Are there any common fields of interest/hobbies among BDSM practitioners?

[Homburg]

No outrage, Homburg. And I didn't miss your line, which is why I wrote: "I realize that you did not specifically claim that such traits are *more* frequently present in Dominant personality types..."

I asked you a question. Why mention the fact that those traits are frequently present in Dominant personality types? Why not mention the fact that those traits are frequently present in switches, submissives, bottoms, and non-kinky folk too?

JM, are you trying to argue that those traits aren't frequently present in dominant personalities? Are sub, switches, and non-kinky types relevant to a threadjack on dominant personalities in military and paramilitary fields? How is your whole thrust here not a straw man? I said jack about subs and switches. I mentioned Dominants.

Dominants tend to be assertive, willing to give orders, etc. Do you disagree? Did anything in any of my post refer to, or imply, anything about switches or subs?

As to why I mentioned them, read your own posts. You asked.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I'm trying to understand your point, and so far - you've lost me. I just don't see the connection between those jobs and "a sincere representation of underlying dominant pathos" at all.

I didn't make that assertion, Rebecca did. Don't ask me to defend her point. All I did was comment on it, and then comment on a point you made.

As for service in the military, I do not think that runs "contrary to Dominance," any more than I think it is a representation thereof.

JMohegan: "I have never had the urge to police the neighborhood, or the world.

That's actually pretty far from my personal concept of Dominance, which is both a consensual and an intimate construct in my book."

I'm gonna repeat what I said in my first post here. Dominance is both a consensual and an intimate construct in my book. A soldier could be Dominant or submissive or neither. Same thing for a teacher, a cashier at Target, etc. I don't see a positive correlation between sexual preference and career choice among the people I know, and I don't see a logical reason for one to exist overall.

But I'm asking. Do you?

You did not make a post stating a lack of correlation. You made a post that was essentially exclusionary, and stated a position that put the relationship between one and the other at odds. I was trying to explain why someone who was otherwise dominant could serve in the military and law enforcement. I wasn't trying to establish some sort of correlation. I was explaining the possibility where your posts seemed to imply that the were mutually exclusive.

 

[midwestyankee]

For what it's worth, it seems just as reasonable to me to posit that many non-assertive and otherwise mild-mannered men might be dominants just as many women (and men as well) who hold positions of power prefer to identify as submissives. While it may seem that certain assertive or aggressive tendencies predominate among male dominants, I suggest that this may simply be an artifact of the self-selection that goes on among those who choose to live the lifestyle publicly and who participate in local groups and playspaces.

But that's just my fractional euro's worth.

 

[JMohegan]

JM, are you trying to argue that those traits aren't frequently present in dominant personalities? Are sub, switches, and non-kinky types relevant to a threadjack on dominant personalities in military and paramilitary fields? How is your whole thrust here not a straw man? I said jack about subs and switches. I mentioned Dominants.

Nope, I am not trying to argue anything. I repeat: I am trying to understand your point of view.

Dominants tend to be assertive, willing to give orders, etc. Do you disagree?

I disagree with the idea that Dominants (i.e., those who exert control in intimate relationships) are more or less likely than any other group of people to be employed in jobs in which assertiveness in key for success and the willingness to give orders an inherent part thereof.

You did not make a post stating a lack of correlation. You made a post that was essentially exclusionary, and stated a position that put the relationship between one and the other at odds. I was trying to explain why someone who was otherwise dominant could serve in the military and law enforcement. I wasn't trying to establish some sort of correlation. I was explaining the possibility where your posts seemed to imply that the were mutually exclusive.

I confess that the abstract references to alleged debating tactics are confusing me here. Therefore, I won't be able to respond effectively on the tactics themselves. I'll just ask you to please accept my word that I'm not trying to trip you up or piss you off.

Your response to my comment about policing the neighborhood and the world was to say, in post 38: "It has nothing to do with Dominance (at least in my case), and more to do with the personality traits that are frequently present in Dominant personality types."

In subsequent posts, I have been asking you questions in an attempt to understand that statement.

If what you meant was that Dominants are just as (but no more) likely to display various duty/protective/other character traits as anyone else, then we appear to be in vehement agreement.

Is that what you were trying to say?

 

[JMohegan]

For what it's worth, it seems just as reasonable to me to posit that many non-assertive and otherwise mild-mannered men might be dominants just as many women (and men as well) who hold positions of power prefer to identify as submissives. While it may seem that certain assertive or aggressive tendencies predominate among male dominants, I suggest that this may simply be an artifact of the self-selection that goes on among those who choose to live the lifestyle publicly and who participate in local groups and playspaces.

But that's just my fractional euro's worth.

This is very well said.

 

[Homburg]

Nope, I am not trying to argue anything. I repeat: I am trying to understand your point of view.

I disagree with the idea that Dominants (i.e., those who exert control in intimate relationships) are more or less likely than any other group of people to be employed in jobs in which assertiveness in key for success and the willingness to give orders an inherent part thereof.

And I agree. I was attempting to segment off a "certain type". There is also a disconnect here between "Dominant" in the D/s sense, and "Dominant personality type" in the simple Dominant Male Monkey sense. Sexually dominant versus socially dominant. Likely my fault for capitalising "Dominant" when writing "dominant personality type", and being insufficiently clear.

I confess that the abstract references to alleged debating tactics are confusing me here. Therefore, I won't be able to respond effectively on the tactics themselves. I'll just ask you to please accept my word that I'm not trying to trip you up or piss you off.

I will take your word for it. My apologies for being a mite testy.

Your response to my comment about policing the neighborhood and the world was to say, in post 38: "It has nothing to do with Dominance (at least in my case), and more to do with the personality traits that are frequently present in Dominant personality types."

Dominant personality type does not necessarily equate to Dominant in the bedroom. Should've made that clear.

In subsequent posts, I have been asking you questions in an attempt to understand that statement.

If what you meant was that Dominants are just as (but no more) likely to display various duty/protective/other character traits as anyone else, then we appear to be in vehement agreement.

Is that what you were trying to say?

Sort of. Hopefully drawing a line between sexually and socially dominant will help.

If we are comparing dominants versus submissives, hell, I'd wager they are either as likely, or perhaps even less likely. I was attempting to describe a certain subset of Dominants that have that strong protective urge. There are plenty that are selfish and wouldn't lift a finger, I'm sure. *shrug*

 

[Kajira Callista]

finds the yardstick and tosses it on the table.

 

[JMohegan]

And I agree. I was attempting to segment off a "certain type". There is also a disconnect here between "Dominant" in the D/s sense, and "Dominant personality type" in the simple Dominant Male Monkey sense. Sexually dominant versus socially dominant. Likely my fault for capitalising "Dominant" when writing "dominant personality type", and being insufficiently clear.



I will take your word for it. My apologies for being a mite testy.



Sort of. Hopefully drawing a line between sexually and socially dominant will help.

If we are comparing dominants versus submissives, hell, I'd wager they are either as likely, or perhaps even less likely. I was attempting to describe a certain subset of Dominants that have that strong protective urge. There are plenty that are selfish and wouldn't lift a finger, I'm sure. *shrug*

Thank you for taking me at my word and thank you for the apology, which of course I accept. Thanks, too, for addressing my question about your remarks. I appreciate all of this very much.