RE: Dom/sub trait comparison

RE: Dom/sub trait comparison (Full Version)

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

Message

crazyml -> RE: Dom/sub trait comparison (4/2/2015 12:33:10 AM)
I agree. While it's often used to avoid direct confrontation, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a submissive trait.

crazyml -> RE: Dom/sub trait comparison (4/2/2015 12:40:43 AM)
I've mulled this one over, and I really can't think of any that I'd identify as submissive / dominant. The superficial ones like confidence and assertiveness aren't necessarily indicators, I have a very strong preference for women that have these traits, as well as being submissive. I think submissiveness / dominance are traits that can sit alongside any number of others.

NookieNotes -> RE: Dom/sub trait comparison (4/2/2015 1:26:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 I don't think passive aggressiveness is a submissive trait. I actually know more than a few a Dominant men who were irritatingly passive aggressive, Passive aggressive behavior is manipulative instead of saying what you want directly. If passive-aggression is not a submissive (adj) trait, then what is it? As far as I can see, there is nothing dominant about redirecting anger and resentment into behavior, instead of speaking up. I'm curious. For example, I found this on submissive (adj): quote: Adj. 1. submissive - inclined or willing to submit to orders or wishes of others or showing such inclination So, in passive-aggressive behavior, the person is pretending (showing such inclination) to give in to the will of others, and yet, holding back. In a previous example of taking out the trash, "I would, if you had said something!" There were also these synonyms: quote: unassertive - inclined to timidity or lack of self-confidence; subordinate - subject or submissive to authority or the control of another; What is less assertive than saying you will do something (to get someone off your back, for example)? What else is saying you will do something to please another (whether you do it or not), if not subordinate? On the other hand, if you are using this definition and synonyms: quote: 2. Willing to carry out the wishes of others: amenable, biddable, compliant, conformable, docile, obedient, supple, tractable. You have a point. In the case of passive-aggression, they are just pretending to be that, to get their way in the moment.

sexyred1 -> RE: Dom/sub trait comparison (4/2/2015 9:04:51 AM)
Passive -aggressive is defined as "the expression of negative emotions in a calm or detached manner". That isn't gender specific, nor is it Dom/sub specific. It is specific to people who cannot handle confrontation.

BitaTruble -> RE: Dom/sub trait comparison (4/2/2015 9:09:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes If passive-aggression is not a submissive (adj) trait, then what is it? Childish.

sexyred1 -> RE: Dom/sub trait comparison (4/2/2015 9:14:17 AM)
And frustrating to deal with.

dreamlady -> RE: Dom/sub trait comparison (4/2/2015 5:12:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 Passive -aggressive is defined as "the expression of negative emotions in a calm or detached manner". That isn't gender specific, nor is it Dom/sub specific. It is specific to people who cannot handle confrontation. If a trait is not Dominant, that doesn't automatically make it submissive. If a trait is not submissive, that doesn't automatically make it Dominant. There are traits which support independence, self-serving interests, or which are avoidance responses. Passive-aggression is like manipulation, and neither are Dominant traits, but that doesn't make them submissive by default. BitaTruble, since these are both non-confrontational and underhanded, to my way of thinking. . . "childish" could describe these tactics, as forms of insecurity. Like you, sexyred, I see many Dominants acting passive-aggressive. I also see non-consensual manipulation being used, and when Dominants resort to this getting-over behavior, I find it pathetic and not amusing like they often do. If you are in charge of and in control of another or of a situation, then you wouldn't have to be manipulative. It shows you don't have the power or the authority to act aboveboard, or lack skills of persuasion -- but that doesn't make it a submissive trait. I hate to use the "grey" word around here, but there are many shades of grey other than black or white. DreamLady

switchblademoi -> RE: Dom/sub trait comparison (4/3/2015 12:31:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DerangedUnit There have been a lot of discussions about male/female dynamics lately. So I thought I'd attempt to cover a similar topic that interests me. Sorry if this gets confusing because it's a multi part question... A comparison of personality traits: Are there certain personality traits you see as inherently submissive/dominant? Are there certain personality traits you see as superior/inferior?(if you think that part is too inflammatory feel free to pick and choose which portions you answer I'm not a stickler for structure) Are there traits which you see as superior and submissive/ inferior and dominant or are they mutually exclusive? Do you take someone at their word generally if they say they are dominant or submissive or do you rely on some of those traits to define it for you? I'm curious if this is something that differs a lot or something people generally have similar views on. [:)] 1. probably the desire to lead and the desire to follow. but even thisshows why sweeping generalizations don't really hold up. In a sub Dom relationship, the dOm won't be leaving all the time what will be leaving in all aspects of the relationship. 2. and there are no end of positive and negative personality traits, but I don't think it has anything to do with BDSM. 3. I don't view a sub Dom relationship being about superiority and inferiority. I think if you had that view. Something is very very wrong. 4. I don't care what label a person put on themselves. But as soon as I begin to get to know them, label no longer matters and they are simply them

NookieNotes -> RE: Dom/sub trait comparison (4/3/2015 3:15:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 Passive -aggressive is defined as "the expression of negative emotions in a calm or detached manner". That isn't gender specific, nor is it Dom/sub specific. It is specific to people who cannot handle confrontation. As you are defining the term, it is a desirable behavior. In fact, very similar to how I handle things, as I rarely lose my cool, as it's just not a viable way of handling things, nor does it do good to get fly-off-the-handle upset. However, not handling confrontation is, to me, still a submissive (adj) behavior. Out of curiosity, where did you find that definition? Because I have never heard it used that way, and when I did a search on google for that definition, only this thread came up. AFAIK, This is NOT a common use. Nor is it the way I am defining the term (I already made my definition clear in my previous post). Here is another one, used the way most people in my experience use the phrase: quote: Passive aggression is a deliberate and masked way of expressing covert feelings of anger (Long, Long & Whitson, 2008). It involves a range of behaviors designed to get back at another person without him recognizing the underlying anger. Here is an excellent article about passive-aggressive behavior and it's origins: Afraid to Rage: The Origins of Passive-Aggressive Behavior The subtitle is: How unresolved fear and anger can lead to passive-aggression. Again, I suggest that acting out of fear and anger is never a dominant (adj) trait. It discusses how passive-aggression is formed when we are children, submissive (adj) to the ultimate dominant (adj) figures in our lives, our parents. quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes If passive-aggression is not a submissive (adj) trait, then what is it? Childish. Agreed. And children are the ultimate submissive (adj) people in the early years, because they HAVE to learn to please and fit in to get their needs met. Again, I will be clear. I am speaking about submissive behavior, not behavior of an ideal (or even a less-than-ideal) submissive. I am NOT saying that if you are submissive that you must have this trait. I am saying it is simply submissive to lie, be passive-aggressive, etc. It places you below another. quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 Passive -aggressive is defined as "the expression of negative emotions in a calm or detached manner". That isn't gender specific, nor is it Dom/sub specific. It is specific to people who cannot handle confrontation. If a trait is not Dominant, that doesn't automatically make it submissive. If a trait is not submissive, that doesn't automatically make it Dominant. There are traits which support independence, self-serving interests, or which are avoidance responses. If you use sexyred1's definition, you are right, that trait is neither dominant or submissive. However, avoidance, TO ME is inherently submissive behavior. quote: Passive-aggression is like manipulation, and neither are Dominant traits, but that doesn't make them submissive by default. Passive-aggression is unconscious manipulation. Not deliberate. Manipulation is a neutral behavior, and can be good or bad, based on what the intentions are. Passive-aggression, as it's used most widely (again, not sexyred1's definition) is a negative cycle of avoidance, resentment, and lying. quote: Like you, sexyred, I see many Dominants acting passive-aggressive. I also see non-consensual manipulation being used, and when Dominants resort to this getting-over behavior, I find it pathetic and not amusing like they often do. If you are in charge of and in control of another or of a situation, then you wouldn't have to be manipulative. It shows you don't have the power or the authority to act aboveboard, or lack skills of persuasion -- but that doesn't make it a submissive trait. 1. Just because one is A DOMINANT does not mean one does not display submissive behaviors. Everyone is a mix. Seeing a dominant (n) acting submissively (adv) does not make them less of a dominant (n), it makes them human. Everyone exhibits both d and s behaviors. And by saying it is submissive, BTW, I am not equaling it to bad. Dominant is not good. Submissive is not bad. 2. Re: the bold... How is that dominant AT ALL? How is this a leading behavior? -- To be clear, I am genuinely curious about that definition, sexyred1. I am not being snarky. I would be interested in the context that came from, and how it was used, because it truly does not match anything I can find on the subject. Not even close. I am open to other definitions, when they come from a credible source, even when they do not match my current understanding and knowledge.

Bhruic -> RE: Dom/sub trait comparison (4/3/2015 8:02:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DerangedUnit There have been a lot of discussions about male/female dynamics lately. So I thought I'd attempt to cover a similar topic that interests me. Sorry if this gets confusing because it's a multi part question... A comparison of personality traits: Are there certain personality traits you see as inherently submissive/dominant? Submission and dominance are, themselves, personality traits... which are revealed through a whole constellation of behaviors and associated traits. So yes. quote: Are there certain personality traits you see as superior/inferior?(if you think that part is too inflammatory feel free to pick and choose which portions you answer I'm not a stickler for structure) It depends how you define superior and inferior. If you define a superior personality trait as one that contributes exceptionally well to achieving an objective, and inferior as a trait that contributes poorly, then yes. If I am a Dom who is confident, that probably contributes well toward my goal of domination. If I am a Dom who is unsure and insecure, that probably contributes poorly to my objective. quote: Are there traits which you see as superior and submissive/ inferior and dominant or are they mutually exclusive? This is an odd question. A trait that is superior for a submissive would not necessarily be of any use to a Dom... so the question is superior or inferior to what? Some traits are not relevant to a particular role... such as sensitivity to your partner's state. For both Dom and sub a high level of such awareness might be deemed superior to some who lack it... but that doesn't fit the structure of your question. quote: Do you take someone at their word generally if they say they are dominant or submissive or do you rely on some of those traits to define it for you? If I thought someone was genuinely telling me how they identify, based on an aware understanding of themselves, then I would certainly take them at their word... even if how they express that identity is not compatible, and of no interest to me. Not everyone is doing that though... some people identify with who they wish they could be, or who they are trying to be. I still would have no cause or right to challenge them on their identity. It would be their behavior, not their declaration of label, that would illuminate how I would be inclined to regard them... especially if the point was to consider if they are compatible with me. quote: I'm curious if this is something that differs a lot or something people generally have similar views on. [:)] Since the questions run more toward vague than specific, I would guess you will get a variety of opinion.

dreamlady -> RE: Dom/sub trait comparison (4/3/2015 10:00:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 Passive -aggressive is defined as "the expression of negative emotions in a calm or detached manner". That isn't gender specific, nor is it Dom/sub specific. It is specific to people who cannot handle confrontation. If a trait is not Dominant, that doesn't automatically make it submissive. If a trait is not submissive, that doesn't automatically make it Dominant. There are traits which support independence, self-serving interests, or which are avoidance responses. If you use sexyred1's definition, you are right, that trait is neither dominant or submissive. However, avoidance, TO ME is inherently submissive behavior. Imho, avoidance to me is similar to procrastination, a sort of limbo state (which could be perceived as passivity in terms of ignoring/playing possum or momentarily being in denial) between the fight/confrontation or flight/actively avoiding (by running or ducking) response. If avoiding confrontation becomes habitual, then passive-aggressiveness is ingrained as a trait. Since this is not a Dominant trait, it is not necessarily submissive unless indecisiveness is not grappled internally, but seeks external and more authoritative approval. If a person has commitment issues and avoids making commitments, for example, would that make this trait or tendency a submissive one? I see it more as a sign of indecisiveness, fickleness, or a characteristic of someone who doesn't want to give up their independence by limiting their options. quote: <NookieNotes> quote: <dreamlady> Passive-aggression is like manipulation, and neither are Dominant traits, but that doesn't make them submissive by default. Passive-aggression is unconscious manipulation. Not deliberate. Manipulation is a neutral behavior, and can be good or bad, based on what the intentions are. Passive-aggression, as it's used most widely (again, not sexyred1's definition) is a negative cycle of avoidance, resentment, and lying. quote: <dreamlady> Like you, sexyred, I see many Dominants acting passive-aggressive. I also see non-consensual manipulation being used, and when Dominants resort to this getting-over behavior, I find it pathetic and not amusing like they often do. If you are in charge of and in control of another or of a situation, then you wouldn't have to be manipulative. It shows you don't have the power or the authority to act aboveboard, or lack skills of persuasion -- but that doesn't make it a submissive trait. 1. Just because one is A DOMINANT does not mean one does not display submissive behaviors. Everyone is a mix. Seeing a dominant (n) acting submissively (adv) does not make them less of a dominant (n), it makes them human. Everyone exhibits both d and s behaviors. And by saying it is submissive, BTW, I am not equaling it to bad. Dominant is not good. Submissive is not bad. 2. Re: the bold... How is that dominant AT ALL? How is this a leading behavior? -- I may be experiencing some brain freeze today, but I'm not clear what you're asking. [:(] I don't see manipulative behavior as exerting dominance in terms of wielding authority. Dominant behavior would be to take charge and control of situations and of others, whether by mutual consent or by holding an official position of authority, or by being an authority (expert) in one's field. DreamLady

NorthernGent -> RE: Dom/sub trait comparison (4/3/2015 10:35:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes If passive-aggression is not a submissive (adj) trait, then what is it? Well, I can't for the life of me fathom why this would be a submissive trait. It's certainly the trait of someone lacking communication skills, but in my experience submissive women are good communicators and aren't in it to play games.

NookieNotes -> RE: Dom/sub trait comparison (4/3/2015 11:05:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 Passive -aggressive is defined as "the expression of negative emotions in a calm or detached manner". That isn't gender specific, nor is it Dom/sub specific. It is specific to people who cannot handle confrontation. If a trait is not Dominant, that doesn't automatically make it submissive. If a trait is not submissive, that doesn't automatically make it Dominant. There are traits which support independence, self-serving interests, or which are avoidance responses. If you use sexyred1's definition, you are right, that trait is neither dominant or submissive. However, avoidance, TO ME is inherently submissive behavior. Imho, avoidance to me is similar to procrastination, a sort of limbo state (which could be perceived as passivity in terms of ignoring/playing possum or momentarily being in denial) between the fight/confrontation or flight/actively avoiding (by running or ducking) response. If avoiding confrontation becomes habitual, then passive-aggressiveness is ingrained as a trait. Since this is not a Dominant trait, it is not necessarily submissive unless indecisiveness is not grappled internally, but seeks external and more authoritative approval. If a person has commitment issues and avoids making commitments, for example, would that make this trait or tendency a submissive one? I see it more as a sign of indecisiveness, fickleness, or a characteristic of someone who doesn't want to give up their independence by limiting their options. I agree with avoidance. However, passive-aggression, by the definitions I've posted and all of what I've read (with the exception of sexyred1's definition) includes the agreement to go along, then NOT. Yes, I agree to go out Wednesday to your favorite bar. Then, I do not, because it's always your favorite bar, and never the one I like. I avoid it after agreeing to it. This, in my view, is different from someone asking me what I'm doing Wednesday night, and me replying, "I don't know yet. What's the latest I can get back to you?" quote: quote: <NookieNotes> quote: <dreamlady> Passive-aggression is like manipulation, and neither are Dominant traits, but that doesn't make them submissive by default. Passive-aggression is unconscious manipulation. Not deliberate. Manipulation is a neutral behavior, and can be good or bad, based on what the intentions are. Passive-aggression, as it's used most widely (again, not sexyred1's definition) is a negative cycle of avoidance, resentment, and lying. quote: <dreamlady> Like you, sexyred, I see many Dominants acting passive-aggressive. I also see non-consensual manipulation being used, and when Dominants resort to this getting-over behavior, I find it pathetic and not amusing like they often do. If you are in charge of and in control of another or of a situation, then you wouldn't have to be manipulative. It shows you don't have the power or the authority to act aboveboard, or lack skills of persuasion -- but that doesn't make it a submissive trait. 1. Just because one is A DOMINANT does not mean one does not display submissive behaviors. Everyone is a mix. Seeing a dominant (n) acting submissively (adv) does not make them less of a dominant (n), it makes them human. Everyone exhibits both d and s behaviors. And by saying it is submissive, BTW, I am not equaling it to bad. Dominant is not good. Submissive is not bad. 2. Re: the bold... How is that dominant AT ALL? How is this a leading behavior? -- I may be experiencing some brain freeze today, but I'm not clear what you're asking. [:(] I don't see manipulative behavior as exerting dominance in terms of wielding authority. Dominant behavior would be to take charge and control of situations and of others, whether by mutual consent or by holding an official position of authority, or by being an authority (expert) in one's field. Conscious manipulation, for example, behavior modification, is a dominant behavior. It is taking charge/taking the lead. For example, the first night Pet and I met, I told him that my main kink is behavior modification. He told me then that I could play in his mind. I have renewed that consent approximately every month since. And I have changed his behavior quite a bit, for the better for me, for him, and for his work. I am saying that passive-aggression is a subsconscious form of manipulation that is used when a person does not have the power to do what they want above board. It is not neutral, in my opinion. Failure is neutral. You can fail at being dominant or submissive. To be passive-aggressive, you must KNOW you do not have the power to accomplish what you want, so you take the non-consensual manipulative route, agreeing to something then not following through. Again, this is not a trait of submissives (noun) but a submissive (adjective) trait. Am I more clear? smiles quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes If passive-aggression is not a submissive (adj) trait, then what is it? Well, I can't for the life of me fathom why this would be a submissive trait. It's certainly the trait of someone lacking communication skills, but in my experience submissive women are good communicators and aren't in it to play games. I am not saying it is the trait of sumissives (noun). It is a submissive (adjective) trait. Two different things. Both submissives (nouns) and dominants (nouns) have submissive (adjective) and dominant (adjective) traits. For example, a submissive (noun) must behave in a dominant (adjective) manner to lead her children. This does not make her less submissive. It is a trait, not a definition of who she is as a person. A dominant (noun) may still act submissively (adverb) to his mother (or father). That does not make him any less dominant (adjective). You see where I am drawing the distinction? Simply saying "I know an X who does not act X" does not actually change the discussion.

NorthernGent -> RE: Dom/sub trait comparison (4/3/2015 11:26:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 Passive -aggressive is defined as "the expression of negative emotions in a calm or detached manner". That isn't gender specific, nor is it Dom/sub specific. It is specific to people who cannot handle confrontation. If a trait is not Dominant, that doesn't automatically make it submissive. If a trait is not submissive, that doesn't automatically make it Dominant. There are traits which support independence, self-serving interests, or which are avoidance responses. If you use sexyred1's definition, you are right, that trait is neither dominant or submissive. However, avoidance, TO ME is inherently submissive behavior. Imho, avoidance to me is similar to procrastination, a sort of limbo state (which could be perceived as passivity in terms of ignoring/playing possum or momentarily being in denial) between the fight/confrontation or flight/actively avoiding (by running or ducking) response. If avoiding confrontation becomes habitual, then passive-aggressiveness is ingrained as a trait. Since this is not a Dominant trait, it is not necessarily submissive unless indecisiveness is not grappled internally, but seeks external and more authoritative approval. If a person has commitment issues and avoids making commitments, for example, would that make this trait or tendency a submissive one? I see it more as a sign of indecisiveness, fickleness, or a characteristic of someone who doesn't want to give up their independence by limiting their options. I agree with avoidance. However, passive-aggression, by the definitions I've posted and all of what I've read (with the exception of sexyred1's definition) includes the agreement to go along, then NOT. Yes, I agree to go out Wednesday to your favorite bar. Then, I do not, because it's always your favorite bar, and never the one I like. I avoid it after agreeing to it. This, in my view, is different from someone asking me what I'm doing Wednesday night, and me replying, "I don't know yet. What's the latest I can get back to you?" quote: quote: <NookieNotes> quote: <dreamlady> Passive-aggression is like manipulation, and neither are Dominant traits, but that doesn't make them submissive by default. Passive-aggression is unconscious manipulation. Not deliberate. Manipulation is a neutral behavior, and can be good or bad, based on what the intentions are. Passive-aggression, as it's used most widely (again, not sexyred1's definition) is a negative cycle of avoidance, resentment, and lying. quote: <dreamlady> Like you, sexyred, I see many Dominants acting passive-aggressive. I also see non-consensual manipulation being used, and when Dominants resort to this getting-over behavior, I find it pathetic and not amusing like they often do. If you are in charge of and in control of another or of a situation, then you wouldn't have to be manipulative. It shows you don't have the power or the authority to act aboveboard, or lack skills of persuasion -- but that doesn't make it a submissive trait. 1. Just because one is A DOMINANT does not mean one does not display submissive behaviors. Everyone is a mix. Seeing a dominant (n) acting submissively (adv) does not make them less of a dominant (n), it makes them human. Everyone exhibits both d and s behaviors. And by saying it is submissive, BTW, I am not equaling it to bad. Dominant is not good. Submissive is not bad. 2. Re: the bold... How is that dominant AT ALL? How is this a leading behavior? -- I may be experiencing some brain freeze today, but I'm not clear what you're asking. [:(] I don't see manipulative behavior as exerting dominance in terms of wielding authority. Dominant behavior would be to take charge and control of situations and of others, whether by mutual consent or by holding an official position of authority, or by being an authority (expert) in one's field. Conscious manipulation, for example, behavior modification, is a dominant behavior. It is taking charge/taking the lead. For example, the first night Pet and I met, I told him that my main kink is behavior modification. He told me then that I could play in his mind. I have renewed that consent approximately every month since. And I have changed his behavior quite a bit, for the better for me, for him, and for his work. I am saying that passive-aggression is a subsconscious form of manipulation that is used when a person does not have the power to do what they want above board. It is not neutral, in my opinion. Failure is neutral. You can fail at being dominant or submissive. To be passive-aggressive, you must KNOW you do not have the power to accomplish what you want, so you take the non-consensual manipulative route, agreeing to something then not following through. Again, this is not a trait of submissives (noun) but a submissive (adjective) trait. Am I more clear? smiles quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes If passive-aggression is not a submissive (adj) trait, then what is it? Well, I can't for the life of me fathom why this would be a submissive trait. It's certainly the trait of someone lacking communication skills, but in my experience submissive women are good communicators and aren't in it to play games. I am not saying it is the trait of sumissives (noun). It is a submissive (adjective) trait. Two different things. Both submissives (nouns) and dominants (nouns) have submissive (adjective) and dominant (adjective) traits. For example, a submissive (noun) must behave in a dominant (adjective) manner to lead her children. This does not make her less submissive. It is a trait, not a definition of who she is as a person. A dominant (noun) may still act submissively (adverb) to his mother (or father). That does not make him any less dominant (adjective). You see where I am drawing the distinction? Simply saying "I know an X who does not act X" does not actually change the discussion. Christ, I've been beaten into submission by a barrage of falling nouns, adjectives and verbs.

Bhruic -> RE: Dom/sub trait comparison (4/3/2015 11:28:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes If passive-aggression is not a submissive (adj) trait, then what is it? Well, I can't for the life of me fathom why this would be a submissive trait. It's certainly the trait of someone lacking communication skills, but in my experience submissive women are good communicators and aren't in it to play games. I agree. I don't think all traits can be grouped as either submissive or dominant... some are ambiguous or just not applicable. As for passive aggression... it could be seen, on the one hand, as an unwillingness to confront directly, and so submissive... or, on the other hand, as a way of controlling the parameters of the other person's response, and so dominant after a fashion.

Bhruic -> RE: Dom/sub trait comparison (4/3/2015 11:32:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes I am not saying it is the trait of sumissives (noun). It is a submissive (adjective) trait. Two different things. Both submissives (nouns) and dominants (nouns) have submissive (adjective) and dominant (adjective) traits. For example, a submissive (noun) must behave in a dominant (adjective) manner to lead her children. This does not make her less submissive. It is a trait, not a definition of who she is as a person. A dominant (noun) may still act submissively (adverb) to his mother (or father). That does not make him any less dominant (adjective). You see where I am drawing the distinction? Simply saying "I know an X who does not act X" does not actually change the discussion. Is it really necessary to identify the parts of speech? Do people really not know the difference between nouns, adjectives and adverbs??? Interestingly... you could phrase things another way and say that someone who generally identifies as a submissive does not act submissively when leading her children... when leading her children, she is not, in fact, a submissive. Submissive and dominant describe an interaction dynamic, for the most part. Thus it is possible for the character of that dynamic to change with every new person, and every new situation. Maybe the best you can do is to be able to make a good guess at how you might react to a situation or person based on experience. And if you were isolated and had no contact with anyone, would you even be able to know if you were submissive or dominant???

NookieNotes -> RE: Dom/sub trait comparison (4/3/2015 12:21:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Christ, I've been beaten into submission by a barrage of falling nouns, adjectives and verbs. My apologies. I was intending to clarify. quote: ORIGINAL: Bhruic As for passive aggression... it could be seen, on the one hand, as an unwillingness to confront directly, and so submissive... or, on the other hand, as a way of controlling the parameters of the other person's response, and so dominant after a fashion. I see the first. smiles The second, no. It's not leading, or taking responsibility. It's not powerful or influential. It is suborning yourself to another's view, then avoiding it. quote: ORIGINAL: Bhruic quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes I am not saying it is the trait of sumissives (noun). It is a submissive (adjective) trait. Two different things. Both submissives (nouns) and dominants (nouns) have submissive (adjective) and dominant (adjective) traits. For example, a submissive (noun) must behave in a dominant (adjective) manner to lead her children. This does not make her less submissive. It is a trait, not a definition of who she is as a person. A dominant (noun) may still act submissively (adverb) to his mother (or father). That does not make him any less dominant (adjective). You see where I am drawing the distinction? Simply saying "I know an X who does not act X" does not actually change the discussion. Is it really necessary to identify the parts of speech? Do people really not know the difference between nouns, adjectives and adverbs??? I assume they do. however, to suggest that because he knows a submissive who does not exhibit the trait has nothing to do with whether the trait is submissive. And this keeps happening. "I know dominants who do this, therefore it must not be submissive." Again, the words are not related to the point, so I clarify. shrugs quote: Interestingly... you could phrase things another way and say that someone who generally identifies as a submissive does not act submissively when leading her children... when leading her children, she is not, in fact, a submissive. I disagree. She is still a submissive. She is just exhibiting dominant traits. quote: Submissive and dominant describe an interaction dynamic, for the most part. Thus it is possible for the character of that dynamic to change with every new person, and every new situation. I disagree. People are using those words to describe core personalities. Who they are. Therefore a submissive can have both dominant and submissive traits, and behave submissively or dominantly towards others. quote: Maybe the best you can do is to be able to make a good guess at how you might react to a situation or person based on experience. And if you were isolated and had no contact with anyone, would you even be able to know if you were submissive or dominant??? In a case like that, the point is moot.

NorthernGent -> RE: Dom/sub trait comparison (4/3/2015 12:49:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Christ, I've been beaten into submission by a barrage of falling nouns, adjectives and verbs. My apologies. I was intending to clarify. No bother, Nookie. Your intentions are readily understood.

Bhruic -> RE: Dom/sub trait comparison (4/3/2015 1:09:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes I see the first. smiles The second, no. It's not leading, or taking responsibility. It's not powerful or influential. It is suborning yourself to another's view, then avoiding it. Domination, in the general sense of the word, is not always about being a leader or taking responsibility... sometimes it is just about control. Lots of manipulative people use passive aggressive techniques to control people. If you are talking about a very specific definition of Domination and submission as it relates to kink, then I can see what you mean... but I am not sure the terms have been defined. quote: Interestingly... you could phrase things another way and say that someone who generally identifies as a submissive does not act submissively when leading her children... when leading her children, she is not, in fact, a submissive. quote: I disagree. She is still a submissive. She is just exhibiting dominant traits. Yes... but that is just one way of seeing it. I think it is equally valid to say that people are submissives when they are being submissive, and dominants when they are being dominant... and that picking one of those terms has limited meaning for the purpose of understanding who someone is. quote: Submissive and dominant describe an interaction dynamic, for the most part. Thus it is possible for the character of that dynamic to change with every new person, and every new situation. quote: I disagree. People are using those words to describe core personalities. Who they are. Therefore a submissive can have both dominant and submissive traits, and behave submissively or dominantly towards others. Yes, I understand what you are saying... I was just expressing the opinion that using those terms to describe core personality is not terribly accurate, or useful... unless the behavior is consistent. Think of straight and gay. I identify as straight, but like getting fucked by men... I can argue till I am blue in the face to you that I identify as straight, but how usefully descriptive and accurate is that term to your understanding of me? (although I admit that straight and gay are more clearly understood, or at least generally agreed on, terms, and most people would rightly say that I would be incorrect in identifying as straight.) I guess if the terms were definitively descriptive and useful we wouldn't be having this conversation :)

NorthernGent -> RE: Dom/sub trait comparison (4/3/2015 2:03:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes I assume they do. however, to suggest that because he knows a submissive who does not exhibit the trait has nothing to do with whether the trait is submissive. And this keeps happening. "I know dominants who do this, therefore it must not be submissive." Again, the words are not related to the point, so I clarify. shrugs Nookie: this isn't good manners, for obvious reasons.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.347656E-02