Natural Dominant; Natural Submissive; do they exist? are they exemplars?

[incubus_dark]

It's called inductive logic, Catalina, and though inordinately popular, is prone to alot of foolishness of various sorts.

Don't worry, it'll be different when I'm god.

By the way, I only just realised that Fransisco and Catalina were two individuals (who ever said god need be bright?) Sorry if I've gotten you both confused before now.

 

[catalina_francisco]

It's called inductive logic, Catalina, and though inordinately popular, is prone to alot of foolishness of various sorts.

Don't worry, it'll be different when I'm god.

By the way, I only just realised that Fransisco and Catalina were two individuals (who ever said god need be bright?) Sorry if I've gotten you both confused before now.

That's okay, we class ourselves as one anyway. As for you being God someday that might be okay if we can time share. Have to be better than Mr Howard.

Catalina

 

[RisiaSkye]

various responses summarized thusly: Both/And not Either/Or, Dammit!

F & C--

As I'm detecting a hint of hostility in your responses that doesn't seem to appear in others, I have the impression that I have given personal offense where none was intended. My best guess as to the cause of this misunderstanding is that a portion of my post was in direct response to pieces of your own posts. However, as I tried to signal, the bulk of my post was not addressed to anyone, but was simply me tossing my hat into the ring to get in there and hash out the the theory by debating the ideas. The few points at which I clearly pass a negative judgement are directed against an idea I reject (i.e. becoming overly attached to labels, to the point of thinking that they can really tell you the contents of a person's character) but not meant to suggest that I affiliate that idea with either of you as people.

The only portion in which I mean to directly address you as people rather than the ideologies your words invoke is the end bit, in which I directly stated that I was quoting your posts. And even in that section, I only took the conversation to the personal level because the evidence presented was that of personal experience. My disagreement remains with the model of identity evidenced there, and the attempt to read sex into the rest of life but divorce the rest of life from the bedroom. (I'll come back to this point, because I believe it to be the heart of our only actual bone of contention at the idea level.) If in the process you were hurt or offended by a perceived attempt to silence or pass judgement upon your quality as humans, my apologies for the miscommunication.

(Francisco)If you would have read my postings more carefully you would have seen that I have tried to do exactly that. I have tried the famous so often mentioned path domination through submission, and have failed in it. Maybe I did not have the self-control needed for that or maybe I just cannot accept to be dominated.

I read and understood your post just fine. And I recognize that you're saying in the anecdote you reference here that you would never choose sexual submission of any type, because that doesn't match your sense of self and you are content with your present sexual identity. Fine. And it's good for you that you've found your niche and like it there...as you clearly have a happy partner, that seems to be working out just spiffy for all concerned. More "power" to you both. (Forgive me--I do love a pun.)

My point was that lack of (sexual) submission is not the same thing as evidence to prove inherent existence of dominance. While the two states are mutually constituitive, the non-existence of one does not prove the overwhelming/inherent/natural/more authentic existence of the other. Thus, my anecdotal response was intended not as criticism of your person or self-understanding but as a stylistically similar counter-example in response to the identity-through-negation model your story expressed.

(Francisco)To me domination exists out of fulfilling a mutual need, I dominate my partner who has a need to be dominated and as such chooses to submit. Any dominant I know of, has in more or less degree the same needs. Since I cannot submit and I would not enjoy it, it would be abuse. And abuse is not something any serious participant in BDSM would want to be part of.

Understood, and agreed. And consent is at the heart of issue in more than one way. However, one cannot both suggest that one's sexual/BDSM Dominance infuses one's entire life and being, thereby proving one's "natural" dominance in the sexual realm and then attempt to suggest that power relations and definitions of Domination and submission don't have social and political implications outside of the bedroom.

If you're a sexual Dominant to your core awareness of self (which I believe is the gist of the "natural D" position you embraced), then you're a sexual Dominant all the time, right? You don't turn it on and off or decide to be it, you just are it. That, as I understand it, is the claim. And as evidence for this, you use examples of longstanding affinity for Dominant roles in non-sexual contexts. So far, we're on the same page. However, if we read work, family (childhood), a platonic social relations into our understanding of our sexual selves, we should also read our sexual selves in the context of the bigger world. If portions of our identity affect the entirely of our lives, then the entirety of our lives constructs all the various portions of our identity.

And in that bigger world, pretty much nobody is utterly Dominant--with the possible exception of the Evil Overlord, Bill Gates. That's what I was trying to show. And if nobody is utterly Dominant in all spheres of life, then clearly the idea of "natural Dominance" as a BSDM sexual identity cannot possibly mean "naturally"/inherently Dominant in all contexts. If your life reflects your sex, then your sex also reflects your life--but you can't claim one and disavow the other, at least not without your model falling apart as a means of understanding one's BDSM self.

Incidentally, that's also why memories of ourselves in childhood are somewhat suspect. I don't mean that the memories we have are false, I mean that we choose to actively preserve the memories of ourselves which most support our current understandings of who we are. Those memories didn't acquire meaning until we had a filter through which to view them. I have memories of baking cakes as a child, but I don't use them as evidence of my inherent inclination toward sexual Dominance, because they don't support that contention. However, my memories of tying up my sis's dolls does imply the early leanings in that direction--at least it implies it to me now, when I look at it. At the time, I was a kid, and I didn't even think of myself as particularly sexual, much less try to define my sexuality.

Power's a slippery thing, as is identity. That's why it gets so complicated. But we don't approach a clearer understanding of self (or a more just world) by pretending that these things are simple or that our assumptions don't merit examination.

(Catalina)
To state the obvious to anyone who has not been able to gather a little of our ethics throughout our association with Literotica, we practice safe, sane, consensual BDSM and do not push it onto unwilling people. Thus said we fail to see the relevance of the above statement. It confuses my obviously inadequate brain to fathom why being a Dominant or living a BDSM lifestyle within the confines of the lifestyle means you have failed in your dominance and proven yourself to be submissive if you do not break the law or blatently set out to abuse people in the greneral communiity. Must have been one of the lessons I missed while Master was whipping me!!

I see a very strange logic evolving here, it is in the same order as;
my cat has black fur, I have black hair therefore I must be a cat.

Catalina
[/B]

To be other than Dominant in some portions of one's life experience does not make one a failed Dominant in a sexual/intimate BDSM context. One simply shows that sexual Dominance as a component of one's identity shouldn't be mistaken to mean that one necessarily has (or doesn't have) power--and therefore both the desire and the ability--to Dominate in all spheres of life.

By submitting to external control (e.g. by government) with or without coersion (i.e. the threat of nonconsensual violence--cops do have guns and all), one does not prove oneself submissive, one merely demonstrates submission. I was using F's personal narrative about his own understanding of his BDSM core to show that a Dominant can and almost certainly already does submit (a direct counter to Francsico's claim to the contrary). There's an important difference between the stakes I propose and the ones you inferred. Just like being female doesn't make one feminine, Dominating or submitting does not make one Dominant or submissive. I am talking about an action, a contextually specific choice. You are talking about a state of being, an identity.

And by assuming I'm attacking a "failure" of identity (see your quote above) at all, thus exposing the assumption that identity can fail, you end up defending against an assault it never would have occured to me to make in the first place. But, it just goes to show the limitations of defining oneself in stagnant & passive abstract labels ("he is Dominant") rather than fluid & active socially constituted ones (he Dominates me sexually"). That is, however, your choice of definitional parameters and not mine.

I too took Logic, and did all the charting and learned the obvious fallacies. I recognize that (A=C, B=C, therefore A=C) does not work as a predictive model. Of course, it's also a straw man, because that's not at all what I'm saying.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

(i_d)Labels abound in every language and without them communication would be so cumbersome as to be pointless. Most people of average intelligence seem well able to differentiate betwen a brief label for a thing and the full richness of the thing itself.

First, codified language is nothing but labels, which should be obvious. So, clearly, I wouldn't waste my time spinning out a gazillion words of debate if I thought the entire process of language was misguided.

Labels are not simply destructive nor constructive ("bad" or "good," if you prefer), they are simply limited. Most of society is built upon using language to come to various agreements about how the world works. (Levi-Strauss's Structural Anthropology comes to mind) What is "air"? It has no inherent meaning or value, it's just the symbol we use to represent that stuff we all inhale. But because we've got a label to express the shared experience of breathing, we (English speakers) have a sense of community--we each know we are not the only people who take in and expel that "air" stuff.

Labels/language both allows communication/collaboration (by giving people a structured system for negotiating relationships to each other) and produce fragmentation and division (by giving people a structure, you give them rules and rules--if internalized, believed in, and followed--create rigidity, status quo). It's not simply one or the other, it's both. I'm sorry you failed to understand that. I emphasized it early because I think it important to acknowledge the reasons for and limitations of one's methodology.

And I disagree that most people "of average intelligence" consistently remember and behave as if there's a difference between knowing the names to which one will respond and knowing who they actually are.

(i_d)It's called inductive logic, Catalina, and though inordinately popular, is prone to alot of foolishness of various sorts.

Don't worry, it'll be different when I'm god.

Actually, "deductive reasoning" is far more fashionable than the currently rather out of vogue "inductive logic." The Church of Technology has become the dominant religion for much of the world, and it's a faith based in deduction. If it weren't for binary, there'd be no computers, after all. But if you don't think deductive reasoning produces its fair share of silliness, take a cruise through the history of "science" sometime. Deductive reasoning is utterly constrained by the completeness of its data set. One can be unassailably logical in one's deductive analysis and still completely wrong in one's conclusions due to even a relatively minor error or omission in one's data. Just ask Flat Earthers and the crew of the Challenger.

(To be honest, I quite like the false binary implied by this quote, though. It's unabashedly dismissive but subtle in suggesting the crazy bad hysterical illogical incoherent wrongness of induction; I like a strongly implied but never directly asserted insult. UncleBill does this too, as do most Libertarians I've known, because they're typically Randian Objectivists. It's great rhetoric, just flawed reasoning. Nicely done, i_d!)

Inductive logic is not the absolute opposite of deductive reasoning, nor is it a necessarily inferior system of knowledge. They both have their purposes and their flaws, and if you read my posts, you'll see that I actually use both models frequently. I reject neither system of meaning because neither is my worldview, they're simply tools; the more tools at your disposal the wider the range of tasks you can peform. Linearity, "scientific method," neutral objectivity and all the associated jazz which exemplifies what people mean by "deductive reasoning" gets held up as unassailable truth in the current culture, but it is no more nor less than a way of creating meaning from raw data.
~~~~~~~

Well, that was very stimulating, y'all. Oh, and FYI because the discipline was mentioned a few times, I'm not a shrink. Psychiatry is only useful as entertainment, from my perspective.

No more philosophy-laden screeds for a while, I promise.

Take care.
RS

 

[Pure]

To RS,

you said,

My point was that lack of (sexual) submission is not the same thing as evidence to prove inherent existence of dominance. While the two states are mutually constituitive, the non-existence of one does not prove the overwhelming/inherent/natural/more authentic existence of the other.

Mon amie, not only do you deserve your PhD in literature, but also one in philosophy.

Oh, and a gold star for spelling 'constituitive' correctly

and another using it in a posting.

 

[Pure]

Link re 'natural slave'

Here is the link to one of the essays (of IE folks) asserting there are 'natural slaves' --and, by implication, 'natural masters-- and applying this to the erotic realm.

http://www.enslavement.org.uk/natural.html

It's not tangential, since Francisco has mentioned his indebtedness to this group of fine, bdsm thinkers.

 

[Netzach]

(1) Each to their own I guess. For myself I have always said I hope to still be learning something new even on my deathbed as I find it an impossible concept to limit learning to a definite beginning and end.


I didn't say "people who know everything" I intimated "people who are experiential junkies" and seek new experiences frequently.

(2) Being able to take the pain, to grit the teeth would only release endorfines. It would not mean anything without submission, the mental submission that is, where a submissive submits to a dominant and where the dominant is fed, not by the pain the submissive can take but by the submissivesness they give and he receives.

Who said anything about pain? Being subjugated, even voluntarily, pisses me off but is good for me periodically, like a psychic enema, perhaps.

I know for a fact that you don't think mental submission is always fun and games. I don't expect to feel fantastic about submitting in the immediate-gratification sense, that's why learning about Domination via submission (that old saw your mentor was into) was a completely viable training for me.

Francisco &Catalina [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[RisiaSkye]

Re: Link re 'natural slave'

Here is the link to one of the essays (of IE folks) asserting there are 'natural slaves' --and, by implication, 'natural masters-- and applying this to the erotic realm.

http://www.enslavement.org.uk/natural.html

It's not tangential, since Francisco has mentioned his indebtedness to this group of fine, bdsm thinkers.

Thanks for the link, Pure. It's the perfect nightcap.

Very...amusing? It reads reasonably well as a lay overview, if you're willing to accept their assumptions without question, which I am profoundly not. This kinda shit can't tell someone who (or more importantly "why") they are, it can only interpret what they mean. That's a fun game to play, but the content fails to live up to the form.

Like I said, psych models make for great entertainment (I consider myself a fan of rhetoric, and psychology theory is to the artform of persuasive wordplay what New Orleans is to jazz.) But, to borrow a bit of verbiage from Emiliy Dickinson, art may tell the truth, but it tells it slant. Mistaking the undeniable artistry of psychiatry's sophistics for an accurately predictive model of human consciousness rather than a big ideological seduction--"medical science"'s version of the mindfuck--is not something I choose to do, nor to foster in others. Guess I must be naturally Dominant.

 

[Pure]

To Francisco, Catalina, Risia, Incubus D, Netzach, and all.

I have the highest regard for the posters on this thread. It's an impressive lot, with well articulated positions. Thanks to Francisco in particular for taking the time to explain and clarify; all of us here see only a tiny portion of someone's thinking and expression, and hence there are always glitches, and no one or thing is to blame except our humanity and this bloody medium.


I will comment on one 'big issue' then turn again to Francisco, esp. in light of the argument with RS.

Incubus Dark said,

Many of the arguments and postulations on this subject presented so far, have been at best inductive. While thought provoking they can not be considered as evidence for the various views they are being put forward to uphold. Because all the crows on your tree are black is not sufficient grounds for stating that all crows are, therefore, black. It appears that there may be some psychologists among us; psychology is labouring mightily to move into the realm of hard science, so is there any hard or at least statistically good evidence in the literature for the natural dom/sub argument?

Well, ID, of course we're partly proceeding by induction; a fancy way of saying 'from [organized] experience.' I don't agree that nothing of the 'arguments and postulations' is evidence. If you look below, you'll see Francisco precisely giving his experience
(partly intended to be similar to that of some others), as evidence for his position. To be consistent, you'd have to apply your points against Francisco also, not just his critics.


As a student of psychology, considering your question about evidence for 'natural doms'. Another poster suggested a testing procedure. There's evidence of a dimension of personality having to do with 'power', including assertion, etc. The real question is whether someone 'high' on this dimension is this way, 'naturally', i.e., in essence. As Francisco earlier posted the issue has already arisen, regarding intelligence, and no, the debate of the 'natural' or 'by nature' or 'inherited' or 'hard wired' component is not settled. The article he cited specifically takes a
'both and' position, regard brain and environment.
=======

I give some of F's evidence and experiences for comment. Consult the whole postings and the IE website for fuller elaborations.

from Francisco posting of 5/29 2:31 pm


However having said that, there is no conflict between my statement and the fact that there are dominants out there who have been submissive. There could be several reasons for such a change. They might have repressed their true nature and only later in life realized what their true path in life was, simply have been exploring to find their true nature, trying to please someone they were in a relationship with, or they might be switches, or maybe they are players in the scene. [...]

But to be honest, there is no real proof about being a Natural dominant or an innate Dom, at least as far as I know of. I know I am a Natural Dominant. I know in it in every fiber of my being. In my professional life I lead a small team of very highly technical persons. I used to lead a group of about 150 technicians. In my personal life my friends always come to me for advice. Yes I feel that I am a natural leader and a natural dominant person.

[from another posting]5/29 5:52 pm

I have been a Dominant all of my life, from earliest memories in childhood to my life as I live it 24/7 today. Whenever in a group I have always tried to lead it, and whenever there was another dominant person in the group I have tried to gain leadership. Not to say that this is a redeeming quality, just to state my character. [...]

I came into contact with a female dominant who for a short period in my life was my mentor. She, like many in this lifestyle, tried to convince me that the road towards dominance was through submission. I can calmly state that for me this was not so. I have made the effort and tried to accept her dominating me, but it was impossible as it was the complete opposite of who I am. I cannot be dominated simply because I hate being dominated. It does nothing for me but degrade me. I find no pleasure in it, no ‘kick’, if anything quite the contrary.

However that did not change the fact that I still had very strong dominant feelings, and with the help of the same female dominant I was able to grow with her guidance to what I consider to be a strong, male dominant.

It is my belief there are more like me out there, men and women, who simply can not be dominated. They are by nature dominant and cannot relinquish control of themselves over to another. [end excerpt]

These are well argued points, based on experiences, not only Francisco's. And as F admits, they are not 'real proof'. Yet they are fine considerations to present here. That said, the problems of the position, some pointed out by RS are, in brief (NOT!), the following.

1) Subjectivity; Transience;
"I know it in every fiber of my being." Of course F, you have only your experience to go by, but subjective certainty cannot weigh very heavily in the argument. It changes. It assuredly requires to be tested, else we have to believe the assertions of the 'unreflective' persons that they are 'naturally conservative, fascist, straight, or whatever'. To your credit, you give evidence of testing, under the domme. That surely strengthens the case, and is essential. Similarly the 'straight' person who's sampled or been exposed to the kinky, has a more persuasive case for being 'naturally straight', i.e., straight to the core, in essence, etc.

That said, we can still ask about
2) What the test--trial attempts to submit--shows. RS has addressed this point. Obduracy or perseverence is not quite evidence of an essential quality, though it counts for something.

I will illustrate the problem from some findings in the realm of hypnotherapy--to which I was exposed. Some persons cannot be hypnotized. (I always thought I was such.) Question: does that show something about their 'strength of character' or 'firmness of will' or 'imperviousness to others' influence'. Or even in Reismann's term 'inner directness.'

3) What the test might show: counterexample. There is some evidence that those who 'cannot be hypnotized'--if there are such-- have particular reasons for that characteristic.
Often something in the unconscious is 'threatening'. It must be kept under wraps. Sometimes the person, rather than a firm hold on self, has, in fact a weaker one, [clung to more firmly, precisely for that reason.]

After some research, I concluded the evidence was that it was a sign of strength to be hypnotizable. Of course we know of famous and brilliant and willful persons who've sampled the experience, like Aldous Huxley.

I don't want to say your experience is any different than you say it is, or that your conclusion is wrong, I'm merely suggesting the pitfalls of the approach.

To summarize, there's a counter argument that, if indeed, one is fully and essentially ('naturally') something, one can let it slip a bit on occasion. Perhaps the 'true' natural leader does NOT have to lead at each moment, nor be president/chair/prime mover in every single group or setting s/he is in. Not applying this to you necessarily, but I'm sure you have met those we say are 'rigidly' of a certain character. And the rigidity is evidence that, on some level, the person feels shakey in that characteristic.

Again, not applying this to you, but, in analogous cases, we become suspicious; a male says, "I'm straight, straight to the core, not a bit of gay in me, never never. And yes, once it happened a guy kissed me--caught me unaware--and I nearly threw up. I was utterly disgusted. That reaction further proves my point."

So, without attempting to rule out 'natural' examples, I have pointed out the pitfalls of the type of 'can't do otherwise' approach to proving, or giving evidence for, 'naturalness.'

Thanks to any who've survived this far and are awake.

 

[SilkVelvet]

Pure is using as an analogous case a man claiming basically to being 100% straight. Masters and Johnson and a whole load of other people came to the conclusion that sexuality is on a sliding scale between heterosexual and homosexual.

More recent findings that homosexuality is determined by genes, doesn't contradict this in my view. The genes plus environment and experiences will determine the position on the sliding scale of each person eg someone totally immersed in the gay lifestyle or someone who has a quick f**k here and there after a few alcoholic beverages but doesn't identify as gay or bi.

Now that the mapping of human genomes has been completed, perhaps research will prove that Dominance and Submission are also genetically determined traits that with the addition of environment and experiences, give that person's position on a sliding scale. That could then encompass the 24/7 365 Dom and someone who dabbles within the totality of Bdsm.

One person's version of Dominance or Submission should not, in my view, be held up to be better than another's. It seems very Animal Farm " All animals are equal but some are more equal than others" to me. Yes, there is a need for labels in that it helps people with similar attitudes and compatible needs find each other and form a D/s relationship for example. However it seems to me that the diversity of the Bdsm community is something which should be enjoyed, savoured and explored.

To me there seems an irony when within what the mainstream vanilla world would call a deviant community, people (and I use that as a generic term, it is NOT aimed at anyone specific here) are looking to justify a hierachy and saying that one kind of Dominance or Submission is somehow inherently better than another.

 

[Pure]

Hi Silk V

You said,

//To me there seems an irony when within what the mainstream vanilla world would call a deviant community, people (and I use that as a generic term, it is NOT aimed at anyone specific here) are looking to justify a hierachy and saying that one kind of Dominance or Submission is somehow inherently better than another.//

Despite the disclaimer, I sense possible application to some of the postings in this thread.

Me, I don't know about this 'natural' stuff. But that view, of Francisco et al. does not need to be snobbish or exclusive.

If a 'natural dom/me' is a paradigmatic case of 'dom/me/ he or she is not necessarily a better person or pervert that some one of more mixed psychosexual tendencies.

My dog is a wheaten mix, not a 'purebred wheaten'. He's thus not exemplary of wheatens . He's smaller. If you had to 'type' him, he's a mixture, but that doesn't make him a lesser or defective dog. Indeed I expect he'll outlive his purebred predecessor.

I think we should n't lose sight of what the 'natural' dominance discussion is about, the core issue. In a word, the IE folks believe that in setting up their particular 'master/slave' arrangements, they reflect and are in harmony with human nature and its falling into different places on the dominance submission spectrum.

It's to be noted that what they consider exemplary arrangements are not held to be suitable to all persons, and afaik, they do not say that the 'natural dom' / 'natural sub' pairs are better pairs, as kinky folk, than some other pair that 'switches' around on alternate days of the week, or 'plays' on Friday night only. Anyway, this is my 'take' on the issues and stances coming out here.

J.

 

[SilkVelvet]

Hi Pure

Actually I had in the back of my mind something I saw on Tanos' website.

He was trying to sort out with me why www.informedconsent.co.uk wouldnt work with my ISP's browser earlier today and sent me email from his personal site www.tanos.org.uk so I had a browse around it afterwards reading abt IE and classification of bottoms etc.

I read articles and look at classifications and I question. Why classify? What is the purpose of such a classification ? Is it useful? Does it have any IRL everyday significance ?

I read that the Master is creating a psychological environment for his slave to fulfill her needs and I see that. Isn't that just a fancy label though, for any Master/Dom/Top fulfilling the needs of his/her Slave/Sub/Bottom when putting thought into stretching her/him mentally and investing time and energy into the personal growth of the other person in the relationship ? Wouldn't any intelligent and caring person do that in a D/s relationship ? Shouldn't that be done in fact, in any good relationship, in theory ?

As a bisexual, I don't constantly refer to psychological theories etc in everyday life. Nor do I know any other people IRL or online in the GLBT community who do and in fact two of the gay men I know are into Bdsm, one as a Top and one as a sub. Yet looking at Bdsm websites I see it done often. So naturally I wonder why.

I was looking at a site yesterday, www.wizdomme.com which advocated that a sub not meet with a Dom(me) in a public place unless s/he had five references for him/her. I would take a cell phone with me, and make sure someone knew where I was when going to meet ANY stranger for coffee/lunch. But I wouldn't ask for five personal references first. Again I wonder why that is suggested.


So when querying different aspects of this thread I am attempting to learn, above all. Put the things I am learning into context. Understand why things are done differently and why certain things are deemed necessary.

Velvet x

 

[psiberzerker]

I'm as guilty as the next guy of using the "Natural" terminology referring to dominants, and submissives, though I don't really believe in them. All right, calm down, I know I've referred to myself in this way, but I believe I've been misunderstood.
I referr to natural dominant personality, a psychic condition commonly called a control freak. I won't get into the nature/nurture debate, I don't care where it comes from. The long, and short of it is that some people, a small minority of the BDSM community are NOT acting roles, but are acting out their predisposition for controll.
There are others, on the receptive side who are incapable of controlling the sexual playground because of their avoidant and/or dependant mentalities. These are your "Natural" submissives by default. Whether or not they want to be dominated hardly matters because they cannot make the first move, nor controll even their own end of the sexual danse.
You also asked if these so called "Naturals" are somehow exemplar, and I have to answer of course not. NOw, I don't want to get off on a rant here, but we, or they, or whatever don't deserve special dispensation for being born, or raised this way. I personally am trying to work out my controll issues safely, and pleasurably so I don't have to try to bend the world, and the people in it to my will. Treat me like any other Dom/me, and we'll call it even.
On the other end of the spectrum, we are not pariahs. I'm no more likely to go thatch than the next guy simply because I have this defect that makes me think my way is the best way, and you are all idiots for doing it your way. Please don't let me use it as an excuse for being an asshole, and don't put up with it from other people. It's my problem, and I seem to be dealing with it fairly well.
One other thing, don't take anybody's word for it online, not even mine. The myth of the natural dominant is wonderfull, sure fire bait for a troll. Accept that some people are just that way, and you will be overun by a slew of people claiming to have this special BDSM gene that makes them your natural masters. Give them enough rope, and they just might convince you that it's attached to the alleles for blonde hair, and blue eyes. From there, it can be assumed that they are the master race...
Phagh, a lot of poseurs would like you to think they are special. If you agree that means they really are, not the losers even their own mothers know them to be cause they can't get their shit together enough to get off the computer, and get a damned job. There's a difference between reason, and excuse. People who want special treatment because of the hand they where dealt are weak, and should be destroyed.

Of course, that's just my oopinion, I could be wrong.

 

[SilkVelvet]

Eek..I am worried now..

Natural Dominant Personality = Control Freak ?

I worked for a Control Freak, a real bully. She attempted to control everything and everyone around her, would mete out verbal warnings for disagreement on a whim and on occasion, when told she could not have her own way, threw things around the office.

I assumed that her attempts to control were born of an inability to roll with Life's punches and that her selfishness was born of a need to control to bolster her ego and feel good about herself.

I would be totally unable to trust a man who behaved like that, let alone submit to him and get into kinks such as flogging. I would not feel safe, and certainly not secure. I just could not let a man who had no control over himself, control me.

If an alternative description of a Natural Dominant is truly a Control Freak, I'll pass and settle for an UN natural Dominant

 

[catalina_francisco]

Re: Eek..I am worried now..

Natural Dominant Personality = Control Freak ?

I worked for a Control Freak, a real bully. She attempted to control everything and everyone around her, would mete out verbal warnings for disagreement on a whim and on occasion, when told she could not have her own way, threw things around the office.

I assumed that her attempts to control were born of an inability to roll with Life's punches and that her selfishness was born of a need to control to bolster her ego and feel good about herself.

I would be totally unable to trust a man who behaved like that, let alone submit to him and get into kinks such as flogging. I would not feel safe, and certainly not secure. I just could not let a man who had no control over himself, control me.

If an alternative description of a Natural Dominant is truly a Control Freak, I'll pass and settle for an UN natural Dominant

Your assessment of control freaks is very good and realistic but you can trust me when I say dominants, natural or whatever flavour you want to call them, are not remotely identifiable as a control freak. Those that do not have control of themselves, and thus do not seem to qualify the term dominant from my understanding and experience in the lifestyle, are dangerous and you are right to not entrust your welfare to them.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

I'm as guilty as the next guy of using the "Natural" terminology referring to dominants, and submissives, though I don't really believe in them. All right, calm down, I know I've referred to myself in this way, but I believe I've been misunderstood.
I referr to natural dominant personality, a psychic condition commonly called a control freak. I won't get into the nature/nurture debate, I don't care where it comes from. The long, and short of it is that some people, a small minority of the BDSM community are NOT acting roles, but are acting out their predisposition for controll.
There are others, on the receptive side who are incapable of controlling the sexual playground because of their avoidant and/or dependant mentalities. These are your "Natural" submissives by default. Whether or not they want to be dominated hardly matters because they cannot make the first move, nor controll even their own end of the sexual danse.
You also asked if these so called "Naturals" are somehow exemplar, and I have to answer of course not. NOw, I don't want to get off on a rant here, but we, or they, or whatever don't deserve special dispensation for being born, or raised this way. I personally am trying to work out my controll issues safely, and pleasurably so I don't have to try to bend the world, and the people in it to my will. Treat me like any other Dom/me, and we'll call it even.
On the other end of the spectrum, we are not pariahs. I'm no more likely to go thatch than the next guy simply because I have this defect that makes me think my way is the best way, and you are all idiots for doing it your way. Please don't let me use it as an excuse for being an asshole, and don't put up with it from other people. It's my problem, and I seem to be dealing with it fairly well.
One other thing, don't take anybody's word for it online, not even mine. The myth of the natural dominant is wonderfull, sure fire bait for a troll. Accept that some people are just that way, and you will be overun by a slew of people claiming to have this special BDSM gene that makes them your natural masters. Give them enough rope, and they just might convince you that it's attached to the alleles for blonde hair, and blue eyes. From there, it can be assumed that they are the master race...
Phagh, a lot of poseurs would like you to think they are special. If you agree that means they really are, not the losers even their own mothers know them to be cause they can't get their shit together enough to get off the computer, and get a damned job. There's a difference between reason, and excuse. People who want special treatment because of the hand they where dealt are weak, and should be destroyed.

Of course, that's just my oopinion, I could be wrong.

I am so sorry to have to say this but if you are not just trying to lighten a lengthy discussion with your quirky sense of humour, I would have to say you are one of those people you refer to who need to get their shit together. Seems your post, if serious that is which would indeed surprise me if it were, is full of judgements, assumptions, and put downs of everyone who does not fulfil your view of the world. Control freaks?..and yet you judge and decide who should be destoyed? Mmmm...maybe you are better at truth and analysis than you ever suspected....self analysis that is.

Catalina

 

[RisiaSkye]

I'm as guilty as the next guy of using the "Natural" terminology referring to dominants, and submissives, though I don't really believe in them. ...
There are others, on the receptive side who are incapable of controlling the sexual playground because of their avoidant and/or dependant mentalities. These are your "Natural" submissives by default. Whether or not they want to be dominated hardly matters because they cannot make the first move, nor controll even their own end of the sexual danse.

To echo Catalina: careful there, kiddo, your unsupportable assumptions are showing. It's not very flattering.

 

[incubus_dark]

Thank you for the lecture in logic. Perhaps my only actual point was that induction tends to be most used by the untrained and most likely to lie behind the carefuly presented chains of reasoning that end in plausable but ultimately unproven and dubious results. As a research scientist, I am well aware of the wild flights of fancy that result from trained individuals applying deduction, and the flaws inherent in that system too. In my professional life I find that at least once a week I am struck by the thought, "what total foolishness might I be promulgating unawares, because the current state of the art gives me a false premise or an absence of some critical and as yet undiscovered datum or worse, because the current gestalt is constructed about a prejudiced or erroneous framework", and of course, I can derive no answer.

Pure's critique of my statement regarding the value of the evidence in the thread are valid. When I read this I realised that my own hard science background leads me to make assumptions about the meaning of what I am saying, rather than say clearly what I mean. From the perspective of my own professinal life, related subjective experience and argument such as that presented here would be considered evidence that the subject merits study, but rejected as evidence in forming a conclusion; something that would require a chain of reasoning based on objective facts. While I realise that such hard facts are few and far between in any area of human behaviour, I merely wondered if any such existed in relation to this subject or, failing this, have any useful statistics been produced and what conclusions they might suggest? Obviously, any implication that the subjective experiences related here are not evidence is foolishness on my part, as perhaps is the assumption that anything but subjective evidence may be available.

I don't think I have singled out Francisco's critics in this regard, as was claimed, but if I have given this impression it is because my own nature causes me to find Fransisco's view seductively appealing irrespective of the merits of the other viewpoints forwarded. It is in part because of my awareness of this prejudice in myself that I was lead to enquire, albeit ineptly it would seem, as to the existance of any objective study in the area of dominance and submission that may be relevant here.

I am lead to wonder if more useful information might be garnered by asking, "what are the characteristics of those you consider to be exemplars of sexual dominance or submission in relation to the BDSM lifestyle? Do you consider them to be 'natural' dominants or submissives and if so, what leads you to this impression?"

 

[RisiaSkye]

i_d:
I apologize if I patronized you; it's an occupational hazard, I'm finding. Give too many lectures, and you may just find yourself lapsing into lecture mode without intending to do so. My frustration is with the unproblematic dismissal of induction in favor of deduction which I read in your earlier post. If I misread you, my bad.

You raise an interesting point about your science background. Well, interesting to me because it raises some interesting questions about our basic thought patterning, and the value judgements we associate with the best known and most widely recognized cognitive models.

I've often wondered whether my relative comfort with both induction and deduction (which is, based on both my experience and research , unusual) is related to my background of work. I started in human physiology, got my B.A. as a double major in biology & English, and then moved into cultural studies. Definitely the biology work relied more upon deduction and the rhetorical and literary work more upon induction. My current work relies upon both. Not exactly conclusive evidence of a larger correlation, but an interesting overlap nonetheless, wouldn't you say?

 

[SilkVelvet]

I think this is the point where I give up to superior intellects and let you all get on with it, not being a psychologist or a research scientist lol

As I bid you adieu though, I will point out that the orginal question still really hasn't been answered and no one has been able to tell me why it matters so much within the Bdsm community whether someone is a natural Dominant or not..and what that really is, because surely if someone is into Bdsm in a Dom way, s/he is doing so as a result of something in his/her psyche ?

Does anyone really go " oh yeah, I think I will just do Bdsm this week and next week I'll try gay sex " ?? I don't think so.

Good morning
Velvet x

 

[incubus_dark]

Dear SilkVelvet,

Please don't confuse job description with intellect, so far your posts have been amongst the most interesting and eloquent.

As far as I understand the arguments to date, Francisco believes that being a natural dom/sub is important in so far as it makes one better in their respective role and poorer in any attempt at the converse role by reason of innate talent and characteristics. Netzach disagrees under the theory that to do both irrespective of innate proclivity, makes one better at either due to the wider understanding gained. Most everyone else disagrees largely on grounds to do with the term 'natural', the relative merit of which is hotley contested. Most feel that irrespective of the term 'natural', the establishment of some implied hierarchy based on percieved innate characteristics is a bad thing in general. The importance of the whole question is viewed by most as dubious and few have been willing to consider whether such natural doms/subs should be exemplars, without divorcing the concepts of being an exemplar from being at the top of a hierarchy. Oh, and Pure is lurking around fuelling trouble and sowing the seeds of dissent, probably from motives of sheer mischeif.

Dear RisiaSkye,

No need to apologise, were I offended I need only go to another web site, it's not like I'm being forced to participate. I certainly don't dismiss induction, I do however, believe that it's succesful application requires far more care and it has been widely abused by those unfamiliar with it's pitfalls. It is widely held that while deduction is a superior tool in finding proofs, induction is invaluable for the development of new ideas and new directions of thought. It is my experience that those involved in the so called, 'soft sciences', are very much more comfortable with induction than those in the, 'hard sciences'. I have wondered if this is because the paucity of objective data decreed by the nature of the soft sciences makes induction essential for any progress in those areas, whereas the easy availability of objective data in the hard sciences allows nearly exclusive use of deduction, even though this usually necessitates a more tortuous chain of reasoning, though avoiding the dangers inherent in lax induction. This seems also to corelate with the flexibility and often radical switches in direction that the soft sciences undergo, while the hard sciences tend to progress in a more stable and linear manner until somebody kicks a deduced brick out of the wall and the whole thing collapses into a new paradigm. It is also if interest in this respect that when the soft sciences labour to match the percieved prestige of the hard sciences, they tend to do so by gathering statistics, upon wich they can apply deduction, whilst the underlying inductions that lead to how, why and what data were collected for analysis are carefully downplayed. From the perspective of the implied hierarchy it seems a tad silly.

 

[Ms_Lilith]

The only way I can put it is to sum up a scene from Blade:

Deacon Frost is talking to Karen, she says to him that he's not a pureblood... he was TURNED, not born a vampire. And he says 'in the end, it won't matter who's pureblood and who's turned.... we will become a living force'... or something to that effect.

Someone who is dominant from birth may actually end up finding that they are a submissive, in an attempt to let go of control. I was born into a family where my mother moulded me into a strong, assertive (bossy), often bitchy woman. And my submissiveness is natural to me... I did not learn it... it has always been there, I just discovered the name for it a year ago. Though I am dominant and assertive in many ways, I prefer to be submissive in the bedroom, I prefer to be submissive to the man that I am with (that's not to say I'm a door mat, because I'm not, I just prefer to give up that control), and I prefer to serve, than be served.

Again, someone who was born naturally submissive, by the time they've grown might find they need to exert dominance, to prove something about spine or backbone to themselves (who knows, I don't have that headspace).

What I'm saying is, I don't think it matters whether you're born dominant or submissive, as long as you are educated in your lifechoice... some 'pure bloods' might be weaker dominants or submissives than those who have been 'turned'.



Just as an aside, it's also something like homosexuality.... I know a woman who was straight her whole life... and then something really really horrible happened with men. She forsaked them, and became a lesbian. And she is happy beyond belief in her life. Maybe she was bisexual, or maybe she just saw that women could not hurt her like men, but she lives the life of a lesbian as well as any other lesbian I've ever known.

*shrug*

 

[catalina_francisco]

I think this is the point where I give up to superior intellects and let you all get on with it, not being a psychologist or a research scientist lol

As I bid you adieu though, I will point out that the orginal question still really hasn't been answered and no one has been able to tell me why it matters so much within the Bdsm community whether someone is a natural Dominant or not..and what that really is, because surely if someone is into Bdsm in a Dom way, s/he is doing so as a result of something in his/her psyche ?

Does anyone really go " oh yeah, I think I will just do Bdsm this week and next week I'll try gay sex " ?? I don't think so.

Good morning
Velvet x

Congratulations SilkVelvet. You have echoed the words I have been saying and thinking for the past few days about this discussion. One point I would like to clarify with you though is that I do not think you need sell yourself short on intellect at all. Though I have an academic background which I excelled at, it arose out of necessity and a need, not an attempt to prove I could be superior to anyone else in this universe.

Unfortunately, many feel it necessary to intellectualise every word of every sentence a person says, sometimes because that is how they have become, often because it gives them a feeliong of superiority and power over others who may have the same or greater intellect, but may not be as proficient at verbalising or articulating it.

Academia and knowledge are wonderful elements when used in the way I believe they were intended, to help us all achieve a greater understanding of our environment and live to the fullest. But as with all things, intellectual discourse based on academic knowledge has it's place and time. I know many people though who are considered to have genius IQ and yet when it comes to everyday things and treating others with respect, they fail repeatedly and cannot sort out solutions to the simplist problems unless it has been presented in a book.

I am sure if it rains for a week, that eventually the sun will shine again. I do not need a scientific analysis based on years of testing and research to feel secure in this. I also do not need to confuse people with intellectual data, though when called for I can do this and well I am told. For this forum I encourage knowledge to be shared which may come from proven fact, but I think the majority of people reading would then like more views presented in layman's terms that do not require a computer and mountain of texts to understand and digest. I would also like to remind people of the reams of records that document the history of scientific/psychological research, each fact disproving the one before it, and so it goes on. That is the school of thought I adhere to more often than not as though something may have been proven, I always like to think there are more discoveries to be made, new ways to look at things, and many things we cannot and may never be able to explain....but they exist.

These are my views and as Master likes me to have freedom of thought, and I have not shown it to him as yet, I will not claim them to reflect to the last point his views, though in most things we are almost always close to identical.
We will also be placing a further posting each on this thread shortly, but as the last 2 days have been horrendous for us, time has not permitted them to be transferred from paper to technology as yet.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

Mmmmm....well a short note in between working at home to address the issue of soft science versus hard science based on objective fact. While my degree probably would be considered in the soft science realm, it incorporated much of the hard science because I geared my study that way. That being said, one example I present of the comparison of paradigms and academia is I have been a supporter and user of alternative therapies (mainly natural and eastern medicine and philosophy) most of my life despite the wonderful medical and science fields repeatedly rubbishing it's value and safety.

I am having many laughs these days as I hear report after report about new and exciting discoveries in the world of medicine and science which have proven the undeniable benefits of the very therapies they denied for so long labelling them as nothing short of witchdoctor medicine. I do admire those who have the balls to mention in their reports and announcements though that their discovery has been used widely for years, sometimes centuries by those the establishment considered ignorant and fanatical.

Catalina

 

[SilkVelvet]

Firstly, thanks to Catalina and Incubus and others on this thread who have posted kind comments about my intellect and eloquence After little sleep, however I am not so sure, lol

Following on from Catalina's post however..

Though a newbie to this community, it is immediately apparent to me that there are issues within it. One is the natural/true/real Dominant and submissive debate with its hierachy/classification questions.

The second issue which I have discovered thus far in my journey, is that of the way in which the Internet itself, affects the Bdsm community. It can be viewed as a double-edged sword, enabling people within the community to interract in a way not previously possible and making Bdsm more accessible to newbies such as myself. There is a valid point made by some however, that the Internet dilutes the heritage and traditions of the Bdsm community and commercialises it. That people whose knowledge and experience of Bdsm starts (and maybe ends with) websites such as alt.com or bondage.com will have a very different take on Bdsm to someone whose experiences began in real life within say the clubs and munches.

It is all very well for people (and I am NOT 'having a go' at anyone specifically) to swap scientific and psychological theories ( on ANY subject) between themselves. That does very little to disseminate knowledge and understanding of (insert subject of choice) to a wider audience. In the specific case of Bdsm, and newbies such as myself, we need to accquire that knowledge, in order to better integrate within the community.

Linking the Natural Dom/sub and Internet issues together therefore...my attempt to ask questions about the Natural Dom/sub issue is not only to learn and understand for myself..but because I suspect that within the community there is maybe an unspoken desire to validate Bdsm to the wider vanilla world and gain acceptance, in the same way that the GLBT community has been able to do.

When respected people within Lit's Bdsm community with many many years Real Life experience can be seen figuratively scratching their heads on other threads, and saying that there are threads within Bdsm Talk that go way over their heads, perhaps more succinct and clearer discussion of the issues, which are real ones, becomes something useful ??

Just a thought, and not aimed at anyone in particular I assure you !!
Velvet x

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hello RisiaSkye,

No personal offence taken where none was intended. If I seem to have some hostility towards you, I apologise, as I do not intend to come over as hostile. However, when the discussion is good, and the wine is flowing freely, emotions seem to run wild and voices become more heated. But when the cannons have stopped bellowing, and the dust has settled, then I will invite you to take a glass of wine with me and toast together to the mutual understanding and acceptance we have gained about each other’s point of view.

Back to the thread:

I am going to try to address what several of my esteemed co-BDSMers have stated, trying to keep the academic language to a minimum as I would not want to upset my beloved, she can be quite ‘dominating’ at times . And SilkVelvet, I apologize for using language that might have come over as disguising my opinions in words.

There have been some misconceptions on where I stand, what my ideas really are, and what I am trying to ‘defend’ here. This is my own fault for not making them explicitly clear.

Some Dominants have a strong primal instinctive need to dominate. And I am talking here about domination in a BDSM sense. This is partly sexual, and partly not. Those dominants, I call natural dominants, and I consider myself to be of this group. I do not state, nor do believe, nor have I ever stated that a natural dominant is a better person than anyone else, nor do I believe there is a certain hierarchy inside BDSM and certainly not that a natural dominant is on the top of the food chain. In fact those that do not come to this state ‘naturally’ work harder at becoming who they are.

However, I do believe the natural Dominant has a certain advantage over other Dominants that do not have the same innate characteristics, apart from being able to avoid a lot of hard work. Although of course to a certain degree every Dominant has to have at least some of that innate characteristic or need, if not, why bother becoming a Dominant, why not just stay in the ‘vanilla’ world where you are more easily accepted and tolerated. The natural Dominant knows dominance instinctively, knowledge that normally Dominants have to acquire by experience, reading, discussing, or studying. Also the natural Dominant has a disadvantage. They simply cannot allow themselves to be dominated, which by some is seen as weakness and by others as strength. To me it is just a fact of life.

To say I sexually dominate Catalina when speaking of our relationship, would negate the fact that I control her in ways that are not sexual, although that is worthy of another discussion since to me almost anything can be sexual, one which in effect is a discussion we have had in another thread. Catalina is my slave in everything, I have absolute and total control over her whole being, she has trusted herself, her financial welfare, her mental health, her incredible mental faculties, and her gorgeous body and soul over to me. Sorry if I seem to ramble a bit here, this is what happens when a lovesick fool speaks about his beloved. This she has done completely out of her own accord and in complete freedom. The ‘agreement’ that exists between us is that of complete and total power exchange, in which the both of us have locked ourselves into an ever lasting relationship, burning every bridge behind us, eliminating any escape clause. This to some might seem a bit extreme, idealistic perhaps, and there are those who argue this is a kind of relationship that cannot exist, and what we have done is fabricate an illusion to cloak ourselves in.

To those I say, if I can taste the cookie, if I can smell the cookie, if I can feel the cookie and if I am convinced it is real, to me the cookie is real. Or maybe I am a butterfly that dreams I am having a cookie, which might also be a possibility of course. But if that is the case, I rather live the dream than be rudely awakened to a reality which is not the one I want to live in. Or to say it in Matrix terms, would you take the red pill or the blue one?

However, having said this, it is our choice; we do not push our choice onto others. I do not dominate anyone else in this world, the only person I want to dominate is Catalina. Catalina on the other hand does not want to submit to anyone else, and yes she can be assertive in the workplace and her profession, but that is nothing to do with whether she is submissive in the BDSM sense or not. I am her Master and she is my slave.

To me it is not a contradiction that I am a natural Dominant while I only want to dominate one person and do not feel the need to dominate others. This is the case with me and with many Dominants and Submissive who live the life of a 24/7 TPE relationship. If I may quote a much better writer than I can ever hope to be, although I can always aspire of course.

"This above all else, to thine own self be true" William Shakespeare

To claim that I would be completely and totally dominant in everything, and that I was dominant in all contexts seems to me a bit silly, for lack of a better word. Even Bill Gates who controls the world does not dominate Linus Thorvald. Even the most powerful beings do not control or have power over everything, taking an example out of the Roman Catholicism. Even God has not complete and total power over human beings, He has given us freedom to choose and think making that part of us uncontrollable by Him. So if Bill Gates does not control Linus Thorvald, and if God has relinquished part of His power, how could I have the audacity to even want to control the world?

No, I rather identify myself with Linus Thorvald making sure that at least one person in this world fights until even he is eaten up by the might of the Looking Glass. But that might be my upbringing, which is sometimes a pain being a Dominant, it would be so much easier not to believe in personal freedom, not to believe in the freedom of choice or to be able to push aside an opinion not equal to mine. Actually no, it makes my job as a Dominant easier since those are the values any person should uphold be they dominant, switch, or submissive.

A switch has a much broader view then a natural Dominant since they have been close to both the extremes of the spectrum, but they have not been one of the extremes exclusively, not completely, not totally, they have not been swallowed by the pure instinctive hunger of dominance or submissiveness. Of course it could be claimed that I am making a catch 22 statement, since I am excluding them from ever being able to feel what I feel just because they are a switch. It is a no-win situation and in fact a statement we could discuss hours and not come to an agreement over. At least I have never been able to come to an agreement about this with any switch. Their reality is theirs, as mine is mine.

There is a big difference between being a hungry, mad maniac and completely dominating your partner, or being taken over by an instinctive need to submit or dominate, being lead by something inside you that compels you to be what you are, perhaps even before you fully understand it’s nagging voice. Netzach, and to a certain degree also RisiaSkye, claim dominance can only be something sexual, something playful, something that cannot be your soul, something that is either playful and sexual or the ramblings of a complete power hungry maniac, which to some agree I admit I am, at least where it concerns my partner. This huge difference between my own viewpoint and that of Netzach has in fact started this thread.

There has been some criticism on the sharing of my personal experience, it has been said that I claim it to be the proof for natural dominance. This was nothing more than a personal experience and I am not about to volunteer to be put on the slab for scientific dissection to prove my point . I chose to share an experience which I have lived, not as my proof of being a natural Dominant but more as a means of expressing my individuality and in the hope that by sharing my experiences I could help another natural Dominant not make the same mistake I did. I do not feel I need to proof who I am or my naturalness in dominance. I know I am a natural Dominant, why should I have to proof something that I have decided I am. To misquote Rene Descartes, ‘I have decided therefore I am’.

I am sure that under the correct circumstances with a lot of torture and under great stress I would submit to any person….but only as a means of possible escape, not ‘true’ submission as BDSM’s understand the role to be. This is however not the point, the point that I was making was that I simply cannot be dominated, talking here only about domination as is seen by the majority in BDSM, not because I have a great strength, or I can resist anything or anyone in the world, but because to me domination goes both ways.

Domination being for me, is the fulfilment of needs of the parties involved, completely consensual. A symbiotic relationship in which the dominant feeds off the emotions, love and pain the submissive feels, shares and gives to the dominant.

This means since I do not have any submissive bones in my body, to dominate me is abuse and rape. And I am sure that you agree with me that is not domination in BDSM safe, sane, consensual terms. Domination goes both ways. To dominate someone who does not want to be dominated or does not feel any submissiveness in any degree is to renounce BDSM.

If a drunk picks up a cane and beats the living shit out of his wife, he is not dominating her, at least not in my book. What he is doing is abusing and raping her, be it physically or mentally. To keep trying to force the point to a natural Dominant that he needs to be dominated to become a better Dominant, is like saying to your wife to become a better wife sexually, I need to rape and abuse you. I am sorry if this sounds a bit strong and hostile, it is not my intention, I am only trying to show the depth of my feelings.

As a last note I would like to say to Pure, I would never throw up if a guy would like to kiss me as long as the guy was good looking and had brushed his teeth in the last 4 days. And to tell more would be telling

Francisco.