As well written as this is, i don't agree with it as much as i did with the different types of submissives one. This is for a number of reasons. Firstly in my experience, the lines between types of dominants is much more blurred than between different types of submissives; this is to say i think it's entirely possible that a dominant can be worthy and 'wheat' (not chaff) but still enjoy some degree of etiquette from their own submissive, can still be a little playful in their conduct within a scene. Secondly, i think that what motivates individual dominant personalities is less varied and vast than that which motivates individual submissive personalities. What emerges from the many, many motivations for submission, is a myriad of submissive types, whereas i believe that dominants 'share' many common traits (which i'm not going to state here for fear of offending all dominants the world over..including my own LOL) which whilst still allowing for some differences in type, bring them closer together and blur the edges. i also think that all dominants possess shades of type 3...not to the point of it becoming negative as stated in the description of type three, but IMHO, a well developed ego is a necessary part of being dominant.

Finally, the types of so-called dominants who march around chat rooms, behaving in a manner that is one step away from harrassment, are not fit to even be classed as dominants at all...and as for those who suddenly turn into a sub in cyber..pah, they're just a pain in the arse! (unless of course the sub fancied trying their hand at playing the dom...but this brings me onto switching, a concept i have always struggled to get my head round, not in a critical way, i literally don't understand it).

Anyway, my post is getting nearly as long as yours TG...time to stop methinks.

sl