How do you know?

[Etoile]

Well, that's always been pretty clear-cut for me. Judging from Etoile's post above, apparently it's not so clear for everyone. But for me, I'm a woman who likes men and has absolutely no sexual interest in women; therefore, I'm straight. Easy answer. There seem to be pretty clear definitions of what is straight vs. gay vs. bi: are you interested in people of your own gender, the opposite gender, or both? So while I understand that those lines can be blurry for a variety of reasons for different people, they never were for me so I never really thought about it.

It's not so much proof (that was probably a bad word choice), but more a standard definition. The more I read, the more broad definitions become and the harder it is to figure it out. Would you be a sub if you were attracted only to dominant men, but didn't have other subbie thoughts (whatever those are)? Or is there a mindset, a belief, an activity, something that is the defining characteristic?

Ah, you are going down the right path. I thought about mentioning generally accepted definitions, but I didn't get a chance to work it in.

You're exactly right. Women who prefer men are straight, women who prefer women are lesbians. It's not confusing at all. People who like to give up control are submissive, people who like to take that control are dominant. What my post was meant to do, though, was steer you away from what seemed to be the "what is a TRUE submissive" mindset. I was trying to show you that there is no way to pigeonhole everybody. No path through BDSM is the "right" way. Nobody is a "better" submissive than another. Everybody's approach to BDSM is different, and yeah many people agree on things, but not all. For example, some people say that in order to live 24/7 TPE, you have to live together; others say it can be done in long distance relationships. The only people whose opinions matter are the people involved, so you can't tell somebody "your relationship isn't really TPE, you decide x y and z for yourself because you live apart, it's only TPE if you live together and your Master decides x y and z for you." Each couple is different, and while we agree on most things, we can never agree on everything!

There is no defining characteristic in the way that you're looking for. To follow your example, maybe someone submits to her husband fully in the bedroom but they make household decisions together. Or maybe he DOES make all the household decisions...including letting her keep her job as a personal trainer who bosses people around and yells at them to work harder. Just because she's a stern taskmaster on the job doesn't make her less of a submissive at home. And heck, it doesn't mean she's not wearing a buttplug under her gym shorts, either.

You mentioned the word proof, and you acknowledged that it was a poor word choice, but I'm going to use it anyway. It relates back to "only I decide who I am."

Let's say I'm Jewish. Do you need me to get out my Star of David necklace, show you my menorah, and offer you kosher food? No, you believe me. I'm Jewish.

Let's say I tell you I'm dominant. Do you need me to show off my spanking skills, make my slave grovel at my feet, and show you my collection of whips? No, you believe me. I am who I am.

You know the *general* idea of being submissive, right? There's a whole BDSM story section that can clarify it if necessary! So what additional evidence do you need to define yourself? If you show up at a munch and say "I'm a submissive" nobody is going to quiz you on it. It's about who you are, not who others say you are.

So, yeah. You pick. Sub, dom, switch, vanilla. We're not going to question you if you declare yourself one of those. We don't need you to prove anything to us. (I can think of some hot scenes involving a Master demanding his slave prove just how much she loves to submit to him, though!) But again, nobody here, or anywhere, will ask you for your credentials. You are who you say you are.

 

[NALA CAYENNE]

Don't worry, I don't feel like you're jumping on me, and I'm very appreciative of all the answers you and others are willing to give me

I agree with you, I don't think everything has to have a reason. That's part of why I asked that question; seeing that someone felt the need to list reasons within a definition seemed odd to me, but I wanted to get others' opinions. A lot of people compare it to being straight/gay/bi... is there a reason for that? None that I've ever heard of, it's just what you are. If there are reasons for it, it seems like a more active choice, or at least something that is changeable and influenced by others or your environment; if there are no reasons, then it's more an ingrained part of you.

And in this life, thats what it boils down to with a lot of us...who we are is just a part of who we are. I guess this is where I ask you: what part of this is who you are? if you had to reach deep down inside of yourself and find your true self, who is Valleyl81?

 

[00Syd]

So how or when did you know you were submissive? Even if you're someone who has "always known", what led you to give yourself that label?

Because when I stumbled across the term "submissive" I had an "AHA!" moment that would probably be similar to the moment I would theoretically have if I had not heard the term "straight" my entire life and stumbled across it one day. I realized that the term "submissive" described for me the way that I feel in relation to others during sex and in relationships. Upon hearing the term I realized that the desires I always had, but that I could never describe, were in fact desires to "submit" to another. And so, upon this astounding revelation, I came to define myself in part as a submissive.

 

[NALA CAYENNE]

Because when I stumbled across the term "submissive" I had an "AHA!" moment that would probably be similar to the moment I would theoretically have if I had not heard the term "straight" my entire life and stumbled across it one day. I realized that the term "submissive" described for me the way that I feel in relation to others during sex and in relationships. Upon hearing the term I realized that the desires I always had, but that I could never describe, were in fact desires to "submit" to another. And so, upon this astounding revelation, I came to define myself in part as a submissive.

I could not have said that better myself 00Syd

And in agreement with that I add that most of us have always known what we are one way or another, could identify with the inherent need to be whatever it was, we just didn't have a name or term for what it was.

 

[Ladythunder]

So how or when did you know you were submissive? Even if you're someone who has "always known", what led you to give yourself that label?

I am guilty of being young (everyone is at some point lol) However, I was also relatively repressed being brought up the way I was and so had no experience whatsoever with alternative sexuality.

Then Secretary came out. (yeah ok, stereotypical and all that but it was my epiphany) I viewed the female character as someone I could really relate to and the things that she did and had done to her were electric and completely captivating.

That was several years ago but it was the beginning of my journey and I have grown immeasurably since then. The Dominant side of my persona happened by chance, I don't really recall the first moment if began to emerge but as it did, it too felt comfortable as if I had been born to be.

As I said, I dislike labels and pigeonholing but I also believe to thine own self be true and as each day passes, I am getting closer to being so.

 

[Etoile]

BTW, everything I say is mostly just riffing on what's in my own head. I like sociology, but I'm not a sociologist, and I'm not a psychologist either.

 

[Sir Victor]

So the general idea that I'm getting is that I can be whatever I want and call myself whatever I want without needing to have any sort of proof to back it up?



I find it interesting that there are reasons listed in these definitions. I wonder, do you (that's a plural you to anyone who wants to answer) think that these reasons really are the most common reasons? Do people usually have active, conscious reasons for being a submissive or dominant?

No, I believe rather that it is basic animal instinct that social conditioning teaches us to repress:
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=353585

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=12662239&postcount=19

Obviously social conditioning plays a part, but the D/s instinct is hardwired into our basic lower (animal) brain function. Animals fight to be the dominant Alpha male in the wild and there is obviously a sexual reward of getting the pick of the females. The males also dominate the females when engaging in sex. There is also usually an Alpha female as I understand it, so there is also a D/s factor within the female group. It is very simple that the strongest, most capable fighter rises to lead the group; basic instinct to support organization and thriving of the species.

 

[Valleyl81]

No, I believe rather that it is basic animal instinct that social conditioning teaches us to repress:
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=353585

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=12662239&postcount=19

Obviously social conditioning plays a part, but the D/s instinct is hardwired into our basic lower (animal) brain function. Animals fight to be the dominant Alpha male in the wild and there is obviously a sexual reward of getting the pick of the females. The males also dominate the females when engaging in sex. There is also usually an Alpha female as I understand it, so there is also a D/s factor within the female group. It is very simple that the strongest, most capable fighter rises to lead the group; basic instinct to support organization and thriving of the species.

Interesting, though both of those links really only addressed the issue of male domination... so what's up with female domination, or any submission? And the rewards of domination doesn't seem to jibe with what twysted73 said earlier about there being more submissives than dominants. Wouldn't something like this increase the likelihood of men with dominant personalities?

Another thing I find particularly interesting is this idea that male domination is somehow natural or "hardwired" into humans not only fits with science, but also matches Biblical teachings. Because I've been taught to always cite my source (even though you may not care), the Bible is most blatant on this issue in Ephesians 5:22-24: "(22)Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. (23)For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. (24)Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

 

[Etoile]

No, I believe rather that it is basic animal instinct that social conditioning teaches us to repress:
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=353585

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=12662239&postcount=19

Obviously social conditioning plays a part, but the D/s instinct is hardwired into our basic lower (animal) brain function. Animals fight to be the dominant Alpha male in the wild and there is obviously a sexual reward of getting the pick of the females. The males also dominate the females when engaging in sex. There is also usually an Alpha female as I understand it, so there is also a D/s factor within the female group. It is very simple that the strongest, most capable fighter rises to lead the group; basic instinct to support organization and thriving of the species.

The problem with this theory is that we are not "in the wild," and the human species does not depend upon this structure. 90-pound weaklings can procreate every bit as successfully as football linebackers. Also, it sounds like you're trying to say that human D/s is practiced in the same ways, and for the same purposes, as animal social structures. I have to disagree with that pretty strongly: the reason humans practice BDSM has nothing to do with Darwinism.

 

[Etoile]

Interesting, though both of those links really only addressed the issue of male domination... so what's up with female domination, or any submission? And the rewards of domination doesn't seem to jibe with what twysted73 said earlier about there being more submissives than dominants. Wouldn't something like this increase the likelihood of men with dominant personalities?

I'm totally with you on this part. Suggesting that humans follow a wild animal type social structure leaves a LOT of gaps. It's just not a theory that holds up under real scrutiny. I'm not saying we don't have animal instincts - fight or flight is one - but the idea that human sexual practices are based on how male lions fight over lionesses is silly. Humans are much more complex creatures than that. We are not our reptile brains.

Another thing I find particularly interesting is this idea that male domination is somehow natural or "hardwired" into humans not only fits with science, but also matches Biblical teachings. Because I've been taught to always cite my source (even though you may not care), the Bible is most blatant on this issue in Ephesians 5:22-24: "(22)Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. (23)For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. (24)Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

You're absolutely right, and that's why the Christian Domestic Discipline community is so strong. It's also the basis for 1950's type relationships like the one ownedsubgal has with her Master, and many other couples on here are the same way. Modern opinions on the Bible aside, it has informed a lot of world history, and that's why men have been the usual heads of household until very recently, and still are in many places today.

 

[rida]

Interestingly in my case, Hubby understood about my being submissive, before I did myself. Of course, looking back, I can see many telltale signs, but I would have probably taken much longer to even entertain the idea if it was not for him.

I'm still not sure exactly where I fall on the submissive spectrum (bottom, submissive, slave or just kinky and lazy ...), but never for a moment I thought to be a Dominant. So the "what side of the whip" was never a real issue to me. I got to experience a couple of Topping experiences and I can confirm that, indeed, that side of the whip is not for me.

Do people usually have active, conscious reasons for being a submissive or dominant?

Do I have a conscious reason why am I submissive?
Not a clue, beside that I love to make the other person happy and that is the way I tick. I'm sure there are things such as hating being in charge in spite of the fact that I always end up being in charge, but no real desire to escape my life, or need to suffer and cleanse my soul, or any other psychological reason's why that I can think of.

... is there a mindset, a belief, an activity, something that is the defining characteristic?

A specific activity, no, but a certain type of mindset, I'd say yes.
To be a Dominant, I'd say, you need to enjoy the power it gives you, whether the enjoyment is emotional, mental or physical, it has to give you satisfaction that cannot be had any other way. And opposite and complementary, to be a submissive you need to enjoy the giving up of power, enjoyment being either emotional, mental or physical. That is what I believe is the reason why the dynamic is described as a "power exchange".

What varies are the boundary of such exchange: the when, what, if and so on; the scope and the needs and desires that are being fulfilled and explored. And those are defined by the people involved, depending on their personal preferences, needs and point in life.

But without a desire to either yield or relent the power, there is no submission or Domination, nor Topping or bottoming, just some rough kinky sex. And there is nothing wrong with that. (Being submissive or Dominant, does not make you submit or Dominate everybody all the time. So chances are that, unless you are in a monogamous or poly-fidelity arrangement with 24/7 TPE, many times the way you interact with a sexual partner is just kinky rough vanilla sex)

 

[Valleyl81]

Interestingly in my case, Hubby understood about my being submissive, before I did myself. Of course, looking back, I can see many telltale signs, but I would have probably taken much longer to even entertain the idea if it was not for him.

I'm still not sure exactly where I fall on the submissive spectrum (bottom, submissive, slave or just kinky and lazy ...), but never for a moment I thought to be a Dominant. So the "what side of the whip" was never a real issue to me. I got to experience a couple of Topping experiences and I can confirm that, indeed, that side of the whip is not for me.


Do I have a conscious reason why am I submissive?
Not a clue, beside that I love to make the other person happy and that is the way I tick. I'm sure there are things such as hating being in charge in spite of the fact that I always end up being in charge, but no real desire to escape my life, or need to suffer and cleanse my soul, or any other psychological reason's why that I can think of.



A specific activity, no, but a certain type of mindset, I'd say yes.
To be a Dominant, I'd say, you need to enjoy the power it gives you, whether the enjoyment is emotional, mental or physical, it has to give you satisfaction that cannot be had any other way. And opposite and complementary, to be a submissive you need to enjoy the giving up of power, enjoyment being either emotional, mental or physical. That is what I believe is the reason why the dynamic is described as a "power exchange".

What varies are the boundary of such exchange: the when, what, if and so on; the scope and the needs and desires that are being fulfilled and explored. And those are defined by the people involved, depending on their personal preferences, needs and point in life.

But without a desire to either yield or relent the power, there is no submission or Domination, nor Topping or bottoming, just some rough kinky sex. And there is nothing wrong with that. (Being submissive or Dominant, does not make you submit or Dominate everybody all the time. So chances are that, unless you are in a monogamous or poly-fidelity arrangement with 24/7 TPE, many times the way you interact with a sexual partner is just kinky rough vanilla sex)

Good stuff I think a lot of what you said makes sense to me.

So it seems that this elusive essential element is power, or others have said control. It doesn't have to be a desire to "serve" or "be the object of affection" or "have ownership of another person"... though that can be part of it, the critical element is power? So answering the question of who do you want to be in control would answer the question of whether you're a sub (him), dom (me), or vanilla (neither/both/equal)?

 

[Sir Victor]

The problem with this theory is that we are not "in the wild," and the human species does not depend upon this structure. 90-pound weaklings can procreate every bit as successfully as football linebackers. Also, it sounds like you're trying to say that human D/s is practiced in the same ways, and for the same purposes, as animal social structures. I have to disagree with that pretty strongly: the reason humans practice BDSM has nothing to do with Darwinism.

Oh come on!
I'm saying that the basic wiring is there as instinct to produce these urges, how and if we use them is our own choice. You are either very much misunderstanding, or spinning what I've said here.

 

[Etoile]

Oh come on!
I'm saying that the basic wiring is there as instinct to produce these urges, how and if we use them is our own choice. You are either very much misunderstanding, or spinning what I've said here.

I understand perfectly, I just disagree.

 

[Sir Victor]

Interesting, though both of those links really only addressed the issue of male domination... so what's up with female domination, or any submission? And the rewards of domination doesn't seem to jibe with what twysted73 said earlier about there being more submissives than dominants. Wouldn't something like this increase the likelihood of men with dominant personalities?

Another thing I find particularly interesting is this idea that male domination is somehow natural or "hardwired" into humans not only fits with science, but also matches Biblical teachings. Because I've been taught to always cite my source (even though you may not care), the Bible is most blatant on this issue in Ephesians 5:22-24: "(22)Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. (23)For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. (24)Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

I said there is also an Alpha female, so the instinct is there who's to say she can't dominate a male if she chooses?

Yes it is interesting that it agrees with Biblical teaching. I do care and find it interesting as a matter of fact, thank you.

 

[Sir Victor]

I understand perfectly, I just disagree.

Your previous statement suggests to me that you do not understand, how do you know what I'm thinking beyond your spin on what I wrote?

 

[Sir Victor]

Also, it sounds like you're trying to say that human D/s is practiced in the same ways, and for the same purposes, as animal social structures. I have to disagree with that pretty strongly: the reason humans practice BDSM has nothing to do with Darwinism.

No I did not say this or imply this, all I'm saying is that the impulses are there due to hard wiring in the brain. You read into it in a rather absurd way.

I actually believe that we're wired to be switches, however some lean more strongly to one side than the other, if not entirely to one side.
This would explain how a weakening Alpha male or female can be overtaken by a new rising male. It might explain the need for some to switch between work and sex. I, for example on the other hand, do not feel the need to switch at all.

 

[Etoile]

No I did not say this or imply this, all I'm saying is that the impulses are there due to hard wiring in the brain. You read into it in a rather absurd way.

I actually believe that we're wired to be switches, however some lean more strongly to one side than the other, if not entirely to one side.
This would explain how a weakening Alpha male or female can be overtaken by a new rising male. It might explain the need for some to switch between work and sex. I, for example on the other hand, do not feel the need to switch at all.

I'm not going to argue about it with you. Yes, I understand what you wrote. However, I do not believe in "hard wiring" in humans beyond the instinct of self-preservation. Therefore, I disagree with your entire premise. I would appreciate it if you stop assuming I misunderstood you, and consider the possibility that others can understand what you're saying without automatically agreeing with you.

 

[Sir Victor]

Consider the Language Instinct as explained by Pinker. I don't agree with him entirely, however it is clear that it is an instinct. Others such as Chomsky have come to similar conclusions about language:
http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/books/tli/


I'm not going to argue with you either, my point was that your counter statement suggests to me that you misread, or read more into the point I was trying to make. You don't have to agree, but if you rephrase what I was saying in a way that mistates my point I'm surely going to comment.

 

[Etoile]

Consider the Language Instinct as explained by Pinker. I don't agree with him entirely, however it is clear that it is an instinct:
http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/books/tli/


I'm not going to argue with you, my point was that your counter statement suggests to me that you misread, or read more into the point I was trying to make. You don't have to agree, but if you rephrase what I was saying in a way that mistates my point I'm surely going to comment.

Holy shit, why haven't I heard of that book before? Thank you! Getting it at the library tomorrow so I can finish it before classes start on the 21st.

 

[Sir Victor]

You seem to be in attack mode; I really don't give a damn. You can be the queen of BDSM, or is it the king that you need to be? LOL, I don't take this too seriously. If you had read the book, it is logical that you would not have made your previous statement: "I do not believe in "hard wiring" in humans beyond the instinct of self-preservation." Now, this tit for tat is not my style so I'll say Goodnight!

 

[bethpage]

No I did not say this or imply this, all I'm saying is that the impulses are there due to hard wiring in the brain. You read into it in a rather absurd way.

I actually believe that we're wired to be switches, however some lean more strongly to one side than the other, if not entirely to one side.
This would explain how a weakening Alpha male or female can be overtaken by a new rising male. It might explain the need for some to switch between work and sex. I, for example on the other hand, do not feel the need to switch at all.

I've been thinking about this a lot recently, in the process of figuring out who I really am.

I agree with SirVictor. I figure its probably sort of bell curve, with most people falling in the middle, and in different situations go different ways. And like he said, some people stay on one end or the other. I also happen to think that this happens with the straight/bi/gay continuum as well.

In the submission vs bottoming thread I think CutieMouse put it like this:

bottom - submissive - slave top - dominant - master

with the ones on the outside having the most control, and the ones on the inside having less. These power/control schemas are something that those involved create, but knowing the general guidelines and how it flows is helpful in making it make sense and figuring out where you are or want to be.

I've been thinking about dominance and submission, and in real life, everybody submits in some ways and dominates in others. Reading back through the whole thread again, the question of how you know has sort of been answered in the big picture. X tends to be the traits of one, and Y tends to be the traits of the other, but it isn't (usually? ever?) neat and tidy.

I think Valleyl81 was talking about proof (forgive me if I cite wrongly! I haven't figured out an easy way to check) and the need for it, and someone wrote back about that others would accept your word. I think the proof (though perhaps 'evidence' is a better word) is needed for yourself. I need to figure it out, through thought and experience and trial and error, so that I *know* what I want and need and can be true to myself, as well as others. As I grow and change my needs may grow and change as well, but if I did have not experience in figuring it out then I might not be able to continue being honest.

I typed this up to help clarify what I was thinking while reading the thread.

 

[Etoile]

You seem to be in attack mode; I really don't give a damn. You can be the queen of BDSM, or is it the king that you need to be? LOL, I don't take this too seriously. If you had read the book, it is logical that you would not have made your previous statement: "I do not believe in "hard wiring" in humans beyond the instinct of self-preservation." Now, this tit for tat is not my style so I'll say Goodnight!

Wow...seriously? Of course I haven't read the book, that's why I said I was going to get it. I'm sorry if you thought I was attacking you, pretty much everyone here who knows me can tell you I was not. Maybe if one isn't used to having one's opinions challenged, I might come off as "attacking," but any reasonable person can see that I was engaging in debate. But hey, if you aren't used to intelligent discussion and the exchange of ideas without personal attacks, this is a good place to learn more.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming, already in progress...

 

[Valleyl81]

I've been thinking about this a lot recently, in the process of figuring out who I really am.

I agree with SirVictor. I figure its probably sort of bell curve, with most people falling in the middle, and in different situations go different ways. And like he said, some people stay on one end or the other. I also happen to think that this happens with the straight/bi/gay continuum as well.

In the submission vs bottoming thread I think CutieMouse put it like this:

bottom - submissive - slave top - dominant - master

with the ones on the outside having the most control, and the ones on the inside having less. These power/control schemas are something that those involved create, but knowing the general guidelines and how it flows is helpful in making it make sense and figuring out where you are or want to be.

I've been thinking about dominance and submission, and in real life, everybody submits in some ways and dominates in others. Reading back through the whole thread again, the question of how you know has sort of been answered in the big picture. X tends to be the traits of one, and Y tends to be the traits of the other, but it isn't (usually? ever?) neat and tidy.

I think Valleyl81 was talking about proof (forgive me if I cite wrongly! I haven't figured out an easy way to check) and the need for it, and someone wrote back about that others would accept your word. I think the proof (though perhaps 'evidence' is a better word) is needed for yourself. I need to figure it out, through thought and experience and trial and error, so that I *know* what I want and need and can be true to myself, as well as others. As I grow and change my needs may grow and change as well, but if I did have not experience in figuring it out then I might not be able to continue being honest.

I typed this up to help clarify what I was thinking while reading the thread.

You seem to have a good grasp of what I was saying, and I think even said it better than I did. I'm not really concerned about showing proof to other people, I'm just trying to figure out myself.

 

[Sir Victor]

Wow...seriously? Of course I haven't read the book, that's why I said I was going to get it. I'm sorry if you thought I was attacking you, pretty much everyone here who knows me can tell you I was not. Maybe if one isn't used to having one's opinions challenged, I might come off as "attacking," but any reasonable person can see that I was engaging in debate. But hey, if you aren't used to intelligent discussion and the exchange of ideas without personal attacks, this is a good place to learn more.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming, already in progress...

Ah, given how this started and it being late last night I took your previous response as sarcasm. Reading it again I see that it was not, very sorry. I have no problem with debate just allow me to clarify when my point is not getting across as I intended.

I do see that you are generous and helpful on the board, very kind of you! Hope you let us know what you think of the book.