Is it common/normal for a Dom to want to try being a Sub?

[Stella_Omega]

If it has nothing to do with you, why the hell does it matter what you think?

Because Dom.

 

[Netzach]

Dominance in bed for me is not some a cool technique, it is a reflection of myself. The state I’m in directly corresponds to my sex life. It works the other way around too, doming can be one sweet ego kick, and can get me strutting all week.

In order for me to submit I must be defeated, and that won’t happen if I can do anything at all about it. Last thing I do type deal. The problem is, after all control has been ripped from me, I have zero motivation. I completely shut down, don’t eat, don’t move, don’t think.

If I reacted better to submitting, I think I would do better in a wheelchair.

It’s no learning experience, for me it’s just horrible.

Yes, it was a reflection of my soul and blah and all that too. Sex definitely was a litmus test paper for everything about my life, and then wow, can 25mgs of meds change who you are in a week. And then you have to figure out how to find your new litmus paper. Or you can shut down and put beads on a string for a couple of months and figure out how to be strong enough to be completely incapacitated. Fucked if I know how now. All I know is that I'm stupidly back to feeling in love with being in control of my destiny when none of us are in fact.

I think one of the strangest assumptions Dominant people have about submissive people is that, simply because obedience fulfills them, it's somehow easier for them.

Those two things are on different axes. Need to/ want to versus "easy".

I've had the pleasure of someone who would swing his way down ALL THE WAY in a fight fight - and then there's me. Only easy to say yes to that because of the certainty of saying no to everything else. He does ID as a switch, but if he wanted to ID as something else, screw anyone who would decide what he can and can't.

I don't think it's surprising when people are giving your craving for objective data the finger when talking about defining their sexual identity that - like you said, determines their self-image to that extent.

 

[JMohegan]

Switch means you go both ways.

I know statistics, but you don't need it considering that

Out of the 69 people from lit who responded to my pole with a sexual role identification, 11 identified as switches. That is 16%.

Your sample size sucks and your sampling's not random. Ergo, your result is meaningless - regardless of the phraseology in your question.

As you surely know, since you "know statistics."

Yes, it was a reflection of my soul and blah and all that too. Sex definitely was a litmus test paper for everything about my life, and then wow, can 25mgs of meds change who you are in a week. And then you have to figure out how to find your new litmus paper. Or you can shut down and put beads on a string for a couple of months and figure out how to be strong enough to be completely incapacitated. Fucked if I know how now. All I know is that I'm stupidly back to feeling in love with being in control of my destiny when none of us are in fact.

Tragedy made me sexless. Not sub, as YC is suggesting, just utterly devoid of sexual appetite for a very long time.

You're right about the illusion of control in the big picture sense. It is an illusion, yet it's also sine qua non for my sexual being.

As for the societal extent of switching, flexible, whatever non-rigid types of folks, I don't know the answer. But at the individual level, I suspect the proclivity decreases as control issues increase.

 

[JMohegan]

Doms throw off your shackles!

Make him/her plan the whole evening soup to nuts.

Make him/her bounce on your dick like a cheap whore who won't get paid without proper enthusiasm while you lie there and read!

Make him/her tie themselves up like a pretty package and don't reward them with dicking if the bondage isn't aesthetic enough.

By all means, try the other side if you want to try the other side, but don't let it happen out of burnout.

Ahaha, doesn't everyone do this?

This is not trying "the other side," as I see it. "Make him/her" = you're still in control of the proceedings.

 

[Netzach]

Tragedy made me sexless. Not sub, as YC is suggesting, just utterly devoid of sexual appetite for a very long time.

You're right about the illusion of control in the big picture sense. It is an illusion, yet it's also sine qua non for my sexual being.

As for the societal extent of switching, flexible, whatever non-rigid types of folks, I don't know the answer. But at the individual level, I suspect the proclivity decreases as control issues increase.

Yep yep yep. This. Loss is a motherfucker, whether yourself, someone you love, or some of each. Touching anyone else was a low priority for a LONG time.

It's kind of one of the funny beautiful things about being human that we keep finding our way back to that grand delusion of control. Fond of it myself.

 

[Netzach]

Ahaha, doesn't everyone do this?

This is not trying "the other side," as I see it. "Make him/her" = you're still in control of the proceedings.

Absolutely, I agree it's part of the prerogative! I just think that sometimes it never gets back to us that it is in all this "make her cum 139023 times" obsession people have, ha.

 

[YourCaptor]

Yes, it was a reflection of my soul and blah and all that too. Sex definitely was a litmus test paper for everything about my life, and then wow, can 25mgs of meds change who you are in a week. And then you have to figure out how to find your new litmus paper. Or you can shut down and put beads on a string for a couple of months and figure out how to be strong enough to be completely incapacitated. Fucked if I know how now. All I know is that I'm stupidly back to feeling in love with being in control of my destiny when none of us are in fact.

I think one of the strangest assumptions Dominant people have about submissive people is that, simply because obedience fulfills them, it's somehow easier for them.

Those two things are on different axes. Need to/ want to versus "easy".

I've had the pleasure of someone who would swing his way down ALL THE WAY in a fight fight - and then there's me. Only easy to say yes to that because of the certainty of saying no to everything else. He does ID as a switch, but if he wanted to ID as something else, screw anyone who would decide what he can and can't.

I don't think it's surprising when people are giving your craving for objective data the finger when talking about defining their sexual identity that - like you said, determines their self-image to that extent.

lol at the bolded. Man I know how that feels.

Like I have mentioned before in this thread, I don't understand subs at all. I don't even know how to respond to your comment on assumptions.

But hold up a second, my initial objection in this tread was to the claim that the term dom is misleading and that most practitioners are actually service tops. So excuse me if I flip that the bird.

I also don't think the whole objective data sexual ID thing should offend anyone. You can divide peoples IDs endlessly, dom, master, daddy, bla bla bla. What you get with that is an endless graph that really tells you nothing. For the sake of readability it's highly advised to lump categories in a way that is pertinent. In the case of how prominent, dom flexibles, sub flexibles, etc are in the BDSM world, you could safely form 2 groups, all of those with switch type identities, and then everything else. It's not an attempt to disregard, it is simply good grammar.

 

[YourCaptor]

Do you have a link? That would totally be worth rereading

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=659936

 

[JMohegan]

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=659936

Your sampling issues are worse than I thought.

Dude. You asked for input from "pyls." How the heck does that thread provide "data" that's relevant to this one?

Absolutely, I agree it's part of the prerogative! I just think that sometimes it never gets back to us that it is in all this "make her cum 139023 times" obsession people have, ha.

One of the great mysteries of the online world is that obsession right there.

 

[Netzach]

lol at the bolded. Man I know how that feels.

Like I have mentioned before in this thread, I don't understand subs at all. I don't even know how to respond to your comment on assumptions.

But hold up a second, my initial objection in this tread was to the claim that the term dom is misleading and that most practitioners are actually service tops. So excuse me if I flip that the bird.

I also don't think the whole objective data sexual ID thing should offend anyone. You can divide peoples IDs endlessly, dom, master, daddy, bla bla bla. What you get with that is an endless graph that really tells you nothing. For the sake of readability it's highly advised to lump categories in a way that is pertinent. In the case of how prominent, dom flexibles, sub flexibles, etc are in the BDSM world, you could safely form 2 groups, all of those with switch type identities, and then everything else. It's not an attempt to disregard, it is simply good grammar.

Oh, yeah, I also have kind of a problem with the thought that it's more likely for a switch who is in dominant mode to be a service top than - what, someone who doesn't switch?

I've met plenty of completely submissive service tops, actually. To actually be dominant you kind of have to have plans to impose in SOME degree, I think?

By your metric, though, and what I've seen of the world, including the VAST numbers of people who have felt like I'm reasonably safe as a Domme cherry pop who are otherwise completely dominant and blah, there are minute numbers of dominant people. I don't consider those cherry pops to be switches or even subs, though, any more than I think that the guy who had ONE fumble with another dude in college has to ID as gay. I mean if he wants to, more power to him, but if not, I think it's just trying out life's opportunities and doesn't merit a lot of angst.

 

[KoPilot]

But hold up a second, my initial objection in this tread was to the claim that the term dom is misleading and that most practitioners are actually service tops. So excuse me if I flip that the bird.

Honestly, the only person I ever saw speak in absolutes in this thread was you.

In the case of how prominent, dom flexibles, sub flexibles, etc are in the BDSM world, you could safely form 2 groups, all of those with switch type identities, and then everything else.

Sooo happy I removed myself from the dating pool as soon as I did. Let's hope I never have to actually deal with any of this sort of logic in real life when trying to meet people. I'll just keep sticking to comic books and pagans when it comes to social situations...

Oy!

 

[Stella_Omega]

lol at the bolded. Man I know how that feels.

Like I have mentioned before in this thread, I don't understand subs at all. I don't even know how to respond to your comment on assumptions.

But hold up a second, my initial objection in this tread was to the claim that the term dom is misleading and that most practitioners are actually service tops. So excuse me if I flip that the bird.

Maybe you're one of the proud the few-- the REAL DOMs. No need to flip the bird. We all beleive you.

I also don't think the whole objective data sexual ID thing should offend anyone. You can divide peoples IDs endlessly, dom, master, daddy, bla bla bla. What you get with that is an endless graph that really tells you nothing.

You get a graph that tells you everything. And that has a place for everyone.

. For the sake of readability it's highly advised to lump categories in a way that is pertinent. In the case of how prominent, dom flexibles, sub flexibles, etc are in the BDSM world, you could safely form 2 groups, all of those with switch type identities, and then everything else. It's not an attempt to disregard, it is simply good grammar.

Grammar? This isn't fiction.

We are talking about real people and real identities, not comic book simplifications.

 

[YourCaptor]

Oh, yeah, I also have kind of a problem with the thought that it's more likely for a switch who is in dominant mode to be a service top than - what, someone who doesn't switch?

I've met plenty of completely submissive service tops, actually. To actually be dominant you kind of have to have plans to impose in SOME degree, I think?

By your metric, though, and what I've seen of the world, including the VAST numbers of people who have felt like I'm reasonably safe as a Domme cherry pop who are otherwise completely dominant and blah, there are minute numbers of dominant people. I don't consider those cherry pops to be switches or even subs, though, any more than I think that the guy who had ONE fumble with another dude in college has to ID as gay. I mean if he wants to, more power to him, but if not, I think it's just trying out life's opportunities and doesn't merit a lot of angst.

Hmm, I always get the impression doms are a dime a dozen. You could be right though... maybe I am a rare commodity.

Regardless, we need to come up with more ID tags. You know like on the gay scale, when your balls touch you are a level 1 fag. So in dom scale if one testicle has been crushed you are like 1 ball dom flexible. If both testes are crushed you are sub forever. It will improve the community, as the history of census taking proves for sure.

Seriously though, would you expect their to be more service tops than doms? What about more service tops than switches? I'm just curious, what would you guestimate?

 

[YourCaptor]

Maybe you're one of the proud the few-- the REAL DOMs. No need to flip the bird. We all beleive you.
You get a graph that tells you everything. And that has a place for everyone.

Grammar? This isn't fiction.

We are talking about real people and real identities, not comic book simplifications.

I'd like to flip a black bird. Still on my to do list. Still one of those things that can turn me on just thinking about it.

A graph such as the one you describe would actually be useless. Say you wanted to know the number of participants who switch between the dom and sub role to any degree. You would have to go through pages of tiny graphs summing them all up. It is much more useful to simply print out a graph with set parameters. I don't get why you disagree with this. It's like 2th grade math.

Of course this graph is not the super graph of all graphs, it is simply the answer to one specific question.

 

[JMohegan]

I'd like to flip a black bird. Still on my to do list. Still one of those things that can turn me on just thinking about it.

A graph such as the one you describe would actually be useless. Say you wanted to know the number of participants who switch between the dom and sub role to any degree. You would have to go through pages of tiny graphs summing them all up. It is much more useful to simply print out a graph with set parameters. I don't get why you disagree with this. It's like 2th grade math.

Of course this graph is not the super graph of all graphs, it is simply the answer to one specific question.

So you want to graph a frequency distribution in which the choices are: A) never gives up control in sexual situations, B) always gives up control in sexual situations, C) sometimes in control/sometimes not in control in sexual situations. Is that right?

If so, my guess is that yours is the graph that would be useless, because nearly everyone would be in group C. (That is, it would be useless even if your sampling is sound. If the sampling's not sound, then the graph is just nonsense.)

 

[Netzach]

Seriously though, would you expect their to be more service tops than doms? What about more service tops than switches? I'm just curious, what would you guestimate?

My guess?

Yes and no. More service tops than Doms more switches than anything else, depending of course on how you define "BDSM community".

 

[Netzach]

If so, my guess is that yours is the graph that would be useless, because nearly everyone would be in group C.

This.

Second largest distribution, would be "always gives up control"

smallest distribution "always in control"

Because it's a lot of work to most people.

 

[YourCaptor]

My guess?

Yes and no. More service tops than Doms more switches than anything else, depending of course on how you define "BDSM community".

Hmmm... I don't know. that's not really what I'm seeing, but maybe it's a case of the loudest are the most visible. IDK

This.

Second largest distribution, would be "always gives up control"

smallest distribution "always in control"

Because it's a lot of work to most people.

I think my next question would be how many of that second largest distribution prefer smallest distribution over largest distribution.

 

[Rubytuesdayx]

I have always been naturally submissive, but in the 'real world' I am quite a strong and driven woman. This might sound crazy but even though by submitting to him I am giving myself to him fully and completely I still feel that I have the power in the relationship. Perhaps this isn't normal or stereotypical, and its quite difficult to explain however, the power dynamics in a BDSM relationship tend to make me feel more powerful in every other way. I have tried to be the dominant one in a previous relationship, and it was as sexually satisfying as role play. Turned me on, fulfilled my needs, yet simply 'acting' a role that went against my natural urges.
x

 

[Stella_Omega]

Hmmm... I don't know. that's not really what I'm seeing, but maybe it's a case of the loudest are the most visible. IDK

Where are you seeing this population? and what size is your sample? It's not only this forum, right?

I have always been naturally submissive, but in the 'real world' I am quite a strong and driven woman. This might sound crazy but even though by submitting to him I am giving myself to him fully and completely I still feel that I have the power in the relationship. Perhaps this isn't normal or stereotypical, and its quite difficult to explain however, the power dynamics in a BDSM relationship tend to make me feel more powerful in every other way. I have tried to be the dominant one in a previous relationship, and it was as sexually satisfying as role play. Turned me on, fulfilled my needs, yet simply 'acting' a role that went against my natural urges.
x

As always, i ask what "submission" means to you, what actions and motions are involved whenhe dominates you and you submit to him.

The language of BDSM has become so muddied-- so many people say "submit" when they really mean "bottom" and they say "dominate" when they are describing topping. If you feel that you have all the power when you submit, I get the feeling that you are a dominant bottom, getting what you need from a service top. The notion is reviled currently-- NO TWU DOM and all that-- but it's a fine and honorable dynamic.

 

[Netzach]

Hmmm... I don't know. that's not really what I'm seeing, but maybe it's a case of the loudest are the most visible. IDK



I think my next question would be how many of that second largest distribution prefer smallest distribution over largest distribution.

A lot.

Because everyone wants the big game top predator and blah when they hunt.

Also: a lot of people like to say they never ever ever ever ever give up control, that every sexual interaction with them will be like, I don't know, lion sex with the ALPHA! Ask a lot of submissive women if the proof stays in the pudding.

I'll never forget - once I was SO ready to give it up for this woman, she had been swinging her rubber dick at me all week, it was completely getting me soft and obedient and boyish, and then we took a bath together and guess who was the sexual agressor the minute we hit the water, and guess who had the quivery orgasms with her mouth open? You can run a simulation all day long, and it doesn't mean anything when it's time to run the actual scenario. That was actually a disappointment to me at the time. Now it's just like "duh, what did you expect?"

You haven't factored in that in self reporting people lie like crazy and being a leader is much more OK than being a follower in this culture.

I'm serious. I've played with a solid handful of people men and women who were like "would you...? just don't say anything." I'm silent like the sphinx with a proper name and I really don't care to swing my dick at them like I just "won." A lot of people lie to themselves. A lot of people lie to me LOL. A lot of people just take an opportunity that may never have presented itself to them before - in my case a safe top who didn't give a shit about the "ramifications" enough to leak private conversations.

And if you're limiting your discussion to people who are self consciously BDSM identified enough to post to a BDSM community kinda thingie, yes, the loudest ARE the most visible, the largest population is quiet, doesn't necessarily self ID as "a bdsm person" and yet a huge number of people are doing power/pain/gameplaying in their sex lives and taking turns doing it to each other.

 

[Netzach]

Where are you seeing this population? and what size is your sample? It's not only this forum, right?
As always, i ask what "submission" means to you, what actions and motions are involved whenhe dominates you and you submit to him.

The language of BDSM has become so muddied-- so many people say "submit" when they really mean "bottom" and they say "dominate" when they are describing topping. If you feel that you have all the power when you submit, I get the feeling that you are a dominant bottom, getting what you need from a service top. The notion is reviled currently-- NO TWU DOM and all that-- but it's a fine and honorable dynamic.

I still think this has to do with a lot of free-floating penetration anxiety that finds non-literal expression. I swear, people you can "get done" and lose not a scintilla of power or control over the proceedings.

My genitals would be a lonely planet if this were not the case.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I still think this has to do with a lot of free-floating penetration anxiety that finds non-literal expression. I swear, people you can "get done" and lose not a scintilla of power or control over the proceedings.

My genitals would be a lonely planet if this were not the case.

And that's only just the start of the mythbusting.

 

[Rubytuesdayx]

Where are you seeing this population? and what size is your sample? It's not only this forum, right?
As always, i ask what "submission" means to you, what actions and motions are involved whenhe dominates you and you submit to him.

The language of BDSM has become so muddied-- so many people say "submit" when they really mean "bottom" and they say "dominate" when they are describing topping. If you feel that you have all the power when you submit, I get the feeling that you are a dominant bottom, getting what you need from a service top. The notion is reviled currently-- NO TWU DOM and all that-- but it's a fine and honorable dynamic.

I agree that the language is extremely confusing, and generally go for the 'whatever turns you on' theory. I don't necessarily think that its something I do, or he does, and dont want to sound too cheesy but I think it goes deeper than that. I think I just enjoy testing my boundaries!
Ooooh I'm definitely a bottom

Ruby x

 

[Stella_Omega]

I agree that the language is extremely confusing, and generally go for the 'whatever turns you on' theory. I don't necessarily think that its something I do, or he does, and dont want to sound too cheesy but I think it goes deeper than that. I think I just enjoy testing my boundaries!
Ooooh I'm definitely a bottom

Ruby x

The language is only confusing when people are ignorant of it; when you are talking to other people about your sexual preferences, you need to know how to describe them.

It's not just the language, it's this cultural expectation as well. Far too many people get in trouble because they think that every woman who wants to be done unto must therefore also want to be a sweet widdle submissive. And no Manly Man can ever want to be done unto, lest he give up his right to Manly Man-ness forever and ever.

It's just so much heteronormative bullshit. Submissive nature is true for some women-- and some men as well. Likewise dominant nature. The rest of us occupy other parts of the kink spectrum