All of life, explained

All of life, explained (Full Version)

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

Message

AbeLincoln -> All of life, explained (1/12/2012 10:41:09 AM)
I think I've figured out what makes a submissive a submissive, and a dominant a dominant. It also explains a lot of the non-sexual D/s that runs throughout life. Why is that manager the manager even though his ideas are poor? Picture a parent and a child at the dinner table. The child spills his milk. Suppose the parent feels angry, and the child feels guilty. The child's strategy for keeping the relationship together is to send his parent the message I was wrong and you were right and I'll do better next time. The parent's strategy for keeping the relationship together is to send his child the message I am right and you are wrong and do better next time. It need not be that way. The child can say you gave me the glass glass. You know that glass is too heavy for me. It's your fault. The point being that right and wrong are not intrinsic in the situation. The parent can apologize and accept responsibility. And they can repair their relationship that way. There are nerds. A neighbor child might say no, you spilled it, you're responsible. Some people try to bypass leader and follower and claim that the facts dictate an answer. Since most times a group of people contains a sadist who's trying to shove the solution his way, and a lot of people who are trying to get along with the sadist, the nerd seldom affects the outcome. People acquire positions. If submitting has been an effective strategy growing up, you tend to get frozen into a submitting posture. If dominating has been an effective strategy growing up, you tend to get frozen into a dominating posture. If a relationship isn't going well, a submissive tends to "submit harder" to get that satisfying experience of closeness. Hit me harder, you can whip under my tits here I'll hold them up, yes I'll drink your pee. If a relationship isn't going well, a dominant tends to "dominate harder" to get the satisfying experience of closeness. Did you look at me? Did you look at me with your eyes, bitch? Eyes down! Open your mouth! Take this cock! Let's do an experiment. Measure each of your family members along this dimension, and see if the theory holds up. Here's an example: family Angry or Led or now Dom member Guilty Followed or Sub ------ -------- -------- ------- mom g f s dad a l d me g f s bro a l d sis 1 g l s sis 2 g l s (Tell the editor your table is "code" to make it line up.)

ResidentSadist -> RE: All of life, explained (1/12/2012 11:00:10 AM)
I realize your are trying to generalize. Which is why much of this doesn’t fit me. My parents didn’t really get angry, they got even, balancing the tables with recompense. If spilled milk, I would clean it up. If I was silly enough to try something I knew I couldn’t do, like a heavy glass, I was taught how to do it right. If I was bold enough to try something I didn’t know about, I was encourage to experiment. Simply put, I wasn’t raised under the environmental criteria you propose. However, your interest in this seems valid. Your dominant and submissive interests are relative to my human experiences. To others raised in a balanced power environment, that may be another situation. At one time I studied the physiology and social order of wolf packs. It was very enlightening. Good luck with you query.

submaleuk12 -> RE: All of life, explained (1/12/2012 11:09:34 AM)
I think it's a good thread. I find it interesting when people question stuff. My take on it is that control isnt natural behaviour, although it's a bog part of a lot of people's life's i believe it just learnt behaviour and one that can be broke. Read articles on control versus influence for example. When someone is young it's natural for them to feel angry when someone is controlling towards them, as at that age there will usually be in touch with most or all of their emotions, yet if that person is a parent a lot of the time they arnt allowed to express anger towards them, this is why children have tantrums etc, it's their body last stand against behind controlled, after a few tantrums they stop as they realise it won't work and hold that anger inside of tthem, even though it's damaging to the child's health, repressed anger can create athmaa, chronic fatigue, excema, psoriasis etc the parents feel proud of the child and remark how well they are behaving a what a good boy/girl they are. An emotionally enlightened parent would understand this but they are quite rare. Now this anger doesn't just go it stays in the body for life unless work is done to release it, so when someone is controlling to them sexually it spars of this emotion which is why the sexual experience can be so intense, the only other way is to deal with thhr root anger, but bdsm can be a substitute and an alternative way of dealing with it. That's my take anyway, I don't think it will be true with everyone but I think with a lot of people it would be, Id like to think so anyway.

Reform -> RE: All of life, explained (1/12/2012 11:10:31 AM)
I don't really get your spilled milk at family dinner comparison because there is a third option of realizing it was an accident, and simply cleaning it up. Why does anyone need to be angry or guilty in order to rectify spilled milk, let alone express submissiveness or dominance? My parents didn't lead or follow, they collaborated. I don't really see how this connects to my supposedly feeling guilty and thus became a sub..? And in school, I was very much the nerd, but dictated the outcome of projects because they knew I was right, not because I was a sadist (I'm not). Overall, I'm not really sure I understand or agree with your analysis.

littlewonder -> RE: All of life, explained (1/12/2012 11:26:58 AM)
nope, sorry your theory holds no water whatsoever in my family upbringing.

MSubEdinburgh29 -> RE: All of life, explained (1/12/2012 11:30:42 AM)
There is no formula that fits every situation, you can analyse it to death. Interesting theory though. I don't even think sexual behaviour is derived from real-life experience at all, whether that be childhood or adulthood experience. Why is someone gay or straight? Is it due to their upbringing, their childhood experiences, or were they born that way? No-one knows, and I don't suppose they ever will.. [:)]

submaleuk12 -> RE: All of life, explained (1/12/2012 11:40:31 AM)
Gay people have a chromosome difference to straight people. It's in the same way that someone would have a learning disability. It's not the sort of thing you would come out and say, if you do youd unlikely get a good reaction.

GreedyTop -> RE: All of life, explained (1/12/2012 11:41:38 AM)
the answer is 42. if that doesn't apply, then no other formula will fit across the board, either.

ResidentSadist -> RE: All of life, explained (1/12/2012 11:44:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop the answer is 42. if that doesn't apply, then no other formula will fit across the board, either. ^ Douglas Adams would back you up on that answer! Speaking of Adams, have you seen my new profile pic? [img]http://edge.darkgrove.com/photos/tn/tn_408246.jpg[/img]

MSubEdinburgh29 -> RE: All of life, explained (1/12/2012 11:45:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: submaleuk12 Gay people have a chromosome difference to straight people. It's in the same way that someone would have a learning disability. It's not the sort of thing you would come out and say, if you do youd unlikely get a good reaction. There's no conclusive evidence of that, it's all speculative.

submaleuk12 -> RE: All of life, explained (1/12/2012 11:52:29 AM)
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/genomics/2002/pierce/gaygene.htm

GreedyTop -> RE: All of life, explained (1/12/2012 12:01:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop the answer is 42. if that doesn't apply, then no other formula will fit across the board, either. ^ Douglas Adams would back you up on that answer! Speaking of Adams, have you seen my new profile pic? [img]http://edge.darkgrove.com/photos/tn/tn_408246.jpg[/img] I did, damn you. Now the song is stuck in my head. (edited to add a missing letter)

fucktoyprincess -> RE: All of life, explained (1/12/2012 12:24:12 PM)
In analyzing my own childhood, and my family members, I do not come up with the same results. When an "accident" happens in my life, I might feel angry, guilty, amused, or something else. It really depends on context. So, for me this didn't work. Personally, I feel I was born a submissive (although I didn't realize it until much later in my life). In my professional and personal existence, I'm actually quite a dominant personality, but in the bedroom, I enjoy power exchange. I don't know how to fit that into your framework.

MSubEdinburgh29 -> RE: All of life, explained (1/12/2012 1:06:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: submaleuk12 http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/genomics/2002/pierce/gaygene.htm Have you read that through? Here's a copy and paste from it: "Conclusion: Obviously, the genetics of homosexuality isn’t as simple as some in the media and elsewhere thought it would be. To be sure, little progress has been made after the initial findings provided such optimism." Anyway, veering off topic here (although it is somewhat relevant).

DarkSteven -> RE: All of life, explained (1/12/2012 2:37:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: submaleuk12 http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/genomics/2002/pierce/gaygene.htm From the article: "The scientific findings began in 1991 when Simon LeVay, working at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, found subtle differences in the post-mortem brains of heterosexual and homosexual young men. (The majority of homosexual men also happened to have died from AIDS.)" That did it for me. There were two populations, labeled gay and straight. The fact that the gay men overwhelmingly had died of AIDS and presumably none of the straight men had, was not considered a factor in the differing brain chemistry. No proof given, no speculation, just ignored. Horrible science. I didn't bother with the rest of the article.

mnottertail -> RE: All of life, explained (1/12/2012 2:50:22 PM)
That would explain that little slice of life, then.

Whenready -> RE: All of life, explained (1/12/2012 2:53:19 PM)
On the spilled milk, I suppose a third response would be to cry over it.... Seriously however your experiment bears no relation to my family's reactions, nor their current position on any D/s scale. Nice theory. Pity it isn't that easy.

Lucylastic -> RE: All of life, explained (1/12/2012 2:59:46 PM)
since when is a gene a chromosome ?

stellauk -> RE: All of life, explained (1/12/2012 3:21:45 PM)
I'm sorry but the OP is writing of dominant and submissive as a personality type when all the evidence shows that they are components of interaction and therefore a relationship and everyone is capable of both. I somehow don't think you'll get the Nobel Prize this year, but good luck with your research.

Lucylastic -> RE: All of life, explained (1/12/2012 3:36:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stellauk I'm sorry but the OP is writing of dominant and submissive as a personality type when all the evidence shows that they are components of interaction and therefore a relationship and everyone is capable of both. I somehow don't think you'll get the Nobel Prize this year, but good luck with your research. yeah there are enough holes in it to drive the titanic thru, My family growing up and my family that I brought up , the dynamic was nothing NOTHING like the OPs suggestion. While it may work for some, it sure as hell isnt the ONE right answer

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125