>>> Now, I know that styles differ a lot. But how many people out there see sex as the main focus of domination? <<<

It looks to me that you answered your own question when you prefaced it with "styles differ a lot." They certainly do.

I know a couple for whom dominance is contained entirely within the domain of sex. She (the sub) "ain't havin' none of that obedience crap." She's in it (S&M) for the sex, and it's dominance within a sexual context that flips her switches--anything broader is a turn-off. This seems to work for them, they appear to be very happy.

Now I'm a ghost of a different shade--I really love the non-sexual domination as well as the sexual. I see the latter as simply an intensified version of the former: while both light a fire under me, one cooks the soup a lot faster . No, actually, it's not as trite as that: the non-sexual domination, while more subtle and less obviously sexy, has had a far more profound effect on my sexuality than the less-frequent-but-more-dramatic physical scenes that we do. It seems that the constant non-sexual domination I experience in my relationship has served to enhance the sexual episodes, in the sense that it has softened me up, that is, made me more consciously and more deeply submissive and less prone to resistance or other hang ups during a scene.

I'm not the type, however, who could live happily with her partner without any S&M. I could survive easily (if not entirely enjoyably) in a relationship without any physical sex, but if you took away the mental aspects as well (say for instance, if someone suddenly waved a magic wand at Donald and he turned vanilla), I'd be absolutely miserable. While this isn't literally true, it almost feels right to me to say that I _want_ sex, but I _need_ domination.