RE: How many Doms were subs first?

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

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

Message

AdventurousLife -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 11:16:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RavenMuse 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. This is he "no real doms ever submit" argument.... and we've had a wide variety of experiences presented on this list that contradict your perception here. So this puts you in a situation of saying hey aren't real doms, or that they are really switches and can't be doms becaused they switched in the past, or explaining yourself better. quote: 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. In my opinion, you are giving the BDSM Top/Bottom, lifestyle, "kinky sex" perspective. Those, in my opinion, who go into th Ds dynamic and have Ds relationships, recognize and value switching and do not mean that it makes them anything other than what they are.... And in fact-- radical as it may seem to lifestylers--- in some poly relationships there are people who are dominant to one person and submissive to another. Dominant or submissive describes the nature of the position one has in a particular relationship, not a personality. Assume three people, A, B & C. So, A may be a male dominant, who has a female slave B who has a male slave C. A and C may never have sex, though its assumed that C is submissive to A, as this is most common--- but its quite possible that C is A's dominant. B, who serves A and dominates C would be called a "switch" by the lifestylers but really is not switching at all-- B always serves A and always dominates C. I suspect there is limited time and interest for everybody... and many people spend their time in the scene or in their personal life exploritng particular kinks.... and they have a specific role they play-- top or bottom. Its become popular, though I think erronous-- to confuse this role (top or bottom) with being a dominant or a submissive. (I am pretty sure that Focus is a top, not a dominant.) And in the lifestyler scene its common to talk about people as "domiants".... hell its even a choice you have to pick for your profile here on collarme. (This is reasonable because it would be confusing to only talk about dominant as a particular role in a relationship.) Thus just as someone without a slave is not a Master, a Dominant is not dominant unless he's in that position in a Ds relationship. Its not a personality trait, its a position in a relationship. It may be the only position one want to play, and one may have personality traits that lead them to be good at that position... but I think this is the source of the confusion. People confuse the position for the person.

AdventurousLife -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 11:25:27 AM)
quote: 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. Ironically, I think you got out of it exactly what submissives have-- can any submissive say they havent' ever done something they weren't in the mood for? The question is-- have you ever been in the situation where you gave up control and you were happy to not be in control? (Whether the one in control was doing things you like or not isn't really the point.) I think that this conversation may involve people who are confusing topping and bottoming with dominating and submitting. Or at least it seems theres a lot more talk about topping and bottoming than I would expect in the thread... I see them as very different things. (I'm not saying you're using the words wrong)

BitaTruble -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 11:43:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AdventurousLife 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. Well, that's when you go from being a student of politics to actually being a politician. If one embraces some core truth of themselves in submitting, that is very different than trying something out to learn something about the other side .. or even yourself. If your mindset isn't there, no amount of service is going to turn you into a submissive and while you may get some general information about service, it's not going to feed you unless it's something for which you have a hunger. I think it's much more likely that someone who finds service fulfilling though they have always held on to the mantle of dominant, has some of those intrinsic personalities traits and, perhaps, did not acknowledge them for whatever reason. I do differentiate between D/s and S/m. For me, there is BDSM and there is D/s. Two separate ideas which do hold hands very well together, but it's not a must that they do so. One without the other works 7 days a week in my book. You can bottom in S/m to your hearts content and I would never call you a submissive for doing so. quote: 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. We think differently on the subject and that's all good. I don't view dominant and submissive as positions. I view top and bottom as positions. I'll agree to disagree, but I can't embrace this view because I don't believe in it. quote: 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.) That's pretty much poppycock. You have the freedom and right to speak for youself and you have all the rights to your own opinions but you are stating something as factual when it's not and you do not have the right to your own facts. quote: Same thing with submissives-- have you ever known a newbie submissive that could use some training? Of course, but I've also known newbie submissives who didn't need any training at all. They did what came naturally to them because that's who they 'were' intrinsically. quote: If you're an expereinced submissive, you should be able to dominate them for awhile and show them the ropes. Should? Why 'should'? Just because you have experience as a submissive doesn't mean you can dominant your way out of a paper bag. I'm afraid I'm not getting this point at all. It's simply another 'opinion' you have which comes across as if you are stating a fact and it's not a fact. I'm not even sure what you mean by dominant them. If you mean the kink aspects, that doesn't fly either. It's not like someone who has been getting flogged for 20 years is going to be able to turn around, pick up a flogger and use it on someone else. At best, I could mentor a new submissive by sharing my experiences and listening to them, I could even tie them up and beat the crap outta them via S/m ... hardly the same thing as dominating. I have to ask, do you consider a sadist is also dominant? If so, I can actually understand your POV, I just don't share it. Celeste

AdventurousLife -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 12:20:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble If your mindset isn't there, no amount of service is going to turn you into a submissive and while you may get some general information about service, it's not going to feed you unless it's something for which you have a hunger. Sure, if you're bound and determined to remain ignorant and not garner anything from an experience, you'll succeed in not learning anything. But that's not what I'm talking about. You have this idea that people are one way or another, and that they can only be one way or another... and that people who do both aren't real: quote: I think it's much more likely that someone who finds service fulfilling though they have always held on to the mantle of dominant, has some of those intrinsic personalities traits and, perhaps, did not acknowledge them for whatever reason. You're saying that it can only be this way, and that is just wrong. You're trying to tell other people what their nature is. I'm pointing out that anyone can better themselves by broadening their experience... and when their position involves responsibility for another person, understanding what that other person is going thru is quite valuable, if not essential. The idea that people are intrinsically a certain way and need no training is simply not true-- this is a fact, if it were not a fact there would be no need for an educational system at all, no need for parenting of children. We are not literally born this way, we must learn our craft, learn responsibility and part of that is a basic education in psychology. quote: You have the freedom and right to speak for youself and you have all the rights to your own opinions but you are stating something as factual when it's not and you do not have the right to your own facts. This from the person who said "there's no such thing as a switch"? (Had to check: Post #113 in this thread: "There are no such things as switches.") quote: It's simply another 'opinion' you have which comes across as if you are stating a fact and it's not a fact. Actually it is a fact. You assume that because you are (you claim) not capable of it, that nobody is capable of it. On the contrary, I point out that some people are capable of it, and assert that most people should be. In fact, I see no reason to believe anyone wouldn't be. All people who disagree with me have said is that they are unwilling... but unwilling is not the same as incapable.

Grlwithboy -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 12:47:11 PM)
quote: Ironically, I think you got out of it exactly what submissives have-- can any submissive say they havent' ever done something they weren't in the mood for? This doesn't jive with my conversations with my slave. There is a missing element - the element of "taking one for the team" team meaning "your Dominant" and not "yourself" also the sense of "well I did that" rather than "now I feel at home and fulfilled". Our experiences of the same situation are extremely different. You could argue that it's because we're different people, but I would think it does have something to do with orientation. Anyone can do anything - I'm with you. Anyone can submit, just send in someone with a gun and a badge to people who think they never will and they'll be the first to acknowledge authority - but even I don't think that everyone should have to do everything. Again, I prefer to reject things for myself on the basis of trial rather than assumption. Maybe I have more scientific inclinations than I'd have thought. But I don't think that pop psychoanalyzing everyone else to no end is that productive - I assume that most people have gone through some internal work and thought process and self-examination and I don't presume I have and they haven't for the most part. If I'm in a position of authority to teach someone something, I do insist that they try it my way once. Then reject it or fix it or tweak it if that isn't right for them.

Grlwithboy -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 1:00:53 PM)
quote: Thus just as someone without a slave is not a Master, a Dominant is not dominant unless he's in that position in a Ds relationship. Its not a personality trait, its a position in a relationship. It may be the only position one want to play, and one may have personality traits that lead them to be good at that position... but I think this is the source of the confusion. People confuse the position for the person. What about a person who has had fantasies and thoughts and fixations predating sexual maturity about controlling others, other people "suffering for" her, men on their knees proposing and then the proposal part kind of trailing off into the indistinct --- I don't think this person is a sexual submissive in the making. The common dialogue with subs of mine, and their long-standing fixations on being "taken prisoner" "swept away" "forced" just honestly wasn't a part of my sexual landscape, just never even ocurred to me really, outside of finding the notion non-erotic and disturbing. For other people it's their psychosexual meat and potatoes, and I'm cuckoo for not finding that hot. I've always thought there's some "there" there, and I've always been able to say that if I had to have the handle end only for the rest of my life I don't think I'd be upset for more than a half hour. Most self-ID'ing switches will "never be able to choose." - I see that as intrinsic to that orientation.

BitaTruble -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 1:10:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AdventurousLife quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble If your mindset isn't there, no amount of service is going to turn you into a submissive and while you may get some general information about service, it's not going to feed you unless it's something for which you have a hunger. Sure, if you're bound and determined to remain ignorant and not garner anything from an experience, you'll succeed in not learning anything. But that's not what I'm talking about. I said you may gain some general information, that's hardly the same thing as remaining ignorant. I specifically said it won't 'feed' you. Two different things. quote: You have this idea that people are one way or another, and that they can only be one way or another... and that people who do both aren't real: No, I don't have that idea at all. You're very confused on both what I think and what I am. quote: You're saying that it can only be this way, and that is just wrong. You're trying to tell other people what their nature is. You won't be able to quote me on that because I never wrote it and don't recall ever even thinking it. I do recall you saying something along those lines however. quote: I'm pointing out that anyone can better themselves by broadening their experience... and when their position involves responsibility for another person, understanding what that other person is going thru is quite valuable, if not essential. I don't think you can understand what another person is going through because you can't live in their skin. You can empathize with them, however and that, to me, is valuable. Your blanket statements are just a bit too preachy and one way for me though. quote: The idea that people are intrinsically a certain way and need no training is simply not true-- this is a fact, if it were not a fact there would be no need for an educational system at all, no need for parenting of children. Apples and oranges. This isn't math or science, it's orientation. Your analogy is incorrect. It would be like saying you have to have training to learn how to be a kid. I've been a kid, you don't need training for it. Parenting of children comes into play to teach those kids how to be grownups, something which 'is' learned.. sadly, not by everyone. The educational system is in place to teach people how to think not to teach people how to be people. quote: We are not literally born this way, we must learn our craft, learn responsibility and part of that is a basic education in psychology. Subjective opinion, not objective fact. We disagree. quote: This from the person who said "there's no such thing as a switch"? You make yourself look foolish when you take things out of context. I am a switch. What I said was is that I've 'heard' that term (and many more) from others. Maybe you should reread what I wrote and put it into context so you 'get it'. quote: It's simply another 'opinion' you have which comes across as if you are stating a fact and it's not a fact. quote: Actually it is a fact. You're incorrect. quote: You assume that because you are (you claim) not capable of it, that nobody is capable of it. Where did I make that claim? Care to quote me? quote: On the contrary, I point out that some people are capable of it, and assert that most people should be. quote: If you're an expereinced submissive, you should be able to dominate them for awhile and show them the ropes. You didn't say 'some' or 'most' in your previous statement. You said 'should'. "Some or most" changes the context and I have no issue with it. quote: In fact, I see no reason to believe anyone wouldn't be. All people who disagree with me have said is that they are unwilling... but unwilling is not the same as incapable. Oh, then let me be the first. Some people are incapable of being submissives and some people are incapable of being dominants. Some people are incapable of being switches. Some people are more than capable of doing it all. That's just the way life is with 6+ billion people on the planet. Pretty much everything is represented by someone. You might want to think about that before stuffing everyone into neat little boxes which fit 'your' ideas of how life is and should be. If anyone here is spouting off one true way bullshit.. it's you. Celeste

AdventurousLife -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 1:34:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grlwithboy What about a person who has had fantasies and thoughts and fixations predating sexual maturity about ... Those are desires. I think the fundamental problem here is in the confusion of desire (or orientation) with ability, or the nature of a relationship. I desire dark haired partners. Always have and always will. This is my orientation and my preference. I did, however, have a blond sub for quite awhile. I don't particularly like blonds and even she had another trait I don't particularly like- she's from southern california. However, that relationship was a successful one and it doesn't' change my orientation or preferences. Because of the nature of that relationship, her being blond or from southern California, despite not fitting "the way I'm wired" were not problematic. I wasn't faking or pretending with her-- her value as a person exceeded the relevance of her hair color.

AdventurousLife -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 1:47:29 PM)
Initially I went point by point, but I now believe you are simply being disingenuous. So I will provide one quote from you that makes my case: "That said, I don't think one can learn to be a submissive or even know what a submissive mindset is simply by partaking in some S&M or service to a dominant." This quote backs up my statements about your position... and since you have moved from discussing the topic to making it personal, there is not much point in continuing. If you wish to address any of my arguments, feel free to. I've made my case pretty clearly, and so I don't see much point in repeating myself, or continuing down the path of responding to your mischaracterizations.

Grlwithboy -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 1:51:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AdventurousLife quote: ORIGINAL: Grlwithboy What about a person who has had fantasies and thoughts and fixations predating sexual maturity about ... Those are desires. I think the fundamental problem here is in the confusion of desire (or orientation) with ability, or the nature of a relationship. I desire dark haired partners. Always have and always will. This is my orientation and my preference. I did, however, have a blond sub for quite awhile. I don't particularly like blonds and even she had another trait I don't particularly like- she's from southern california. However, that relationship was a successful one and it doesn't' change my orientation or preferences. Because of the nature of that relationship, her being blond or from southern California, despite not fitting "the way I'm wired" were not problematic. I wasn't faking or pretending with her-- her value as a person exceeded the relevance of her hair color. The fulfillment I get being in charge isn't comparable to the fact that I like brunettes too - I don't view the intrinsic whatever that makes my partners submissive as a mere accident of genes which I happen to dig . It's a dealbreaker, a serious lynchpin on which the success of the relationship is going to come down to. If it wasn't I'd still be locked into my first relationship with a very lovely but VERY non-kinked guy. I mean if he's worth it, then my sexuality is merely a set of whims to be avoided, as this would paint it. You are actually forcing me into a more essentialist position in your insistence that it doesn't matter. What if all the personality traits of your cali blonde were to be found in an exterior matching that of, I don't know...Pete Rose?

AdventurousLife -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 2:03:12 PM)
You've shifted contexts... I wasn't saying you should enter into a relationship as a submissive (or whatever). I was saying that your orientation does not prevent you from having another experience. It feels like you just put the words "your sexuality is a set of whims" into my mouth.... they don't taste good. Its not necessary for one to be fullfilled by the experience, or even practice it for very long... but being in the other position -- and embracing that position-- gives one a perspective that those who have not attempted it do not have. Those who have embraced it are the ones who should have more respect... and I find it unfortunate that the bdsm culture does not respect this, and instead embraces the falso machismo of "Oh, I could never submit". (Which reminds me of the straight guys who are obsessed with "fags" and how "Faggy" they are.) I didn't think you were taking this position before, but now you seem to be saing that its impossible to experience the other position. Edit to add: You were editing while I was responding. I'm not sure what you believe I'm insisting doesn't matter. Pete Rose is about as unattractive to me as california blonds, so the good characteristics would overcome that exterior as well.

Grlwithboy -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 2:12:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AdventurousLife You've shifted contexts... I wasn't saying you should enter into a relationship as a submissive (or whatever). I was saying that your orientation does not prevent you from having another experience. It feels like you just put the words "your sexuality is a set of whims" into my mouth.... they don't taste good. Its not necessary for one to be fullfilled by the experience, or even practice it for very long... but being in the other position -- and embracing that position-- gives one a perspective that those who have not attempted it do not have. Those who have embraced it are the ones who should have more respect... and I find it unfortunate that the bdsm culture does not respect this, and instead embraces the falso machismo of "Oh, I could never submit". (Which reminds me of the straight guys who are obsessed with "fags" and how "Faggy" they are.) I didn't think you were taking this position before, but now you seem to be saing that its impossible to experience the other position. Edit to add: You were editing while I was responding. I'm not sure what you believe I'm insisting doesn't matter. Pete Rose is about as unattractive to me as california blonds, so the good characteristics would overcome that exterior as well. No, I think it's impossible to experience it the same way, but I do think there's value to it, and intrinsic value. I also think there are as many people who have gone the route I have insisting they have their ass kissed because of it as there are insisting they have their ass kissed because they WOULD NEVER. There are a lot of people who deserve respect and a lot who don't no matter what their orientations are and no matter what time and care they've put into their training - you can be really good and still be an asshole when it comes to D/s and S/m - fact. All it says to me is that submitting is a giant freaking landmine to people in general and it makes me think subs have serious balls/eggs all around and have to put up with a lot of crap. Pete Rose? You're a better man than I. [:'(]

BitaTruble -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 3:07:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AdventurousLife Initially I went point by point, but I now believe you are simply being disingenuous. So I will provide one quote from you that makes my case: You take things out of context, can't speak to the issues I presented so call me disingenuous. I understand exactly where you're coming from. quote: "That said, I don't think one can learn to be a submissive or even know what a submissive mindset is simply by partaking in some S&M or service to a dominant." This quote backs up my statements about your position... and since you have moved from discussing the topic to making it personal, there is not much point in continuing. It does not but you are free to believe what you wish. I stand behind my statement. quote: If you wish to address any of my arguments, feel free to. I addressed them, you ignored them. Clearly, we're done. quote: I've made my case pretty clearly, and so I don't see much point in repeating myself, or continuing down the path of responding to your mischaracterizations. Likewise, I'm sure. Celeste

MadRabbit -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 3:24:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grlwithboy Anyone can do anything - I'm with you. Anyone can submit, just send in someone with a gun and a badge to people who think they never will and they'll be the first to acknowledge authority - but even I don't think that everyone should have to do everything. This is was my orginal point at the very beginning of this thread before it all snowballed. Just for clarificaiton, I wasnt trying to tote my own true way in this. I have my own philosophy about this and why I want to one day spent sometime as a servant/student to someone I deeply respect. Everyone has to choose their own path. I think the real lesson thats taught by this tradition of offering service for tutelage is humility in people who claim to be "too good, too awesome, too uber, too dominant" to be a lowly servant. The majority of people that I have talked to regarding their time doing this and being a domestic servant all shared the same experience...it built character. From that perspective, I think its something that people should consider when the oppurtunity presents itself even if they dont understand the initial value of "what is this going to teach me about being an uber dominant" Personally, I cant really give an answer to all the people asking "What is this going to teach me about being a dominant?" because its something I havent experienced yet. I dont really feal qualified to say what exactly I will and will not learn from experiences I havent had yet outside of speculation. Some people are though...

AdventurousLife -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 4:13:49 PM)
quote: No, I think it's impossible to experience it the same way So, are you saying you could never get into subspace? This is what I read from the word "impossible" (and I assume you mean impossible for you, not impossible for everyone.) I'm dominant, no worries, or insecurities there. But I have been in subspace. There are some people who are dominant in a way that I could submit to them, while most people (including the vast majority of dominants) I would dominate if we were in a relationship. I'm not a switch in the sense that I can't choose-- I have my orientation and almost all my relationships (and all my long term relationships) are ones where I am in the dominant position. I can understand people being unwilling to submit- for whatever reasons-- but i don't understand the idea that its impossible. I have never met anyone who insisted their asses be kissed because they have switched. I have met a very large number of people who are judgemental about those who have switched.... look at this thread. While we've had a lot of people admit to switching, the judgmentalism seems pretty one sided to me. (though I've been accused of being judgmental... and in a limited way I don't deny it-- I find the people who are problematic are identified by the "I could never submit" gene... though I don't judge them solely on that. Which is why I used the term "red flag" earlier.)

AdventurousLife -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 4:19:06 PM)
quote: Personally, I cant really give an answer to all the people asking "What is this going to teach me about being a dominant?" because its something I haven't experienced yet. The most neadratholic level of "dominance" is the lazy guy who finds submissives so he can get what he wants and then works out his frustrations on them. This requires no experience and no knowledge, and he just does what he wants- damn the consequences. The next level is one who has some theoretical knowledge or learns best practices and tries to have a responsible relationship. This can be achieved by reading and by simply thinking about it a bit. The higher level of dominance requires understanding the psychology of submissiveness and mastering a submissive's controls. This can be achieved by experience (eg: experimentation) and long knowledge of people. But one of the best ways to understand submissive psychology is to submit yourself, willingly and genuinely. Since dominance requires an understanding of your partners mental state, having been in that mental state yourself is invaluable. And I do not believe this is very hard ... or shouldn't be. If you're brand new, and serious, its a great way to learn in a few months what would take you several years of expereince in a Ds relationship. But finding someone to learn it from is not that easy- probably the hardest part. Edit to add: This isn't really a response to your post, buy my answer to the question you quoted.

Grlwithboy -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 4:53:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AdventurousLife quote: No, I think it's impossible to experience it the same way So, are you saying you could never get into subspace? This is what I read from the word "impossible" (and I assume you mean impossible for you, not impossible for everyone.) I'm dominant, no worries, or insecurities there. But I have been in subspace. There are some people who are dominant in a way that I could submit to them, while most people (including the vast majority of dominants) I would dominate if we were in a relationship. I'm not a switch in the sense that I can't choose-- I have my orientation and almost all my relationships (and all my long term relationships) are ones where I am in the dominant position. I can understand people being unwilling to submit- for whatever reasons-- but i don't understand the idea that its impossible. I have never met anyone who insisted their asses be kissed because they have switched. I have met a very large number of people who are judgemental about those who have switched.... look at this thread. While we've had a lot of people admit to switching, the judgmentalism seems pretty one sided to me. (though I've been accused of being judgmental... and in a limited way I don't deny it-- I find the people who are problematic are identified by the "I could never submit" gene... though I don't judge them solely on that. Which is why I used the term "red flag" earlier.) Different people mean different things when they talk about subspace. I've been high on endorphins and slow to react and think, suggestible, and rather confused. I didn't find it a particularly pleasant experience, but transformative, interesting. I've been high as a kite during needle play, but again, we're talking about a rather common human physiological quirk - I don't know many people who aren't and don't get this way if they're willing to experience it. What I mean about impossibility is that it's impossible for a person who isn't submissive to FRAME that experience in a way that's identical to a submissive. You can imagine, you can assume, you can empathize. I didn't experience "subspace" as connective to the Dominant, as a sense of giving myself to anyone rather to something, and I didn't have the "wow, this is great, I feel at home, when can I do this again" feeling that most submissive people report. Similarly, I'm not going to frame my sexual experiences with women the way a woman who is lesbian identified is going to frame them. I certainly don't regret them either. This is the impossibility I'm talking about. I also take issue with the pomposity of the "psychology of submissiveness" idea - that one can blanket master the mindset of a class of people - I've had enough WASP shrinks fixated on my Jewishness to know better. I think the best kind of mastery is to focus on your psychology, followed by the psychology and particulars of the person you purport to master - openly, without foisting your theories about why they are as they are onto them, and actually LISTENING to them.

KnightofMists -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 5:50:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 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! sooooo... a bi-sexual that switches from males and then females.. well they are just playing a role... play-acting even. god for bid that tht they are just drive to experience and fulfill needs and desires. but yeah... they can't be real needs and desires if its just play-acting.

AdventurousLife -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 6:08:53 PM)
quote: What I mean about impossibility is that it's impossible for a person who isn't submissive to FRAME that experience in a way that's identical to a submissive. It seems you're saying either you're a D or and s and if you're a D you can't have the frame of mind of an s when in the s position. And you're speaking in general-- impossible is at the very least too broad of a word, and I would think difficult isn't even it. quote: I also take issue with the pomposity of the "psychology of submissiveness" idea - that one can blanket master the mindset of a class of people I've had enough WASP shrinks fixated on my Jewishness to know better. It seems you're bringing some other beef into this discussion.... The pomposity you perceive is a misunderstanding on your part, and I have not claimed that there is a single mindset. There are many... I have only advocated that you find yours. quote: I think the best kind of mastery is to focus on your psychology, followed by the psychology and particulars of the person you purport to master - openly, without foisting your theories about why they are as they are onto them, and actually LISTENING to them. Now that was rather presumptuous, and essentially seems like an unwarranted personal attack. I have merely advocated an experience that allows one to better comprehend what they are saying when you listen to them.

KnightofMists -> RE: How many Doms were subs first? (7/18/2007 6:09:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JerryInTampa quote: People who say "Doms cant submit or its all orientation or hard wiring" seem to view the concepts of dominance and submission in the scope of purely kinky sexuality and intimacy. The two statements you're responding to are different and your conclusion is not neccessairily vaild. Of course I'm capable of sumbission. I submit to some degree or another to my boss, the IRS, my parents, etc. I've never taken the Sub role in a romantic relationship. I get no enjoyment from being submissive. I do enjoy dominating. I tend towards dominant positions / positions of power in my work life, and recreational life. It is hard-wiring for me to see a place at the top of the totem pole. So "it's hardwarired" is not exclusive of "can submit". The issue isn't whether I can, but whether I enjoy the act. I don't. I can enjoy the results (not getting fired), and I can appriciate the neccessity, but I don't find satisfaction or pleasure in the submission. To answer the OP for myself: No, I was not a submissive first. I've no desire to. there is a difference between Situational Dominance/Submission as compared to Dominant/Submissive Personality. Within Situational Dominance/submission we make choices to either be Dominant or submissive due to the consequences of the situation. Within a Dominant/Submissive personality... there is no choice.. We are who we are regardless of the consequences. I am finding many confuse these two concepts as one. A dominant personality can choose to be in a submissive situation. They do so to obtain some sort of desired consequences. Often within this lifestyle it is to gain insight of the submissive personality. Personally.. I don't believe that it has alot of value for a Dominant personality to put himself into a submissive situation and expect them to gain any depth of understanding of the submissive personality. I believe the situation is more useful for a the Dominant to learn about himself than it is to gain any specific insight to submissive personalities. Secondly, in the case of Bottoming (which is not a submitting act) doesn't allow one to appreciate to any great degree what it feels like for someone else. How I preceive is unique to me and thou I might gain some shallow appreciation to how someone else may preceive it, I don't see any depth being gained. In fact, I believe that anyone Who Dominants or Tops that considers submitting or bottoming as giving them some great insight to the other side is very misguided and increases the potential of things not going so well for the submissives they Dominate and the bottoms they Top.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125