Clarify "natural" submission? (Full Version)

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



Message

Asherscorp1 -> Clarify "natural" submission? (4/18/2011 4:51:37 PM)

Through my browsing of these forums I have come across a few people who state, "I am not a natural submissive," and I admit to being intruiged and a bit confused by that. If someone is not naturally submissive what are reasons they would assume a submissive role? What is a "natural" submissive being compared to? "Forced" or "uncharacteristic" submissives? Just wanted some background on the terms and maybe some other people's interpretations.



OsideGirl -> RE: Clarify "natural" submission? (4/18/2011 5:11:48 PM)

I'm an alpha. I do not have a submissive personality. However when faced with someone that I feel is more dominant than I am, I have the urge to submit. I've heard it compared to a lion's pride. Among lionesses there is an alpha female, and she only submits to the head of the pride.

Part 2: No one is A natural submissive. Being A submissive is a learned behavior. You can naturally have a submissive personality. They are two different things.



peppermint -> RE: Clarify "natural" submission? (4/18/2011 5:20:28 PM)

I haven't the foggiest idea.  I believe natural, forced, or uncharacteristic submissives are rather like the true submissves so many talk about.  They are words whose meaning is only known to the person who uses them.  When I see them used I smile and move on. 



Hisprettybaby -> RE: Clarify "natural" submission? (4/18/2011 6:09:09 PM)

~FR~
I'm not at all sure what a "natural submissive" is. I do have a naturally submissive personality and the submissive role in a relationship is the most comfortable for me to the point where I freely choose it and do not feel comfortable in more "equal" vanilla relationships. So either I'm a natural at it or I have no clue what it means....who knows really? [8|]

~Hisprettybaby~



BitaTruble -> RE: Clarify "natural" submission? (4/18/2011 6:17:14 PM)

fr

I would not consider myself naturally submissive but I have a strong mothering/nurturing instinct and to make my loved ones happy brings me a great deal of joy. I cave to power.. pure and simple but it has to be a power of a greater magnitude than my own. When the circumstances are right, the power is there and all is right with the world.. submitting is as easy as falling off a log and feels quite natural to me and I'm good to go.



leadership527 -> RE: Clarify "natural" submission? (4/18/2011 6:47:35 PM)

I see it as an empty statement. Stop and think for a moment... who does things... especially things as important as a primary relationship... in ways which seem unnatural to them? Obviously, everyone is a "natural sub" within the context of how and when they submit. I used to refer to Carol that way until I figured this out. Lately I've referred to her as socially submissive or generally submissive or submissive by default. In my own head I've come to think of it as:

dominant personalities that submit
submissive personalities that submit

Both are doing what comes "naturally" to them but the thing they are doing is very different one layer under the surface.



Fluke -> RE: Clarify "natural" submission? (4/18/2011 7:01:54 PM)

This has actually been on my mind the last few years, observing the comings and goings of temporary bosses and leaders in this competitive business branch/company of mine...

During my few years (5) I've seen people come and go, come and move up, come and (for the moment) stay, and I've had a taste of it myself and found it to be incompatible with my personality and causing me more stress than I can handle, and am now finding myself in the situation of having to watch people younger than myself both try at it and fail and try at it in an obvious attempt at moving on and succeed, and this has led me to consider why *I* never followed the path that was presented to me on a silver platter..

It's because I'm a so called "natural" submissive. I'm not comfortable in a leadership position. I sure as hell can be rebellious, but I do not under any circumstances have any ambition to take over, I prefer following.




aromanholiday -> RE: Clarify "natural" submission? (4/18/2011 7:50:46 PM)

You hear people say in terms of other talents or skills, "s/he's a natural." Perhaps this phrase means something like that: like a baseball player with an enormous amount of raw talent that wasn't due to training or even motivation in particular. He can just hit a ball.

Also, when someone says they are not a natural submissive, it often means they find submission personally hard or challenging, but something about it is rewarding enough that they preserve. Plus it would sound silly to say, "I am such an unnatural submissive," unless you were intimating that you had some very strange fetishes!



DesFIP -> RE: Clarify "natural" submission? (4/18/2011 8:35:18 PM)

Unlike OsideGirl, I'm not an alpha personality. I am naturally submissive. However I don't usually allow myself to indulge it unless I am absolutely sure about the abilities and values of the person I want to submit to.



Palliata -> RE: Clarify "natural" submission? (4/18/2011 10:26:06 PM)

This is not a term I've heard applied to the lifestyle, but I could see it being applicable in a way. If you spend a good bit of time with a 'nilla you can elicit a reaction in them which is a close approximation of complete submission. There's always those little hairline flaws which show where you poured them into the mold, to torture a metaphor, but it can nonetheless be quite a facsimile.

The point is that that would be the opposite of natural submission which is inborn and comes from a natural tendency and a corresponding set of developmental stimuli. Similar, but not quite the same, and it would be assumed most would find "natural" superior to something they had to create in contrast to what a person was when they met.



OwnedFemaleFlesh -> RE: Clarify "natural" submission? (4/18/2011 10:35:53 PM)

For me, it's usually a statement about how submisive, or not, the person appears to be in their ordinary life. Some people just come across very submissive and it's no surprise that that's how they like to be in their relationship. Other people seem very unsubmissive, and it comes as a surprise that they prefer that role with their partner. I personally don't use terms like alpha or beta (we're not a pack of animals!) but in my life I'm quite loud, headstrong, a little bit bossy and sometimes I have a bad temper. It causes no end of fascination with friends and family that I'm the submissive one in our relationship. I think when people use the term 'naturally submissive' it just means that they're generally quite a submissive person in all aspects of their life.

owned xxx



coookie -> RE: Clarify "natural" submission? (4/18/2011 10:48:13 PM)

For me when i see " i am a true submissive" it means "i am a good sub and never disobey"
But when i see " i am not a true submissive" it means "i am not a doormat! You have to win my submissiveness"

I think submissive is .... i like to defer authority. I am not perfect and i get all uppity. I am not perfect and am sometimes a door mat.
It is all situational i think.



agirl -> RE: Clarify "natural" submission? (4/19/2011 7:00:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Asherscorp1

Through my browsing of these forums I have come across a few people who state, "I am not a natural submissive," and I admit to being intruiged and a bit confused by that. If someone is not naturally submissive what are reasons they would assume a submissive role? What is a "natural" submissive being compared to? "Forced" or "uncharacteristic" submissives? Just wanted some background on the terms and maybe some other people's interpretations.


I really couldn't say what anyone else might mean when they say those things.

I'm not a submissive person, but haven't given much thought to what I AM, other than whether or not I wanted, or was able, to be in an M/s relationship.

I'm not *forced* to be *a* submissive....'though I am *forced* by dint of my own choice to BE submissive.( unsurprisingly, a part of the job)

I'm not a *naturally submissive* person , but I have never seen that as any reason not to choose this style of relationship. The reasons are manyfold.....but in regards to M and M only!....

..He's the bee's bollocks, he can do the nasty grind, the hard work and he can do the utter fun.
He can beat me bloody, he can roll me in the snow naked.
He can wake me before dawn, with scraggy hair and in the freezing cold, drive with the roof down on the car, to the highest point in the county to watch the sunrise...............then drive back and demand brekky.
He can throw a blanket down in the garden in the summe and lay there showing me all the stars and constellations.
He can take over my breast biopsy, by advising the staff to leave me to his ministrations...and have the staff leave him to it.
He can support and guide me through horrid family situations, including my young daughter having a stroke.

No-one can ignore the utter connection we have. 
He can tell me to *keep still!* and pierce me. 
He can sit with me throughout my first tattoo, letting the tattooist do his job but controlling HOW...to make it the best experience for me.
He can enable me to bear my other piercings without pain relief.

This is simply NOT just about being *submissive* or *dominant*......It's far more about understanding and being able to live with what you understand.

It really has no bearing on being owned or living this way, apart from whether or not you are willing and able to.

M and I are on the same page.....It doesn't rely at ALL on me having a submissive bone in my body, it relies on me understanding what I want, what I asked for and living up to it. We are BOTH free....and we freely chose this with each other and it matters not a jot whether I'm a natural or not. I still do it and, believe me, you'd be hard pressed to see any difference at all.

agirl










HannahLynHeather -> RE: Clarify "natural" submission? (4/19/2011 9:40:06 AM)

quote:

No one is A natural submissive. Being A submissive is a learned behavior. You can naturally have a submissive personality. They are two different things.
this.

hannah lynn



littlewonder -> RE: Clarify "natural" submission? (4/19/2011 10:36:24 AM)

for me it means it's my personality. i abhor being in control in any situation, will always take a backseat. i'm the type that will hide behind the wall so she doesn't get picked and does everything in her power to avoid conflict. for me that's what the term means.



paulmcuk -> RE: Clarify "natural" submission? (4/19/2011 10:40:27 AM)

Different things to different people I would expect. I do sometimes describe myself as being naturally submissive (to women) for the reason that, one way or another, I've felt inferior to/in awe of females for as long as I can remember. Even when I played with the girl next door as a child, it was she who took the lead in play.

That's not to say my submissiveness is always on display - for the most part I go through life without anyone seeign a hint of it. But it's always at the back of my mind.



CalifChick -> RE: Clarify "natural" submission? (4/19/2011 10:47:52 AM)

I've never heard anyone say someone was "naturally heterosexual" or "naturally lesbian" or anything like that.  I put "natural submission" into that same category.





Hisprettybaby -> RE: Clarify "natural" submission? (4/19/2011 11:33:54 AM)

~FR~
When I hear the term "natural submissive" used, I just feel that it means submission comes naturally to that person. In that way, I could use it referring to myself, but I don't. It's just one of those terms that gets discussed forever without ever coming up with a uniform definition, like "real" and "true" are.

~Hisprettybaby~



Focus50 -> RE: Clarify "natural" submission? (4/19/2011 2:27:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Asherscorp1

Through my browsing of these forums I have come across a few people who state, "I am not a natural submissive," and I admit to being intruiged and a bit confused by that. If someone is not naturally submissive what are reasons they would assume a submissive role? What is a "natural" submissive being compared to? "Forced" or "uncharacteristic" submissives? Just wanted some background on the terms and maybe some other people's interpretations.


I think "natural" is a term people use to signify that their submission (or dominance) isn't just an adopted role for the purpose of D/s kink or intimacies. That it's natural to them to submit in just about all ways to their partner's choices - in and out of the bedroom.

And I'm fine with that. It's desirable to me, actually, which makes "natural" a relevant piece of the communication puzzle.

Focus.



tazzygirl -> RE: Clarify "natural" submission? (4/19/2011 2:30:07 PM)

~FR

Hmmm.. natural vs learned?



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875