There is a persistent myth floating around BDSM spaces that dominant men are somehow the last refuge of gentlemanly behavior, as if identifying as dominant automatically makes someone a walking example of respect and courtesy. This idea suggests that while the rest of the world has let manners and consideration fall apart, dominance in D/S relationships is where old-school gentlemanly values are making their heroic last stand. It is complete garbage, but it is garbage worth examining because it reveals some deeply confused ideas about both dominance and what being a gentleman actually means.
The myth probably persists because it tells a story people want to believe. In a world where traditional masculinity gets questioned or criticized constantly, dominance can look like a space where men get to be confidently in charge and respected for it without apology. Throw in some surface-level behaviors like opening doors, using formal titles, or speaking in carefully measured tones, and suddenly it looks like chivalry found a new home. But performing gentlemanly behavior and actually being a gentleman are completely different things, and confusing dominance with gentlemanly conduct gets both wrong.
Being a gentleman has absolutely nothing to do with what role someone takes in their relationships or how they structure their D/S. It is about characteristics that show up consistently everywhere, regardless of context or audience. Respect, courtesy, integrity, and consideration for others. These are what define a gentleman, and they manifest in how someone treats people when nothing is riding on it, when nobody important is watching, when there is no D/S happening at all. A gentleman treats the exhausted server at a diner the same way they treat their partner(s). They follow through on what they commit to. They take responsibility when they screw something up. These qualities exist whether someone is into kink or not, whether they identify as dominant or not, or whether they have ever heard of D/S or not.
Dominance in D/S involves negotiated roles between people who have explicitly agreed to them, specific relationship structures within boundaries everyone consented to, and particular ways of interacting that work for the people involved. Dominant people often display confidence, assertiveness, and decisiveness within their D/S relationships. These traits serve a purpose in that context, but they are role-specific and do not automatically make someone a gentleman in any broader sense. Someone can be skilled at dominance, excellent at understanding what their partner(s) need, and still be an absolute jerk to anyone they consider unimportant. They can be unreliable about commitments outside their D/S relationships, dismissive of service workers, or casually cruel to people who cannot offer them anything they want. The dominance does not prevent that behavior, and it definitely does not fix it.
Look at two different dominants. The first one performs gentlemanly behavior like he is playing a character. He opens doors with theatrical flourishes, uses elaborate formal language, speaks in carefully controlled tones that sound rehearsed, and constructs this entire persona around old-fashioned courtesy. But when his partner(s) express discomfort or set a boundary that gets in the way of something he wants, he pushes back hard. He treats consent conversations like negotiations where he is trying to get the best deal for himself. He is rude or dismissive to people outside his D/S relationship because they do not contribute to the image he is building. His gentlemanly routine is all show, shiny on the surface but hollow underneath, and it has nothing to do with who he actually is when nobody is watching.
The second dominant does not perform any of the traditional gentlemanly theatrics. No fancy language, no formal gestures, none of the show. But when his partner(s) talk, he actually listens instead of just waiting for his turn to respond, and what he hears shapes how he behaves. When someone says no, he honors it immediately without sulking or trying to negotiate them out of their boundary. He treats everyone in his life with baseline respect, whether they are his submissive or some strangers in line at the grocery store he will never see again. He does what he says he will do, even when it is inconvenient. He owns his mistakes and does the work to repair harm when he causes it. His gentlemanly behavior is not a performance for anyone’s benefit. It is just how he moves through the world as a human being interacting with other human beings.
A gentleman in D/S, or anywhere else for that matter, treats consent and respect as completely non-negotiable in every interaction. Consent is fundamental in D/S, and dominants who genuinely embody gentlemanly behavior understand that respecting boundaries, maintaining clear communication, and honoring their partner(s)’ autonomy are not optional extras or inconveniences to work around. This goes far beyond just having initial conversations about what everyone wants. It means ongoing check-ins, paying close attention to how people are actually feeling and responding, being ready to stop or adjust the moment something feels wrong, and never treating consent like an annoying formality between them and what they want. A dominant who actually lives by these principles is demonstrating gentlemanly conduct. A dominant who sees consent as a box to tick so they can move forward is not a gentleman, regardless of how many doors he opens with a flourish or how eloquently he can talk about honor and respect.
The myth that dominant men represent some kind of final refuge of gentlemanly values builds this completely false connection between dominance and being a gentleman, as if they naturally go together. They do not. They are separate things that can coexist in the same person but have no inherent relationship to each other. Tons of dominant men are not remotely gentlemanly. Tons of people who are not dominant, or not involved in D/S at all, embody gentlemanly conduct beautifully. The connection people want to see is not there by default, just because it would make a nice story.
When people buy into this myth, they end up giving dominants a pass on behavior that would never be acceptable otherwise. They overlook rudeness, excuse boundary pushing, and rationalize disrespect because surely a dominant must be a gentleman, right? The myth becomes a shield that protects people from accountability while their partner(s) and the people around them pay the price. Communities that want to actually support gentlemanly behavior need to stop conflating it with dominance and start evaluating people based on how they actually treat others. That means paying attention to how dominants handle boundaries when those boundaries are inconvenient. It means noticing how they speak to and about people who have nothing to offer them. It means watching whether they take responsibility for harm or deflect and make excuses. Being a gentleman is a choice someone makes about how they treat people, and that choice shows up in their behavior toward everyone, not just the people they are trying to impress.