RE: Male subs' occupation

RE: Male subs' occupation (Full Version)

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

Message

Lockit -> RE: Male subs' occupation (5/26/2009 12:58:52 PM)
I don't see a pattern. Although... my submissive will have a new occupation... me! The rest doesn't matter much as long as he is happy with it.

frankieboy52 -> RE: Male subs' occupation (5/26/2009 1:28:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CatdeMedici quote: ORIGINAL: pollux (and btw, my guess isn't coming from a place that's like, "male subs make more/less money!" or "male subs have better/worse jobs!" or anything like that -- it's more "male subs probably live more in their heads and this might be reflected in their choice of occupation") If that theorem were true, they'd all be pole dancers.[8\|] pole dancers my eye...we'd just want to be the pole.

MsDDom -> RE: Male subs' occupation (5/26/2009 1:59:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lobodomslavery a lot of boys are out of work now. Women should not be surprised to having to select subs who are unemployed kevin if I work a boy is definitely required to work... even if I don't work a boy must work...it is part of him being a responsible boy. have yet to meet an unemployed boy...no specific pattern, seen yet.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Male subs' occupation (5/26/2009 2:16:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lobodomslavery a lot of boys are out of work now. Women should not be surprised to having to select subs who are unemployed kevin Having to select subs? Who will make us?

Steponme73 -> RE: Male subs' occupation (5/26/2009 2:40:04 PM)
I don't know that many subs, but I have not seen a pattern. I have had "macho" type jobs my whole life. Now that I am retired...kind of....I have not changed. I can see where highly stressful jobs would be a contributer...you just want to get away, not make decisions, be told what to do and not have to think...Been there done that!

Andalusite -> RE: Male subs' occupation (5/26/2009 6:01:02 PM)
There is a high percentage of kinky geeks, but I haven't specifically noticed a correlation between BDSM or D/s orientation and profession.

LadyPact -> RE: Male subs' occupation (5/26/2009 6:03:31 PM)
I couldn't say that there is a trend one way or the other. In My personal experience, subs come from all occupations. As for Myself, I tend to find a number of engineers. Lashara pointed out that many seem to be drawn to the military, but that is true of both subs and Doms. There are also quite a few who are in the medical field. My current sub is in the military and is a nurse. I've had engineers (of course), waiters, a massage therapist, and one high management. Yes, employment of some kind is a requirement.

pollux -> RE: Male subs' occupation (5/26/2009 10:38:04 PM)
Thanks for the replies everybody. Just to clarify -- I don't doubt that there are subs (and Doms) in all walks of life. And I wasn't really trying to consider whether the job itself had some kind of dominant or submissive nature. It was more along the lines of, if the person has a job where they work with their hands a lot, or have the type of job that's more physical than mental, I would say they're less likely to be a sub. I think this lines up with the Myers Briggs results that NTs tend to be overrepresented among the S-types (although, Sea, I agree -- sample bias in these kinds of things is a real problem). There are always exceptions to the rule, of course, but unless I'm really misreading the replies, except for a few cases (drywall/construction, nurse, massage therapist, firefighter, plumber), anecdotally anyway, it seems to be (kind of?) true. These exceptions seem to be outweighed by all the geeky IT/engineer/laywer/creative/legal types... But it's hardly scientific, is it? And a couple of people brought up the very good point that in this economy people are taking whatever kinds of jobs they can get, so there might be even less correlation just because of simple necessity... E.g., maybe someone's a laid off IT guy and had to get a job stocking produce at Publix or whatever. Anyway, it was just a stray thought.... I think the Myers-Briggs result is more along the lines of what I was thinking anyway. Heh, male sub thinking... See what I mean?

Calandra -> RE: Male subs' occupation (5/27/2009 1:24:55 AM)
Hmmm, I have had a mechanic, deliveryman (2), computer wizard, VP of an NHL team, fast food worker, aerospace worker, VP of a national corporation, lawyer, judge, disabled, construction worker... I just KNOW I'm forgetting someone... Really I think you are either wired for it or you aren't... and that wiring gets installed in any number of ways.

Calandra -> RE: Male subs' occupation (5/27/2009 1:30:51 AM)
I do notice that a lot of submissives find their way (almost subconsciously) to service industry jobs... massage, healthcare, hairdresser - really anything where they are ALLOWED to pamper/touch women. A friend once told me that she LOVED going to full service shoe stores because almost every man in that industry was (to some extent) a foot fetishist and she could tease all day long without having to take them home and fuck them - LOL

lobodomslavery -> RE: Male subs' occupation (5/27/2009 4:09:06 AM)
well all i can say is that a ) You are either very lucky and B) dont be surprised if you meet subs that are unemployed. there are after all from reports on this side of the atlantic 660,000 people who lost their jobs in the US last month alone. im sure the actual figure is a four or five million. kevin

lobodomslavery -> RE: Male subs' occupation (5/27/2009 4:14:22 AM)
why? why should it be Lady Pact. are you blinded to the economic reality out there right now? and why should you expect people to be employed when in the one and the same breath You openly admit to having fired people. Are you not one of the root causes of unemployment by doing this? do you not see the relationship between you and other employers firing people for ok economic reasons and the steady increase in unemployment? if people were not fired they would have work. if employers did not think about the money end of things alone, if person A does not make money for me this week, i will fire him /her etc, then we would not be in the predicament we are in. the crisis has been caused by unscrupulous employers firing their workers because they cant now make the millions they made in the good times by working the shit out of their employees and paying them buttons to do it. so what do i attribute the economic crisis which has befallen the world. ? in one word greed. Employers greed kevin

lobodomslavery -> RE: Male subs' occupation (5/27/2009 4:24:17 AM)
Mind you, Lady Pact, my former employers and You would get on very well. They said about me that my analysis of situations was over simplistic and that i was incapable of solving anything but very basic problems. kevin

lobodomslavery -> RE: Male subs' occupation (5/27/2009 4:25:37 AM)
my response is that maybe my analysis of things is simplistic but a lot of people are thinking that way now and blaming everyone from the banks to employers for their plight kevin

RedMagic1 -> RE: Male subs' occupation (5/27/2009 8:37:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pollux Myers-Briggs result I wouldn't put too much faith in the Myers-Briggs test. It's right up there with phrenology as a way to interpret human behavior.

PeonForHer -> RE: Male subs' occupation (5/27/2009 5:37:47 PM)
I was wondering about phrenology, Red - particularly in relation to the simple matter of dominants' and submissives' head-sizes. However, my findings so far have been counterintuitive. My own head is quite large, yet I met a dominant woman recently with a head the size of a peanut. So pop goes that theory. It's come to my attention that dominant women tend to have longer noses than usual, though. I shall report back with my findings after more extensive research.

LadyHibiscus -> RE: Male subs' occupation (5/27/2009 5:41:35 PM)
My nose is not excessively large, taking the size of my very bumpy head into consideration.

PeonForHer -> RE: Male subs' occupation (5/27/2009 5:49:19 PM)
I'm cheered to hear that you have a well-proportioned nose, Lady Hib, though having a bumpy head does, unfortunately, mean that you're a deranged psychopath.

Venatrix -> RE: Male subs' occupation (5/27/2009 7:32:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer I was wondering about phrenology, Red - particularly in relation to the simple matter of dominants' and submissives' head-sizes. However, my findings so far have been counterintuitive. My own head is quite large, yet I met a dominant woman recently with a head the size of a peanut. So pop goes that theory. I've never seen such crappy science, and you call yourself an academic? Pathetic. Was it a shelled peanut or an unshelled peanut? Did it have its skin on? Was it roasted in oil, dry-roasted, or raw? Was this a double-blind study? And, finally, are suggesting that we're all nuts? You go back and do that study again, properly. Edited to add: Technically, peanuts are legumes, but perhaps you were implying that we are full of beans? (For the Yanks out there, "full of beans" is a British expression meaning "to have a lot of energy." It does not refer to a particularly bad case of flatulence.)

LadyHibiscus -> RE: Male subs' occupation (5/27/2009 7:39:15 PM)
Full of beans means the same thing here, but only old timers like me say it! [:D]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875