dreamlady
Posts: 737
Joined: 9/13/2007
From: Western MD
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: RemoteUser
---
In p(l)ainer English: why does one select a role of following another, or to control another? There's basic urges, everyone has those, but when the chemicals subside and the flush of activity fades, if those interests still exist, what drives them? Is there a drive to establish order through direction or action; is there a conscious or unconscious method driven by an internal motor that creates a perception within us that influences how we interact with, or measures ourselves against, others.
Or maybe make this as simple as it gets: what, in your life, sets you on the path you're on as either a dominant or submissive personality? Does it just feel right? Are you in an environment that encourages your predilections? Do you make a conscious choice or run with your gut? Are you inspired to certain acts by your partner? (And I can't help but wonder, is this all more difficult, or perhaps in a way simpler, for people who bend both ways as a "switch"?)
---
When it came to considering myself a dominant figure, it wasn't about the things I was told made me better. It was knowing that I had the ability to lead others to be better, and knowing that I wasn't always going to get it right, that let me feel comfortable in my own skin as a dominant.
If you look at your own life, what factors helped shape you into the mindset that now prevails over your sexual life?
---
If I may make a few general observations. Anybody has the capacity to lead, to take on responsibility for self and others, to step up to the plate or to rise up to the occasion. If this weren't so, the human race would be in a much sorrier state than it is, and would have gone the way of the dinosaur already. Since your topic is framed by the concept of hierarchies, then consider however pecking orders are structured and how few omegas there are in comparison to the rest of whichever in-group. I am not saying that to be "truly" submissive, one must be or act like an omega in relation to everyone else. What I am saying is that an omega would be a follower at the lowest rung of a hierarchy. An omega could have been an ousted alpha leader, although they usually choose to leave the group as a lone renegade, but there are times when an outcast will start at the bottom and work his way back up the social ladder.
By the same token, everybody has the capacity to follow. He or she may not be willing to accept a higher authority than his or her own, but if the conditions are right or in the best interests of self and/or community, a leader must be willing to step aside or else be pushed aside. In that sense, there really are no true eternal Alphas because there will always be some kind of Higher Power which will prevail, even if it is a natural force such as Death. Here, I am not saying that a Dominant must be an Alpha-type personality, merely that any station above an omega can take on a leadership role over others who are "lower" in "rank" or who are willing to acknowledge someone else as ad hoc leader.
Then there are natural-born leaders (and conversely, natural-born followers). Perhaps this is what we mean when we self-identify as being Dominant, submissive, or a switch.
Now, to be specific. I believe that birth order has a tremendous influence on how we get soft-wired to assume positions of leadership or to expect others to assume them instead (as well as parental expectations). Growing up, I had an older brother who could be quite bossy at times. I hated it. I absolutely hated feeling dominated. For a while there, I accepted his authority when I was very young and I welcomed his protection. I found myself wanting to be the one in charge, to make decisions for myself; and in the process of doing that, I discovered that I made a good, capable leader who could inspire others by example and that I enjoyed taking others under my wing. Further, I saw that I made a better leader than most others, that I was decisive, exacting, and fair. My default mode was to act independently when not under another's guidance.
To me, exercising leadership is not about establishing Dominance. Leadership is about being the traffic director or the choreographer of any given group to function as a team by taking the lead; otherwise, we are simply operating independently.
How this ties in with Dominance and submission, is that imo/ime a Dominant seeks someone else to lead and to control, and to be in a position of authority of another/others. A submissive consistently seeks others to lead him or her. A switch tends to want to not give up his or her independence of action, and this is why I identify as a switch, because it is not a pressing need for me to always lead. I actually see the need to Dominate as being dependent upon others to fulfill our needs, and it can be more of an ego-driven impulse than just the expression of natural Dominance. In some respects, when D/s becomes wrapped up in ego aggrandizement, the submissive may not be a natural-born follower so much as an individual with an underdeveloped or insecure ego who seeks to be absolved of personal responsibility by placing responsibility for self in the hands of a more Dominant personality.
Sexuality is another sphere, and I'm not addressing sexual Dominance and sexual submission with my comments above. They could apply, but not necessarily. I happen to make a distinction between sexual D/s and sexual or kinky (BDSM) Topping and kinky (BDSM) bottoming.
DreamLady
|
Heirarchal Significance - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread