RE: For Dominants and submissives

RE: For Dominants and submissives (Full Version)

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

Message

OrionTheWolf -> RE: For Dominants and submissives (12/9/2008 5:26:43 PM)
Sounds like a good book, and one that relies on the biological nature of most males and most females. Society though often places things upon males and females that may be counter to their natural and biological selves. This is often where problems arise. A female that wants a strong dominant male, and that tries to control everything, has likely been taught via nurture, that not many males can be trusted to be in control, or that it is wrong for a male to be in control.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: For Dominants and submissives (12/9/2008 5:30:47 PM)
See here is a good example of what I just refered to. sambamanslilgirl has placed a blanket "this is wrong for how a female should act" just because as she states "in today's society". If someone's nature is such that they are not extremely submissive and defering to dominant personalities, then that is fine but to change one's nature based upon what society tells you, is to go against one's own self. Nothing personal meant in this post, just using it as an example of allowing societal pressures to make us act in a way that may be against our nature. quote: ORIGINAL: sambamanslilgirl being more feminine so he can feel more manly - now that to me is a bunch of crock. in today's society, you cannot be the "dasmel in distress waiting for your prince to save you" type of woman.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: For Dominants and submissives (12/9/2008 5:37:03 PM)
Maybe because there is some truth to it? I am not applying a blanket statement to all genders, but with the exception of a procreation strategy, male mammals are often built to be more aggressive and more dominant. I will state again, this does not mean all. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit Why can't people just stop it with this all "natural order of the genders" crap?

MadRabbit -> RE: For Dominants and submissives (12/9/2008 5:46:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Maybe because there is some truth to it? I am not applying a blanket statement to all genders, but with the exception of a procreation strategy, male mammals are often built to be more aggressive and more dominant. I will state again, this does not mean all. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit Why can't people just stop it with this all "natural order of the genders" crap? Like any group, can we put together a list of characteristics that can be more prevalent about the genders? Yes, but that's a far cry from being able to draw conclusively who will be fulfilled in what kind of relationship. Personally, my experiences with women and men have lead me to conclude that who has the power comes down to the individuals and I can't accurately associate it with one gender. People attempting to posture themselves according to gender based roles that society forces on them when the details of their relationship that I witness run contrary to what they believe about themselves really obfuscates the issue. I think if everybody stopped trying to live up to the socialized gender identities and identities they read in books about how a 'man' and 'woman' should be and solely focused on the question of "What should I be?" without the external influence, then everybody would be a lot happier, in my opinion. Just another thing that makes me wonder what exactly American society would be like if the Bible hadn't played such a strong role in it's development. Edited to Add : Another point to think about is whether the generalizations we notice among the genders are the result of "being that gender" or the result of how society "raises that gender to be". The success and existence of matriarchal societies tends to make me think the second.

mummyman321 -> RE: For Dominants and submissives (12/9/2008 5:51:41 PM)
I can honestly say I have always been myself. If the chemistry is right between us the control from the Domme comes naturally as does my submission to her. When that flow comes naturally has alway been the best and most memorial times for me.

came4U -> RE: For Dominants and submissives (12/9/2008 5:54:58 PM)
quote: The book talks about how, by trying to control every aspect of a relationship, a woman will actually find herself without any relationship at all, because that kind of behavior drives away the the very men she's trying to attract. To quote the book: "The more feminine you are, the more mascule he'll feel. Together, you'll complement each other beautifully." It encourages women to be open, receptive, and available to meeting the right guy, by not holding each man she meets to impossible standards and by not trying to control him. I don't nor have needed a book or phamplet to learn how to 'be or become more feminine'. It would be an insult if anyone were to consider giving me one. quote: And for submissives: The same question but in reverse...do you find dominants are more attracted to you if you allow them to be more in control even in simple ways (such as those mentioned above)? In any situations (sexual or other) that you refer to...it also comes naturally to be feminine. If i have to 'pretend' they are in control by allowing they are in control..no. The entire scenerio would be hogwash. quote: "The Surrendered Wife" which gives the same theories only for those women who are already married and in long term relationships). I'm naturally inclined to let any man I'm with be in control, but as a smart, capable, independent woman, There is nothing wrong with that, nor nothing wrong with a submissive who is just as smart, capable and independent be in control of certain situations..especially her own. I have been a military officer, imagine if I acted all 'girly' during work..that wouldn't go down so well. At home, I could relax, pain my nails, watch Oprah, submit to a man. You CAN be feminine without being all 'butchy' yanno. So I ran like a girl??? no sht..I am a GIRL lol. I can/could be boss to many, but with the right man......I prefer not to be----ever! Something just comes over me in the presence of a great man., being in control of that type could never occur. quote:* I still find myself making all kinds of mistakes which are discussed, for example: brushing off compliments, refusing offered help, ducking my head instead of smiling at people, etc. That sounds less of a submissive girl making mistakes issue and more of a gal who needs some self esteem. all I can say is: quote: So, I'm reading a book called "The Surrendered Single" by Laura Doyle, and it's basically a 'dating how-to' which emphasises that women will attract more men by being feminine, and also by relinquishing control over the men they date. Please, please make wise decisions in who who date and who you relinquish this control to.

YourhandMyAss -> RE: For Dominants and submissives (12/9/2008 6:14:12 PM)
lockit I do agree you can't controll everything, but there are certaint things I will be seeking to control, like I said in another post a few above this one, and if they don't agree that I set the rules on those few things, we won't happen:) quote: ORIGINAL: Lockit quote: ORIGINAL: YourhandMyAss See it's good to learn up to a certain point, not to try to control everything, but if people do run off because you are who you are, they were not good matches nor compatible anyway. To my way of thinking. It's far better to admit you're a control freak will try to control everything and are changing it but will never be perfect, than to spring than onto someone by supprise, cause since you were trying to learn not to be controlling, you felt it wasn't worth mentioning or soemthing. It's a joke around here with daddy and I that hey you knew .......... when we were first talking about dating and you chose to pick me anyway so you can't complain, but It's also serious in some ways. He knew I was all the things I am when we were courting and he was and is still ok with it. quote: ORIGINAL: Lockit Not trying to control everything is a good idea because if you do try to control everything, you are only going to run people off and live very frustrated. I've found with a lot of these books, they take a half decent idea, bring in their own concepts and then some will think they are somehow faulty somehow. I go with the old self help book... I'm okay; You're okay. If you just wish to impart that people shouldn't try to control everything... why bring the feminine stuff into it though? I mean, feminine is good... but what if you aren't? Hopeless cause for finding a spouse? I know lots of women who were not feminine or girly girl and they had a faithful and happy man standing beside them. Go figure! No one can control everything. I expect people to be themselves always. But... you cannot control everything in a person or in life and if you try, you will be frustrated and many times people will run... not walk... away. One who tries to control everything isn't being realistic and is no easy person to live with. Eventually one who tries to control everything finds that they cannot and it is how they accept or don't accept that, that can sometimes pose a huge problem.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: For Dominants and submissives (12/9/2008 6:14:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Maybe because there is some truth to it? I am not applying a blanket statement to all genders, but with the exception of a procreation strategy, male mammals are often built to be more aggressive and more dominant. I will state again, this does not mean all. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit Why can't people just stop it with this all "natural order of the genders" crap? Like any group, can we put together a list of characteristics that can be more prevalent about the genders? Yes, but that's a far cry from being able to draw conclusively who will be fulfilled in what kind of relationship. Personally, my experiences with women and men have lead me to conclude that who has the power comes down to the individuals and I can't accurately associate it with one gender. People attempting to posture themselves according to gender based roles that society forces on them when the details of their relationship that I witness run contrary to what they believe about themselves really obfuscates the issue. I agree with this based upon the last 60 to 70 years of western civilization, but.... I also believe much of it is forced societal expectations. We are not saying very different things. Notice my use of the word "nature", meaning being true to oneself. This is often very difficult as it may go against what society teaches us is the right and proper way. quote: I think if everybody stopped trying to live up to the socialized gender identities and identities they read in books about how a 'man' and 'woman' should be and solely focused on the question of "What should I be?" without the external influence, then everybody would be a lot happier, in my opinion. I completely agree but.... if society frowns upon a Man that is very dominant and wants a very submissive female, they are often labeled as misogynistic. So the socialized gender identities happen in many ways. Does it not seem better to accept there is a mean standard based upon biology and then adapted due to HBE (human behavioral evolution)? quote: Just another thing that makes me wonder what exactly American society would be like if the Bible hadn't played such a strong role in it's development. The bible did not play any role in the development of most Asian cultures. Ever thought of that? I think it is very short sighted thinking to write off all of this because of the Christian bible. quote: Edited to Add : Another point to think about is whether the generalizations we notice among the genders are the result of "being that gender" or the result of how society "raises that gender to be". The success and existence of matriarchal societies tends to make me think the second. I completely agree here as well. Many males and females grow up today completely confused as to what is expected of them, rather than examine themselves. Males that are too dominant or "manly" or cast off as brutish and misogynistic and females that which to have a male control them are seen as psychologically defective. These are the most common views held by society, from my observations at least.

atropa7 -> RE: For Dominants and submissives (12/9/2008 7:03:48 PM)
Gender and submissive/dominant/switch tendencies have nothing to do with each other. They are independent variables. And as for control, I have to agree with yourhandmyass. There are certain basic requirements that most people require in a relationship. Things like respect and consideration, just as starters. Ceding all control in a dating or relationship situation without outlining what the minimums of respect and consideration are is going to doom relationships just as much as an inflexible desire to control everything. For most people, obviously. There are going to be relationships where total power exchange is exactly what both people are looking for. Regardless of their genders.

lally3 -> RE: For Dominants and submissives (12/9/2008 7:10:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf quote: Edited to Add : Another point to think about is whether the generalizations we notice among the genders are the result of "being that gender" or the result of how society "raises that gender to be". The success and existence of matriarchal societies tends to make me think the second. i think its a bit of both. gender type is inherently fixed into the 'memory' of our genes, i believe, the protective nature of the male toward his female is still strongly apparent (with my 12 year old son it amazes me sometimes). im raising him pretty much alone, you could argue my matriachal influence, my authority over him would perhaps weaken his position as the male in our little family, but it doesnt, he is very protective of me and of what he percieves to be his world. I completely agree here as well. Many males and females grow up today completely confused as to what is expected of them, rather than examine themselves. Males that are too dominant or "manly" or cast off as brutish and misogynistic and females that which to have a male control them are seen as psychologically defective. These are the most common views held by society, from my observations at least. i agree that there is alot of confusion, power struggles are going off all over the place, you only have to go shopping to hear the squabbles and dissent going on. men are 'wired' on the whole, not all, to be in control - i see it in the older generation alot, through my work - where the 'old' way of the man in charge and the women quietly keeping house has a quiet order about it, each knows where they are. society changed, i think, when women started to go out to work. the role of housekeeper became a dual responsbility, bringing in the wages has become a dual responsiblity and the pressure on both to provide, rear kids, share responsiblity has confused the genetic wiring where historically the male provided and the female raised the kids. in just a few decades society has had to 'forget' millenia of genetic programming - when you look at it like that society isnt doing too badly and is testament to the human beings ability to adapt like crazy. but i dont think that deep down you can erradicate the genetic memory of how things have been for thousands of years. society demands that men and women pull together equally so mysogeny is stamped on and submissiveness is ridiculed and pilliaried in order for this new order to survive for the greater good of humanity and its continued survival in a world we have changed largely due to economics. its evolution and its fascinating really, when you think about it. edited to put my text into blue otherwise it was a bit confusing

lally3 -> RE: For Dominants and submissives (12/9/2008 7:19:05 PM)
which kindof puts into question whether what we're doing is totally anarchic![:D]

Racquelle -> RE: For Dominants and submissives (12/9/2008 7:20:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marie2...but not sure why the author makes it sound like this is something exclusive to women. Because it is intended to reinforce a specific paradigm to which not all of us continue to subscribe. In the context of BDSM I have no troubles with such a book. There are all kinds of books about becoming a domlier dom or a sublier sub. However, this was not a book written for the kinkster set. Pat Boone's wife wrote damn near the same book in the '60s - except hers was more honest about being a backlash against "those crazy wimmins libbers".

marie2 -> RE: For Dominants and submissives (12/9/2008 7:29:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Racquelle quote: ORIGINAL: marie2...but not sure why the author makes it sound like this is something exclusive to women. Because it is intended to reinforce a specific paradigm to which not all of us continue to subscribe. Well, I guess I understand that. I haven't read the book, but from what I have gleened here, it's a belief system that men and women each have a cut and dried, very specific, role to play in society as well as in relationships. I just think her observation that women (and only women) have a nature in which they try to control out of fear is one based on ignorance. Obviously there are plenty of men who do the same thing. It's an issue that I think varies from individual to individual, and has nothing to do with some inherent nature of each gender.

Racquelle -> RE: For Dominants and submissives (12/9/2008 7:34:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Maybe because there is some truth to it? I am not applying a blanket statement to all genders, but with the exception of a procreation strategy, male mammals are often built to be more aggressive and more dominant. I will state again, this does not mean all. Or perhaps we've been acculturated to define certain male traits as dominant and aggressive and dismiss or diminish female traits that could be defined as such. Perhaps we need to make an effort to see things differently.

persephonee -> RE: For Dominants and submissives (12/9/2008 7:43:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sambamanslilgirl quote: ORIGINAL: porcelain26 And for submissives: The same question but in reverse...do you find dominants are more attracted to you if you allow them to be more in control even in simple ways (such as those mentioned above)? it doesn't bother me that dominants may not find me attractive because i will not allow them to be more in control (ie ordering my dinner, etc). most are probably terrified of my aggressive, stubborn, independent and opinionated nature too. what matters most to me is that my personality attracted the right dominant for me. being more feminine so he can feel more manly - now that to me is a bunch of crock. in today's society, you cannot be the "dasmel in distress waiting for your prince to save you" type of woman. Yannow, youre really onto something here...one more damsel in distress drama and im outta here. Do i need help or advise sometimes? Yes, you betcher boots i do. Do i behave graciously when help is given? Absolutely. i am the most grateful girl when i am truly helped... Do i owe the Dom my life in return?.....no way. And there is no way to create dominant traits in a man simply by yourself behaving more submissive or feminine...sometimes all you get is two girls.[;)] Dominance=security of self and integrity..... perse

OrionTheWolf -> RE: For Dominants and submissives (12/9/2008 10:56:13 PM)
Why do we need to make an effort to see things differently? They will always be perceived differently, it is biologically mandated. I too often see mankind trying to force itself into how it feels it should be (society) instead of just being as they are (nature). Males and females both have their places within nature, and the continuation of the species. Societal adaptation is a speciality of the female mammal, and spreading their seed via any means necessary is the male speciality. If society pushes that a male needs to be a certain way, and many females hold to that, then adaptation of procreation strategy will occur. If something occurs within society so that a female must be more dominant or assertive to protect the young and such, then they will adapt. Now the question would be, are these adaptations good for us as a whole. or are the caused by external societal things that often push us against our natures. That is something that is still being studied by many, but my belief is that society has pushed mankind against it's nature and against nature. quote: ORIGINAL: Racquelle quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Maybe because there is some truth to it? I am not applying a blanket statement to all genders, but with the exception of a procreation strategy, male mammals are often built to be more aggressive and more dominant. I will state again, this does not mean all. Or perhaps we've been acculturated to define certain male traits as dominant and aggressive and dismiss or diminish female traits that could be defined as such. Perhaps we need to make an effort to see things differently.

Racquelle -> RE: For Dominants and submissives (12/9/2008 11:04:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Why do we need to make an effort to see things differently? Because progressive thought helps us progress, as a species. But, certainly, don't let me get in your way. It was phrased as a suggestion for a reason.

utopicus -> RE: For Dominants and submissives (12/9/2008 11:46:56 PM)
I believe that being yourself is paramount; playing a role sounds false and eventually you'll get tired of it. I've done that and I gave up after ten years. Wasted time. But a feminine woman could be in control very much and I personally find this totally seductive. As a submissive.

RainydayNE -> RE: For Dominants and submissives (12/10/2008 4:45:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP Her Christian focus of men are under God and women are under men annoys me. yeah, that's why i don't bother with alot of books like that. it's gender-based dominance and it's silly. how do you control women in the oh so ancient times? tell them "God says i'm better" =p who are they going to argue with? =p ugh. being "more feminine" -- in books like that means changing yourself to align with THE AUTHOR'S OPINION of what femininity is. whatever YOUR OPINION of it is is the only one that matters to you, and you'll attract the type of person who works WITH YOU. i once got into an argument with a chick over whether God requires women to grow out their hair since Paul says hair is supposedly a "head covering" =p but if God is supposed to be applicable to all human beings, what about African women who live in places where growing out a huge 'fro means sunstroke and death? =p blah. it's just Paul's OPINION. it's obnoxious.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: For Dominants and submissives (12/10/2008 5:57:48 AM)
Who determines it is progressive? Males and females are different for a reason, the compliment one another when two that are compatable come together. Maybe you just want everyone to be the same, which is an impossibility. quote: ORIGINAL: Racquelle quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Why do we need to make an effort to see things differently? Because progressive thought helps us progress, as a species. But, certainly, don't let me get in your way. It was phrased as a suggestion for a reason.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875