As such, I wanted to make a brief post about said paradigm.
The way I look at d/s and related things around it tends to go something like ‘various d-types, people who have interest in d-type things, etc, and various s-types, people who have interest in s-type things, etc, have their own various both needs and desires for themselves and things they want to and find it fulfilling to provide for a partner. Some people are compatible with each other in these ways, some people aren’t. Mutually positive relationships can be found through compatibility, care, and communication’.
Conversely, the domist paradigm that can show up goes something like ‘d-types have things they want, and s-types should give that to them’.
(Note: some people have ‘give my partner what they want’ as in fact their desire. To me that fits perfectly well into the paradigm I hold – that can be a desire people can have (which doesn’t in any way mean it needs to be their only desire, or a desire without bounds), and can be part of what they’re looking to have with a partner. My objections to the domist paradigm are in the universalizing and ‘should-ing’, not in the validity of desires that happen to fit with it).