Submissive Archetypes

Submissive Archetypes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Statepalace -> Submissive Archetypes (2/21/2008 3:02:30 PM)
I was discussing archetypes with the D a few weeks ago, and the conversation has left me with a few questions. In our talk I mentioned that the role models (archetypes if you will) that I strongly identified with as a child/young adult were NOT the helpless princess types. I could strongly identify with She-Ra (so dating myself, but it's a cartoon), with Xena warrior princess, hell even with Rainbow Brite (she had powers!). The characters from fairy tales, cartoons, comics and books that really resonated with me were tough chicks. He muttered something about "feminist brainwashing", and I said no, the fact that I identified so strongly with these archetypes of women was not because of feminist brainwashing. I just didn't "fit" the dainty princess mold; I broke things and got dirty often. So, here are the questions - #1 For those of you that identify as submissive, what archetypal characters did you strongly identify with as a child/young adult? #2 Did they change once you had that "ah hah" moment and figured out that you were submissive? Definition from Wikipedia - An archetype is a generic, idealized model of a person, object, or concept from which similar instances are derived, copied, patterned, or emulated. In psychology, an archetype is a model of a person, personality, or behavior. Archetypes have been present in folklore and literature for thousands of years and appear to be present in prehistoric artwork. The use of archetypes to analyze personality was advanced by Carl Jung early in the 20th century. The value in using archetypal characters in fiction derives from the fact that a large group of people are able to unconsciously recognize the archetype, and thus the motivations, behind the character's behavior.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Submissive Archetypes (2/21/2008 3:09:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Statepalace #1 For those of you that identify as submissive, what archetypal characters did you strongly identify with as a child/young adult? As a kid, it was actually males in business roles which attracted me more. As I grew, it became strong female leaders in historical eras which that almost literally never happened.- Queen Elizabeth, Catherine the Great, etc. quote: #2 Did they change once you had that "ah hah" moment and figured out that you were submissive? Nope.

Statepalace -> RE: Submissive Archetypes (2/21/2008 3:14:49 PM)
Very cool! I think that the archetypes people identify with, both as a kid and as an adult, don't have much to do with their orientation as, well as anything. I may be wrong, so that's the reason for the question.

colouredin -> RE: Submissive Archetypes (2/21/2008 3:24:13 PM)
I always identified with rogue from the x-men cartoons, dunno what that says about me tbh stealing peoples powers but an inability to touch anything without hurting it but i always saw her as strong and independant

StormsSlave -> RE: Submissive Archetypes (2/21/2008 3:26:10 PM)
As a child, I identified with strong women: Wonder Woman and historic women like Harriet Tubman and Amelia Earhardt. (yes, I was a history nerd, even as a kid.) Most of my cartoon watching was looney tunes and Tom and Jerry...lol. That hasn't changed. I don't think my sexual preferences much affect my personality like that. I identify now with strong women like Madonna and historical women. Authors and poets, like Nora Roberts, and Maya Angelou. Sex is sex: fun, but not the center of my universe. Fortunately, My Lord loves the rest of me as well.

Gleegal67 -> RE: Submissive Archetypes (2/21/2008 4:04:31 PM)
Started out with comic books and all the female heros in sexy outfits...Wonder Woman, Rogue, Storm...how I wanted to one of them! I agree with Lucky, I am enthralled with historical women...Catherine the Great, Queen Elizabeth, Eleanor Roosevelt, Annie Oakley, Sacajawea...all women that had met with great opposition and still made a difference!

Aswad -> RE: Submissive Archetypes (2/21/2008 4:08:44 PM)
Submissive archetypes? Try Mistress Denna from Wizard's First Rule by Terry Goodkind... definitely a slave, although she works as a top / interrogator / shock trooper. Health, al-Aswad.

Paulsgirl -> RE: Submissive Archetypes (2/21/2008 4:16:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Statepalace In our talk I mentioned that the role models (archetypes if you will) that I strongly identified with as a child/young adult were NOT the helpless princess types. Old Guard; ~princess~ the term for alpha female slave....definitely not a helpless type. As a former Prinsexx here on collarme i am certainly not helpless as i remain Alpha female.......

TracyTaken -> RE: Submissive Archetypes (2/21/2008 4:33:37 PM)
Sgt Suzanne Pepper (played by Angie Dickinson). Also Mary Poppins, who was no pushover. Jeannie, of course (Barbara Eden). The last two, certainly the last one, would qualify as submissive, but they were far from the powerless damsels in distress like Disney's leading ladies (Cinderella, Snow White, etc.)

Statepalace -> RE: Submissive Archetypes (2/21/2008 4:50:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TracyTaken the powerless damsels in distress like Disney's leading ladies (Cinderella, Snow White, etc.) Those are the ones that He was surprised I didn't identify with. It isn't the powerless part of the character I found so distasteful, but the stupid. I like powerless - can't handle stupid.

thetammyjo -> RE: Submissive Archetypes (2/21/2008 4:59:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Statepalace He muttered something about "feminist brainwashing", and I said no, the fact that I identified so strongly with these archetypes of women was not because of feminist brainwashing. I just didn't "fit" the dainty princess mold; I broke things and got dirty often. Ah, and thereby demonstrated what his own "brainwashing" was in the process...

Statepalace -> RE: Submissive Archetypes (2/21/2008 5:04:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo quote: ORIGINAL: Statepalace He muttered something about "feminist brainwashing", and I said no, the fact that I identified so strongly with these archetypes of women was not because of feminist brainwashing. I just didn't "fit" the dainty princess mold; I broke things and got dirty often. Ah, and thereby demonstrated what his own "brainwashing" was in the process... Agreed. He and I have (had?) different definitions of the word feminism. He took it to mean the "how dare you open a door for me, you bastard!" reactionary stuff that gave the whole point of the word a bad name. But that's another post :)

AquaticSub -> RE: Submissive Archetypes (2/21/2008 5:14:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Statepalace #1 For those of you that identify as submissive, what archetypal characters did you strongly identify with as a child/young adult? She-Ra - heeled boots, short skirt, a flying horse and a SWORD and she actually knew how to use it! Fuck feminist brainwashing - what isn't to love? Plus if you watch the shows now (I swear I don't have a box filled with old VHS tapes of He-Man and She-Ra.... really) she was very feminine. If you watch her and her love interest (Sea Hawk), there it was very clear that she didn't want him to like her as She-Ra - she wanted him to like her as a normal woman. I liked Mina Harker from the book Dracula. You kinda have to read the book to get it but she is very steadfast in her love and devotation to her husband, yet she is also quite intelligent and never faltered in the face of danger - even when her own soul was in peril. I also loved Ripley from the Alien movies. She was also strong but feminine. In Aliens she has a very definate maternal side and kicked ass. I liked Marian Ravenwood from Indiana Jones and I LOVED Princess Leia from Star Wars - yes she is tough, a crack shot but have you watched the scene where she and Han are repairing the ship and he's about to kiss her? He totally makes her knees go weak... And of course... Red Sonja. [:)] quote: #2 Did they change once you had that "ah hah" moment and figured out that you were submissive? Of course not. These are all strong women and they are wonderful role models - IMHO of course. I love them because they taught me that I don't have to rely on men. But I can if I want to, if it makes me weak in the knees and makes my head spin, which makes my submission and his ownership of me so much the sweeter.

MasterFireMaam -> RE: Submissive Archetypes (2/21/2008 5:43:55 PM)
Handmaidens, squires, magician's apprentices, witches familiars, knights, cops, fire fighters... Master Fire

quick -> RE: Submissive Archetypes (2/21/2008 8:24:41 PM)
I never identified with females as a child. The females in my young world were either menopausal (Mom) or in the throes of adolescence (older sisters). Women scared the crap out of me L. I identified with males, and my heroes were my older brothers, my swim coach, the Hardy Boys, Wildfire (comic book hero), and Green Lantern. After my 'Ah-hah' moment, my heroes were - and are - still male.

Archer -> RE: Submissive Archetypes (2/21/2008 8:41:09 PM)
I think the error so far in this post is to identify specific people as the archetypes. (Master Fire being the notable exception). It's not the specific character but the role they hold. For men a quick listing of 4 of the Primary archtypes would be King, Warrior, Magician, Lover. It is also important to note the presence of the shadow forms of the archetypes, as well as the mature vs the child manifestations. examples being The warrior has both the coward and the sadist (pathological as opposed to SM type) as it's shaddows. The King has the precious/devine child as well as the highchair tyrant as it's immature archetypes. So the view of the Hero archetype for both male and female children growing up is pretty universal. All those cartoons and TV shows tend to be about the "hero" the child growing into adulthood who goes through the ordeals and as a result the child "dies" and re emerges as an adult. Cartoons of modern times tend to minimize the tranformance and make it some Magical transformation from average to heroic. Dangerous ground to tread considering the realities of life. minimizing the idea of challange and growth and maximizing the role of magic powers. Lacking Magic powers how does a child grow into a hero? They are left to question this idea. Rather than being taught that a hero grows up and takes on mighty challanges and sticks to it until they overcome the opposition. (or insert the value you want to make universal)

juliaoceania -> RE: Submissive Archetypes (2/21/2008 8:52:48 PM)
quote: #1 For those of you that identify as submissive, what archetypal characters did you strongly identify with as a child/young adult? #2 Did they change once you had that "ah hah" moment and figured out that you were submissive? I identified with Johnny Quest and Indiana Jones. My mother was my role model of what I wanted to be in a woman when I grew up, but I identified with male adventurous types. I played with Barbies, but also loved basketball... so I was a princess-like tomboy. Long ago I stopped having role models for my adult behavior.

HerLord -> RE: Submissive Archetypes (2/21/2008 8:54:21 PM)
Mybe I missed something essential... But you only list 4 primary archetypes. While I will not go into ALL of the archetypes, I think it worth mentioning that there are many left off the list. These listed in your post are... perhaps primary, but not all of the primary. You make well thought out "examples?" of support, but I am left without a place on your list. King? I am not king of any one not in my domicile. Warrior? I do not fight for anything as noble as a country or cause. Magician? I have no powers beyond that of accute observation for what makes My Love smile. Lover? I am entirely too violent and hateful to fall here. So somewhere else I lay. With the limits of these four, I must dismiss the notion and expand it to more of the definition archetypes. My understanding, leaves me to believe that I may fall somewhere under the Bruce Willis type good cop, bad day. You know, has a good heart, doesn't play by the rules, doesn't play well with others... So, if you were to convince me I fall into one of these listed... How does one limit the scope of one, to accomodate the inclusion of another type? In the definition of archetypes the word generalization is used more than once. I think I am rambleing. quote: ORIGINAL: Archer I think the error so far in this post is to identify specific people as the archetypes. (Master Fire being the notable exception). It's not the specific character but the role they hold. For men a quick listing of 4 of the Primary archtypes would be King, Warrior, Magician, Lover. It is also important to note the presence of the shadow forms of the archetypes, as well as the mature vs the child manifestations. examples being The warrior has both the coward and the sadist (pathological as opposed to SM type) as it's shaddows. The King has the precious/devine child as well as the highchair tyrant as it's immature archetypes. So the view of the Hero archetype for both male and female children growing up is pretty universal. All those cartoons and TV shows tend to be about the "hero" the child growing into adulthood who goes through the ordeals and as a result the child "dies" and re emerges as an adult. Cartoons of modern times tend to minimize the tranformance and make it some Magical transformation from average to heroic. Dangerous ground to tread considering the realities of life. minimizing the idea of challange and growth and maximizing the role of magic powers. Lacking Magic powers how does a child grow into a hero? They are left to question this idea. Rather than being taught that a hero grows up and takes on mighty challanges and sticks to it until they overcome the opposition. (or insert the value you want to make universal)

laurelgoat -> RE: Submissive Archetypes (2/21/2008 9:14:08 PM)
You don't need to be a warrior to be able to fight. You don't need to be a king to rule your home. An archetype is not defined but what it can do, but what it is. A warrior can rule a kingdom, but if at heart he is a warrior, then that will forever define him. Look at Conan. Eventually, he gained a throne, but at his core, he was always the warrior. The four classical archetypes actually cover a lot of ground. A magician type doesn't necessarily go for long beards and flowing robes. Or cast magic missile at the darkness. A king doesn't necessarily rule, but he is, at heart, a leader. Perhaps it's just the choice of titles that's confusing, but believe me...those four cover just about everything in a very general manner. And that's what archetypes are about: generalities, not specifics. Going back to an earlier comment, I think the reason most 'princess' characters don't appeal to subs the way that many might assume they would is that they're written as stereotypes from the perspective of people who don't understand that powerless does not mean weak or stupid.

HerLord -> RE: Submissive Archetypes (2/21/2008 9:19:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: laurelgoat You don't need to be a warrior to be able to fight. You don't need to be a king to rule your home. An archetype is not defined but what it can do, but what it is. A warrior can rule a kingdom, but if at heart he is a warrior, then that will forever define him. Look at Conan. Eventually, he gained a throne, but at his core, he was always the warrior. The four classical archetypes actually cover a lot of ground. A magician type doesn't necessarily go for long beards and flowing robes. Or cast magic missile at the darkness. A king doesn't necessarily rule, but he is, at heart, a leader. Perhaps it's just the choice of titles that's confusing, but believe me...those four cover just about everything in a very general manner. And that's what archetypes are about: generalities, not specifics. Going back to an earlier comment, I think the reason most 'princess' characters don't appeal to subs the way that many might assume they would is that they're written as stereotypes from the perspective of people who don't understand that powerless does not mean weak or stupid. I appreciate and agree with the second portion of your post, however... I just dont get how these four alone could encompass the archetypes basis... Maybe this is a discussion best had not in hijacking someone elses thread. If any one is interested in "schooling" me, I am an eager pupil.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625