RE: How many Doms were subs first? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master



Message

Wildfleurs -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/17/2007 7:42:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Celeste, who is more free, the one who stays in the boxes created by others, or the one who does as he pleases, when he pleases?

If someone saw me as "less" because I bottomed at a charity event to raise money for dear friends who are working toward a goal I support then I would certainly be unlikely to think much of them in return.  I recieved the highest bid as a top but I went for twice as much as a bottom.  In fact, I went for more than the hot female's who put themselves up for bid.  It was for fun and a charity, I pitty someone so rigid that they can't see past that but I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep if they thought less of me.  In fact, the women who I do respect and who's opinion matters respect me more for being ballsy enough to do that.



I wanted to thank you for clarifying earlier. 

But I do really have problems with this post - I don't think that not switching is staying in a box created by others.  To be honest when I hear the oft given reason to switch to learn more about bottoming that, "its been done by so many before" that feels more like staying in a box created by other people than anything else.    I'm all for people doing whatever moves them personally (and regardless of mine or yours or anyone’s personal beliefs on it), but I have to say for my owner (and similarly for myself) switching to learn about bottoming just didn't make sense to him, and it was never a function of being to rigid or sticking oneself in boxes, but rather of him just having no interest in switching and thus finding a different and more appropriate (for him) means for learning.

I think its great that you put yourself up for auction - is it something I would personally want to do (switching sides for charity)? No, but I don't think that makes me a rigid person lacking balls.  Its just not my thing and not worth it.

So I guess what I'm objecting to is the incorrect (and pretty negative) characterization of people that don't switch, which I think is funny because I think this originated because some people were upset at the characterizations of people who do switch.

C~



Grlwithboy -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/17/2007 8:44:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Celeste, who is more free, the one who stays in the boxes created by others, or the one who does as he pleases, when he pleases?

If someone saw me as "less" because I bottomed at a charity event to raise money for dear friends who are working toward a goal I support then I would certainly be unlikely to think much of them in return.  I recieved the highest bid as a top but I went for twice as much as a bottom.  In fact, I went for more than the hot female's who put themselves up for bid.  It was for fun and a charity, I pitty someone so rigid that they can't see past that but I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep if they thought less of me.  In fact, the women who I do respect and who's opinion matters respect me more for being ballsy enough to do that.



I wanted to thank you for clarifying earlier. 

But I do really have problems with this post - I don't think that not switching is staying in a box created by others.  To be honest when I hear the oft given reason to switch to learn more about bottoming that, "its been done by so many before" that feels more like staying in a box created by other people than anything else.    I'm all for people doing whatever moves them personally (and regardless of mine or yours or anyone’s personal beliefs on it), but I have to say for my owner (and similarly for myself) switching to learn about bottoming just didn't make sense to him, and it was never a function of being to rigid or sticking oneself in boxes, but rather of him just having no interest in switching and thus finding a different and more appropriate (for him) means for learning.

I think its great that you put yourself up for auction - is it something I would personally want to do (switching sides for charity)? No, but I don't think that makes me a rigid person lacking balls.  Its just not my thing and not worth it.

So I guess what I'm objecting to is the incorrect (and pretty negative) characterization of people that don't switch, which I think is funny because I think this originated because some people were upset at the characterizations of people who do switch.

C~


I find two sets of attitudes out there. I respect what you describe very much. "It just doesn't jive with who I am, if you want to do it, cool." I have always gotten along with handle-end people whose reasoning is comparable to that.

Versus "ME? Never. And you're clearly confused if you'd ever try THAT." The latter just reeks of someone who looks down on submissives and submission, who secretly harbors the notion that people who bottom are less than people who Top and no self-respecting Top would ever trade behaviors or find something of value.

I did it because I was 23 and had the fortunate maturity to realize I didn't know anything rather than to think I knew anything, and because it was presented as a good way to learn by people whose opinions I respected who seemed to know something. Maybe the whole process of socialization IS being "in a box" - I'm not so label-averse as some people. Unless I'm working with a submissive it's never really chafed me so bad to follow someone's lead unless I *know* they're an idiot.





Grlwithboy -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/17/2007 8:54:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50


 
But still I'd rather post to the topic in hand and you've been refreshigly unemotional in presenting your views, however contrary to my own - something I respect.
 
Focus. 


I'm over feeling defensive about my experiences. Those who would devalue them, simply aren't me. I was 23, a girl, NOT a sport nut, raised by people who discouraged any kind of physical danger or risk to the point of paranoia- bottoming was finally an opportunity to experience toughness, physical risk, determination in spite of desire etc. on a physical level for me.

Now I prefer ashtanga yoga 2x per week.



SimplyMichael -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/17/2007 11:50:42 AM)

Wildfleurs,

quote:

  But I do really have problems with this post - I don't think that not switching is staying in a box created by others.  To be honest when I hear the oft given reason to switch to learn more about bottoming that, "its been done by so many before" that feels more like staying in a box created by other people than anything else. 


I agree.  When people say "I did this because it worked for me" I respect that, especially if I respect who and what they have become.  The box I was speaking of is anything that smacks of "that isn't the right way for anyone"  

I myself don't switch, I don't consider putting myself up for what is essentially a gag has any deep meaning and I called it bottoming because there was no submission involved.



Arpig -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/17/2007 11:53:25 AM)

I was married, does that count?



BossyShoeBitch -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/17/2007 11:57:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Celeste, who is more free, the one who stays in the boxes created by others, or the one who does as he pleases, when he pleases?

If someone saw me as "less" because I bottomed at a charity event to raise money for dear friends who are working toward a goal I support then I would certainly be unlikely to think much of them in return.  I recieved the highest bid as a top but I went for twice as much as a bottom.  In fact, I went for more than the hot female's who put themselves up for bid.  It was for fun and a charity, I pitty someone so rigid that they can't see past that but I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep if they thought less of me.  In fact, the women who I do respect and who's opinion matters respect me more for being ballsy enough to do that.



I wanted to thank you for clarifying earlier. 

But I do really have problems with this post - I don't think that not switching is staying in a box created by others.  To be honest when I hear the oft given reason to switch to learn more about bottoming that, "its been done by so many before" that feels more like staying in a box created by other people than anything else.    I'm all for people doing whatever moves them personally (and regardless of mine or yours or anyone’s personal beliefs on it), but I have to say for my owner (and similarly for myself) switching to learn about bottoming just didn't make sense to him, and it was never a function of being to rigid or sticking oneself in boxes, but rather of him just having no interest in switching and thus finding a different and more appropriate (for him) means for learning.

I think its great that you put yourself up for auction - is it something I would personally want to do (switching sides for charity)? No, but I don't think that makes me a rigid person lacking balls.  Its just not my thing and not worth it.

[sm=applause.gif]What sets you apart is that you are not putting down others choices to switch for whatever reason (charity, education, broadening one's horizons, etc...) and labeling them because they wanted to have an experience.

So I guess what I'm objecting to is the incorrect (and pretty negative) characterization of people that don't switch, which I think is funny because I think this originated because some people were upset at the characterizations of people who do switch.

C~



MadRabbit -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/17/2007 3:34:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grlwithboy

I find two sets of attitudes out there. I respect what you describe very much. "It just doesn't jive with who I am, if you want to do it, cool." I have always gotten along with handle-end people whose reasoning is comparable to that.

Versus "ME? Never. And you're clearly confused if you'd ever try THAT." The latter just reeks of someone who looks down on submissives and submission, who secretly harbors the notion that people who bottom are less than people who Top and no self-respecting Top would ever trade behaviors or find something of value.



Thank you. This is exactly what I am getting at.

There is a huge difference to saying "Its not for me" and "Doing this will devalue me as a person!"

I personally have met a person who I have a great deal of respect for and knows far more than I do about a lot of things regarding M/S and S/M. I would gladly serve under him for what he has to offer me if life ever allows me to.

If this ruins my credibility with anybody, then I consider it a blessing. It helps me weed out the people I wont be interested in having deep friendships and long term relationships with.



RavenMuse -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/17/2007 9:44:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MstrssPassion
I personally don't think a dom can ever be a sub


There are Doms, there are subs and then there are switches

Someone who is Dom, rather than switch simply isn't wired that way and regardless of the situation will not and can not submit. Their mindset simply processes in a compleatly diffrent fashion.

Likewise for submissives the other way around, yep even ones who may enjoy Topping from time to time.

Switches can work on either side of the dynamic, if it works for the people involved then nobody can say that what they have has less value than what We have..... but I will state My belief that they will never fully understand what the experience is for a Dom or sub who doesn't switch. Switch is a different mindset to either.

And no rabbit I am talking about the D/s dynamic, not the BDSM Top/bottom or 'kinky sex' levels.



Focus50 -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/17/2007 11:35:08 PM)

MadRabbit,

With the gathering of jackals looking to pick over the carcass of this thread, the time has come for a cessation of hostilities.  And an olive branch even....
 
I'm sure you'd at least agree with me that this has degenerated beyond what either of us ever intended and for myself, that's been cause for reflection.  Just because I won't back away from a stink (Oz slang = fight) is not to say I look for them.  I come here to post my views and absorb the relevant perspective of others, esp that of fem/subs.
 
And if I'd known back when this thread started what I know now, I would never have posted here at all.  From here on for me, threads about "doms who sub first" etc will be bracketed with several other pet non-events such as poly - not my interest; don't bother with it.  But not because of the overt acrimony and enemies made here - that's a natural hazard of any public board frequented by strangers.  Been there, done that....
 
My own regrets here come not from anything you've said or even Archer before you.  It's come partly through Grlwithboy's posts, though I couldn't pinpoint any particular phrase (I swear the woman has a gift for saying plenty with relatively few words) coupled with the realisation of my own naivity of what passes for common and accepted practise either in BDSM communities per se' or maybe it's just in America - whatever....
 
Life is seldom black & white but some things have always been relatively simple.  If you're a dom who occasionally subs (or vice versa), you're really a switch to one degree or other.  I've personally said so in the past, most recently at you, and probably read it a thousand times from others on four different boards in the past 8 - 10 years.  Yet I've never seen the likes of the mess we have here over it.  Usually an even spread of some for apprenticing to be a dom through submission and the other half convinced it can't be taught or learnt, it's what you're born to do; something that just comes naturally - pretty much my view but not quite that simplistic.  But the most comical aspect of "learning it" to me has been the notion of it giving growth and enlightenment - righteously sanitising it to masquerade what's really a switch or even sub within.  Not that I've got anything against switches, esp those who call it for what it is as there can be no later claim of deceit or betrayal.
 
But it would now seem what you propose (a period of service or something to that effect) is common practise amongst you communal BDSMers.  Now that doesn't change my views on the matter but it does mean I've been harsh and unfair to you personally.  While I might not approve of a room full of legally drunken teens, for eg, singling out just one for doing what everyone's doing isn't right either - and that's not standing well with that principled prick in the mirror.  A more discreet approach to such strangers would be to just shrug and move on; live and let live.
 
For what it's worth to you, I sincerely apologise for the obvious hurt I've caused you. For me, swimming against the tide of what now seems popular opinion is mindless futility anyway (not to mention attracts vultures) and the lesson for me is old; if you don't like the sea of communal BDSM, don't swim there.
 
The experience has also been educational, so not a total loss.  While my own needs, conscience and principles doesn't allow for being sub today and dom tomorrow (unless you're a switch), or gay then but straight now (unless you're bi) etc, or even that something's ok if everyone else does it, the fact is I seem to be in a minority and will leave it at that.
 
I've also had a "lightbulb moment" on why so many people loathe labels and semantics etc....  I've always defended the notion of labels on the basis of communication, particularly among strangers.  But since now a dom is still a dom in between stints of submission etc, it would seem the "be anything you want 1990's" aren't gone at all where BDSM communities are concerned.  So there's a second topic I'll shun in future.
 
And a third might be exactly what is a wannabe dom if anyone can be what they like?  Yeah, I realise it's not quite an unreserved apology in general; my philosophies and opinions are still my right and I don't think anything I've read here has exactly been a ringing endorsement for communities as a whole.  But I am genuinely sorry for venting my own prejudices at your personal expense and probable exasperation.
 
Focus.



Focus50 -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/17/2007 11:45:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BossyShoeBitch

Yawn....
Bored now...

Yes, there are only so many puffy one-liners a "bad arse" domme can spout before she's all out of ideas. 
 
Sweet dreams....
 
Focus.



Focus50 -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/17/2007 11:57:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Focus, perhaps you simply don't know how to speak about yourself without stating it as a universal truth.  That is why I object to.  While I think there ARE universal truths, the path to being a healthy and competent dominant isn't one of them.

quote:

There's a whole bunch of us folks out there whose D/s does not revolve around community, public play, sharing slaves and the notion of "learning" to be dominant through submission. 


quote:

  just as submitting, for eg, is NOT normal behaviour for a Dominant - IMO.


The first statement is about yourself and I would back you 100%.  The second, in the context of the path to becoming a competent and healthy dominance is trying to say YOUR way is the ONLY way, which is why people hear you as a "one true wayer".

Mate, you're scaring me....  So rare for you to post something with inoffensive fore-thought outside of your own threads.  Not that I agree with my opinions being universal truths so much as my truths, however you or others may perceive them.
 
Turning over a new leaf?
 
Focus.



MadRabbit -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 5:00:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

But I am genuinely sorry for venting my own prejudices at your personal expense and probable exasperation.
 
Focus.


Thank you Focus. I do say that with sincerity.

I apologize for being over zealous, but someone who says "Your not A, but B" can come off as a heavy personal attack especially before words are exchanged and there has been a chance to clarify and explain yourself. I apologize for anything personal I implied in my mild frustration and fealings of personal insult.

I agree that someone who subs occassionally is a switch if the reason why he subs is out of personal desire and fullfillment. But just like a job is just a job and the military is the military, I've found that being a pincushion during instruction is just instruction and being a servant for someone who is taking the time to teach you a lot of different things is just being a student.

The underlying difference is the reasons that drive people to do what they do and what those reasons are cant be decided by other people, but threw introspection which is why I took initial insult to the wording of your post.

I really dont harbor any personal bias towards you even though we brush up against each other occassionally. You give great advice and have good intentions and are someone I think is an all around good guy at heart. In this particular case, I just simply got very personally offended.

Edited to Add : On reflection, its not really as much as its me and it was wrong of me to project my own issues with this by taking your intentions as a personal attack rather than simply misunderstanding (However, after 5 pages of getting no where, I was pretty sure it was personal attack =) ). This was actually a rather big decision for me in the past for the exact reasons you have listed here. Does this mean I am a submissive? Am I confused about my identity? I decided that who and what I was was determined why I was doing it and not because I was doing it and anything new I learned about myself in the process I would simply embrace as my identity rather than resist it simply because "I have to be a dominant!"

Regardless, it will probably always be an issue, because even in the BDSM communities, there will people who will take past experiences as a loss of credibility and decide I am not what I say I am because they want people to fall into Kinsey categories.



AdventurousLife -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 9:37:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grlwithboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdventurousLife


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grlwithboy
I've always done this and I've always been careful about how I answer this question. It's also very key to me HOW people answer this question. "No it's just not me" or "I've had enough knocks in real life that it would bring up bad shit" are different from "ME? Are you Kidding???"


All three of those answers throw up big red flags-- First one indicates that they don't know who they are, and aren't willing to find out. Second one indicates that they are acting out of anger or bitterness at something that they experienced in the past and thus while they might be good tops in a scene with neutral observers, would not likely be a good person to trust your mental state too... and the third answer-- that actually might be the correct one if its followed with "of course, with X on Y date for Z months and let me tell you about what I learned."


Honestly, I think intonation might be lost here. I'm trying to delineate a "oh that's just not my bag" response, a response which indicates that the person has had some kind of trauma which would make submission emotionally inappropriate or dangerous for them. Some people want to go towards those events, and some don't and I think that's OK. I guess I prefer tops who have had other experience - but not quite to the point where I think all others are dangerous. That doesn't make sense to me.




No, I understood what you were saying, and when I say "Red flags" I don't mean that the person is dangerous, but that I'd be wary about that.

You have to watch out for people who were abused as children who then turn around and become abusers-- often emotional abusers hide behind a mask of "Dominance" and seek "Submissive" who have low self esteem causing them to expect such abuse. Such "Dominants" will protest loudly at the idea of being a submissive because their goal is to get revenge (on another) for the abuse they received, and they see submissive as victims something they have vowed never to be. Of course all this happens at a level they are not conscious of. I'm sure many of these people have developed mechanisms to keep this dysfunction in check, and may well be effectively functional, and not dangerous....but many have not, and aren't even aware of what's going on in their own heads.




AdventurousLife -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 9:52:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50
Whoa - yorta be careful how you throw that "real" word about...! I implied a dom who subs is a switch - did NOT say anything about individuals not being real.


Now you're backpedaling, before you said they were play-acting (implying they were acting, not real):

quote:


To me, those Doms (or subs) who are comfortable with switching roles for the experience or whatever literally are playing a role; play-acting even!


quote:


Obviously you would proffer the same moronic advice to heteros who equally haven't experienced a gay encounter to appreciate what being hetero really is? While we're at it, perhaps all males should get about clothed and groomed as women for awhile; to equally give them the "right attitude" toward women and personal relationships, too?


Note that he has chosen to use the word moronic above. I find that sad given that he then follows it with a fallacious argument that ignores the statements I have actually made and goes on to make absurd statements and imply they are equivilent. Would that be called non-sequitor ad absurdum? Oh, and I guess a bit of ad hominem in there as well.


quote:

Humility doesn't necessarily require one to humiliate themselves. Similar words - but with very different meanings and consequences.


Did you really just denigrate submissives in that way? Or are you again engaging in non-sequitor ad absurdem? I said nothing about people needing to humiliate themselves, and I'm quite aware of the difference between the two words....



AdventurousLife -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 10:23:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BRNaughtyAngel

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdventurousLife
And for submissives who want a relatively safe way to learn--- seek out one of the overabundance of inexperienced submissive men and experiment with them in the dominant position-- it will make you a better submissive.



Sorry, but I don't need to pretend to dominate a submissive male to "learn" to do what comes naturally to me. Like most submissives, I have many dominant personality traits that are apparent in my non-personal life, but they exhaust me. Many of those traits come to the surface as what could be called a self defense mechanism, and I don't just mean in things that are directed at me personally, but in things that affect me directly and indirectly.

And as for practicing any sort of sadism, I don't have a sadistic bone in my body. Not happening.

Oh and as for doms being subs first, well that's topic has come up before and you'll find some submissives have no problem with their dom having subbed or bottomed at some point. Some don't even care if they do it now.

I'm not one of them.


I've seen this perspective before, many times in the "lifestyle bdsm" community. Its a form of machismo, and there is so much there that I'd love to address-- the idea that you would have to "pretend to dominate" and the idea that sadism and dominance are intrinsically linked, and that you'd have a problem with your "dom" having submitted in the past, but most rich is the "dominant personality traits [that] exhauset me". This right here is the number one excuse given for non-consensual behavior and drama creation in the lifestyle bdsm community:
" Many of those traits come to the surface as what could be called a self defense mechanism, and I don't just mean in things that are directed at me personally, but in things that affect me directly and indirectly."

Even your ID is almost a stereotype-- naughtyangel-- it says "bratty submissive" to me.

I believe you are clinging very tightly to an idea-- no, an ideology-- that causes you to exclude anything else, any other perspective, because you have tied your self esteem to this ideology. And this is a situation that makes it very difficult to reach you... and at the same time, having seen so many who express this ideology like you, and then the damage it caused and the unhappiness they experienced.... well, I hope you're in a great situation, and I hope you've lucked into being with a great dominant with a lot of integrity...

But let me say this, in the hopes that it will make sense: Dominant is a position. It is not a personality trait. Some people with certain personality traits make better dominants. Various people due to various orientations of their sexuality seek a dominant or submissive position. But just as any manager in a company is better off having done the work of the people he's managing, and any line employee is better off haivng managed people -- any dominant is better off having experienced the submissive position, and vice versa. If you approach it with the idea that it is intrinsic and that in order to be in that position you have to pretend, or that you can't really understand it, then you won't get much out of it, except reinforcing your own preconceived notions.

But if you embrace it wholeheartedly, you'll learn a lot. And its not like you have to be in that position for ever or seek it out going forward.

And its not like trying gay sex makes you gay.

The "try it once and you're tainted" perspective, I believe, comes from tying ones self esteem to ones position. It should be obvious that good people can be dominants and submissive, or switches. That neither the dominant or submissive position are inherently better -- though many seem to think so, and tie their self esteem into their position

This can clearly lead to them thinking that people who have in both positions are "confused" like gay people often say bisexuals are "confused" or "just not willing to accept what they are".... Submissives such as yourself seem to think that dominants who have submitted are really submissive and just pretending to be dominant. I've heard this said before. But this perspective comes out of confusion about what these positions mean, and a confusion of self esteem with position.... not out of experience.

Just as the argument that a manager can't have previously been a line worker, or that line workers can't benefit from management experience.

These are crafts that must be learned. They are not inherent personality traits. Personality traits can help, but the craft still must be learned.




AdventurousLife -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 10:26:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

I'm laughing at you, buddy.

Well this sucks - to respond to this bitter nonsense creates the very real likelihood you'll scurry off back into cyber-space for..... errr, what.... the 3rd time now? But I get the gist of your rationale - that left is right, east is west, up is down, black is white blah blah.... Clear as mud like usual....

The nineties was where you could be anything you want (apparently) and I would imagine your age means you just missed out? But if you ever do decide what you wanna be when (and if) you grow up, maybe then you're entitled to preach to others about "getting past" whatever (from a previous post)....

So laugh away; I've taken your "best" shots and then you run away when I respond - yet I haven't had to stoop to personal insults in seeing you off.... Mate you sure talk up a good game but, <yawn>, is this all you've really got? Tell the rocks I said 'hi'....

Focus.

quote:

The nineties was where you could be anything you want (apparently) and I would imagine your age means you just missed out? But if you ever do decide what you wanna be when (and if) you grow up, maybe then you're entitled to preach to others about "getting past" whatever (from a previous post)....

So laugh away; I've taken your "best" shots and then you run away when I respond - yet I haven't had to stoop to personal insults in seeing you off.... Mate you sure talk up a good game but, <yawn>, is this all you've really got? Tell the rocks I said 'hi'....


Focus, that post (and many of your others) include you "stooping" to personal insults.

Since this is a touchy subject, I would think a bit of a light touch would be the order for the day here, rather than heavy handedness.



Grlwithboy -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 10:26:46 AM)

reply to no one in particular:

I find it amusing that if I have a bottoming jones once every eight years or so, I should have to re-explain my orientation so that I'm getting hit on by people completely incompatible with me in the interest of "disclosure" and "honesty." Or if I tried it once and decided I didn't like it, it means I should claim a label that means I like it?

Also, in bringing physical activities into it at all, it reminds me of the classic FemDom conundrum - if you like to take dicking can you really be Dominant? and if you can, why you, but not some guy? 

I personally don't see undergoing physical sensation because *I* want to as anything other than pleasing myself. I only feel like someone is submitting to me when they are overriding what they want in favor of what I want, for the brief moment, watching them overcome their objections in order to please me - not because they're taking objects up the ass, bending over for a whipping, or even blacking my boots with their tongue - if they're doing these things purely because I am me and obeying/pleasing me is the rationale - that's another thing entirely.

The fact that I've confronted situations I'm not thrilled with, and reached the conclusion that I'm going to go through with them because I said I would, or I wanted to, or damned if I'm backing out - while the D in question may have gotten adequate sense of compliance on a physical/practical level and never known otherwise - I don't get out of it what an actually submissive person gets out of it, rather something else, neither fish nor fowl.

A lot of people realize this and are eager to throw up their hands and say "well it's meaningless then isn't it, if I can't experience the same thing as my sub why go there?"

I'm glad I wasn't so eager to judge the experience before having it rather than after, or miss out on the neither-fish-nor-fowl lessons there for me.







AdventurousLife -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 10:32:50 AM)



quote:

IMO, submission lies within the realm of the head and the heart and what you 'do' has little to do with what you 'are'. In other words, a dominant who is taking on the role of a submissive in order to understand submission isn't really gonna 'get it' because they won't 'be' a submissive.


This is the "intrinsic personality trait" perspective. You used an analogy to politics-- you would learn a lot more from being in the position of a newly elected state congressman than you will in a college course on political science. Because you've been a voter all your life doesn't mean that you can' take that positioon and do your best at it --- and learn as much as you can from it.

Same thing with the dominant and submissive positions. It is in the realm of the head and the heart-- and until you have been in the position and had the feelings, you can't know what the position is like or the feelings are like.

Its like dominants who say they can never submit are saying they are the most dominant person ever... and nobody could dominate them (machismo) when in reality, any decent dominant that they trust could do it (if they decide to take the position for a period of time.) Same thing with submissives-- have you ever known a newbie submissive that could use some training? If you're an expereinced submissive, you should be able to dominate them for awhile and show them the ropes.




AdventurousLife -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 10:59:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Masque66

I've only tried subbing once and it was a horrible experience. Something about it just clashes with me internally. Maybe I simply can't stand being out of control like that.


I speculate that you did not pursue it enthusiastically with someone you trusted and who was experienced, or you did not bring enough patience to the table to give it a chance.

Unless you are a revolutionary actively working to overthrow the government, while being self employed-- you're out of control now. Oh, or maybe a cult leader on a compound with sufficient insulation to always feel "in control". :-)

Seriously, though, I think your error is in assuming that you cannot be in this position because you didn't have a good experience. The thing that "clashes with you internally" is the thing that you need to overcome-- overcoming it will make you a better dominant.

Finding the right situation can be tough, especially with the judgemental attitude that is common and the general difficulty finding a trustworthy dominant. (Probably better to find one you trust whose a friend who also needs this experience and switch off between yourselves.) Go away on a "guys trip out of town" if you need, and of course sex does not need to be involved.

But take it seriously and do not try-- do, or do not, there is no try. :-)




Daniel53 -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 11:02:41 AM)

When me and my wife , my slave now , first started out we were playing what we thought at the time was a bedroom game we had made up , boy were we wrong! the 1st time she tried to be my "mistress" about 1/2 way through things I just "took over"and turned the tables and it's been that way ever since! It's funny though cuz when we dicovered , shortly later , that we had made up nothing and there was actually a whole lot of people who took this as a serious lifestyle we jumped in with both feet and of course it is our lifstyle now , and has been for many years now. That will never change! I think from my experiance if you are submissive or dominant it won't take long to figure it out! Once you know your place...stick with it , educate yourself , and enjoy!



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.640625E-02