Bachlum Chaam
Crumpet Captivator
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2003
- Posts
- 4,235
Way to heavy for a simple sod like me I'm afraid,but congrats on the hard work put in
Natural Dominant; Natural Submissive; do they exist? are they exemplars?
- Thread starter Pure
- Start date
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
Just a small addendum to my post.
I promise no more long rambling essays. I have said most of what I can say about this subject.
Francisco.
I promise no more long rambling essays. I have said most of what I can say about this subject.
Francisco.
SilkVelvet
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2002
- Posts
- 493
And said it eloquently, and with humour 
and I understand now, thank you Francisco.
and I understand now, thank you Francisco. 
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Issues
Catalina said,
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.
You're right, we should strive to communicate, and I'll do so again.
At the same time, there's never a lack of friendly, easy, and bantering threads, some quite informative. So I don't feel that those who write long, literate posts, such as yourself, should always be aiming at the LCD.
Dark Incubus summarized the issues pretty well, though the prose is a little dense.
i_d said
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 mischief.
I don't quite agree with
// The importance of the whole question is viewed by most as dubious //
else most wouldn't waste time. People do sense the importance.
So in the spirit of Catalina--an island near where I grew up-- here are the issues put simply, in my own terms. Francisco laid out his case nicely, in his terms, but this overview is for any that find the 1800 words a stumbling block, so....
Francisco and others have said there are 'natural dom/mes', meaning persons dominant to the core, and in good supportive settings, dominant from birth ('natural masters'). Dominant is used in an interpersonal sense, including, for those over 10, a sexual part. At the opposite end of the spectrum are 'natural submissives' or 'natural slaves.'
Why does this matter, given that he agrees there are 'mixed' sorts of persons, and part time dominants, and those who've learned skills etc. And that he's no better as a person?
If there's 'natural dominance', this makes it legitimate, given consent, absence of violence, etc.
That means it's not, in the bad sense 'perverted' 'deviant' ; nor, of course, 'antisocial' or 'criminal'.
If you look at the gay and lesbian movements, you see a similar pattern. Some say "I'm that way since birth." "I have no meaningful choice."**
Partly this is to avoid the persecutors who always assert 'choice' then decide on a punishment. Nancy Reagan "Just say 'no'".
Again, studies of 'homosexuality' among animals are pointed to: it's in nature. Don't make it a crime or say it's an illness.
Remember that some sex acts are commonly said to be 'crimes against nature' or some intercourse 'unnatural.'
Nature is used by the straight groups and now, by the bdsm groups, like IE, as a standard. The natural is linked to the 'right', the proper.
In the bigger picture, is a view of an ordered society. The different people fill 'natural' roles that fit together,well. Think of how fundamentalist groups, Christian and Islamic, view the sexes, their roles, and marriage.
Those labelled 'deviant' are using a similar approach ('appropriating the rhetoric').
The natural dom/me and natural sub couples that F and C mention are held to be part of an ordered and harmonious social group. The difference from fundamentalists is that, for F, there are other possible, perfectly fine couplings, e.g., two switches, or two straight persons.
The particular 'natural' view we're looking at is tolerant, and non-hierarchical. If F and C are exemplars of the 'natural, dom-sub' couple, some other couple, Bruce Willis and Demi Moore, may be exemplars of the straight couple.
**Last point. Think of how people, in therapy or in spiritual quest talk of 'self-discovery'. "I find my true self" -- what I am, by nature. The gay and lesbian persons also have said "I've found my true self and 'come out'" Yes, temporarily one could hide, and 'choose' otherwise, but that's untrue to oneself and miserable.
So, in the life stories of those with the 'natural view' is the idea of self discovery. "My true nature." It feels like coming home, to many and diverse people.
There, 450 words. I hope it helps all readers here.
J.
Catalina said,
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.
You're right, we should strive to communicate, and I'll do so again.
At the same time, there's never a lack of friendly, easy, and bantering threads, some quite informative. So I don't feel that those who write long, literate posts, such as yourself, should always be aiming at the LCD.
Dark Incubus summarized the issues pretty well, though the prose is a little dense.
i_d said
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 mischief.
I don't quite agree with
// The importance of the whole question is viewed by most as dubious //
else most wouldn't waste time. People do sense the importance.
So in the spirit of Catalina--an island near where I grew up-- here are the issues put simply, in my own terms. Francisco laid out his case nicely, in his terms, but this overview is for any that find the 1800 words a stumbling block, so....
Francisco and others have said there are 'natural dom/mes', meaning persons dominant to the core, and in good supportive settings, dominant from birth ('natural masters'). Dominant is used in an interpersonal sense, including, for those over 10, a sexual part. At the opposite end of the spectrum are 'natural submissives' or 'natural slaves.'
Why does this matter, given that he agrees there are 'mixed' sorts of persons, and part time dominants, and those who've learned skills etc. And that he's no better as a person?
If there's 'natural dominance', this makes it legitimate, given consent, absence of violence, etc.
That means it's not, in the bad sense 'perverted' 'deviant' ; nor, of course, 'antisocial' or 'criminal'.
If you look at the gay and lesbian movements, you see a similar pattern. Some say "I'm that way since birth." "I have no meaningful choice."**
Partly this is to avoid the persecutors who always assert 'choice' then decide on a punishment. Nancy Reagan "Just say 'no'".
Again, studies of 'homosexuality' among animals are pointed to: it's in nature. Don't make it a crime or say it's an illness.
Remember that some sex acts are commonly said to be 'crimes against nature' or some intercourse 'unnatural.'
Nature is used by the straight groups and now, by the bdsm groups, like IE, as a standard. The natural is linked to the 'right', the proper.
In the bigger picture, is a view of an ordered society. The different people fill 'natural' roles that fit together,well. Think of how fundamentalist groups, Christian and Islamic, view the sexes, their roles, and marriage.
Those labelled 'deviant' are using a similar approach ('appropriating the rhetoric').
The natural dom/me and natural sub couples that F and C mention are held to be part of an ordered and harmonious social group. The difference from fundamentalists is that, for F, there are other possible, perfectly fine couplings, e.g., two switches, or two straight persons.
The particular 'natural' view we're looking at is tolerant, and non-hierarchical. If F and C are exemplars of the 'natural, dom-sub' couple, some other couple, Bruce Willis and Demi Moore, may be exemplars of the straight couple.
**Last point. Think of how people, in therapy or in spiritual quest talk of 'self-discovery'. "I find my true self" -- what I am, by nature. The gay and lesbian persons also have said "I've found my true self and 'come out'" Yes, temporarily one could hide, and 'choose' otherwise, but that's untrue to oneself and miserable.
So, in the life stories of those with the 'natural view' is the idea of self discovery. "My true nature." It feels like coming home, to many and diverse people.
There, 450 words. I hope it helps all readers here.
J.
Last edited:
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
1800 words!
Here again I have proven what my students always used to say, I talk to much.
Francisco.
Here again I have proven what my students always used to say, I talk to much.
Francisco.
psiberzerker
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2003
- Posts
- 2,093
Yes, my Milleresque post was tounge in cheek, and no, it's not wrong on it's face. I am a control freak, I know this, take my word for it. That doesn't mean I boss people around, or bully people, though sometimes I'm tempted. I like to think I'm fairly even tempered, concidering.
Ds is cathartic for me, not some ego stroking game. I satisfy my need to controll, and dominate in controlled, pleasurable environments like the bedroom so I don't have to piss people off, and push them around. That is my Dominant personality, under controll.
There is a diagnosed, and accepted dominant personality disorder, and it is much as I described. (Doesn't happen to be my particular brand of insanity, but whatever.) This would be your "Natural" dominant, not someone who has a knack for making people feel subjigated.
Everyone who bandies about that term like it's something good needs to take a good long hard look at the Napolleonic short people, asshole outlaw bikers, and sexual harrassing bosses. These are naturally dominaneering like a bengal tiger is naturally a predator.
You're right, you'd rather play with "UN natural" dominants, we all would, because they don't play. Anybody who clames to be one online is the stereotypical wanker trying to be special, or an overbearing bully. Either way, you don't want to get involved with them.
Buy the bi, accusing me of being one of those personality difficient buffs makes about as much damned sense as putting a mule abaft of a honey wagon, (Ass backwards). I said, and I quote "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."
Look at the post record, while you where arguing the finer points of nature Vs nurture in the creation of some messianic Uberdom/me I was working. Whether you where at a job, or at home yanking the crank, I hardly see how that description applies to me more than oh, say you. Tell you what, next time you notice my kettle starting to tarnish, why don't you at least pull your own ass off the fire, and whipe off the soot before pointing it out. Then you can lecture me on calling the pot black.
And finally, at least I have the sense, and common decency to call my opinions what they are. You're not god, and that's not a mote in your eye. Untill you kick his ass of the cloud, don't make pronouncements on high. I'm not one of your little numb fuck submissives that will turn the other arse cheek because you say so.
As a post script, I rather enjoyed Fran/Cat's elloquent, and well thought out posts. I for one don't mind reading rhetoric so long as it's entertaining. While I don't happen to agree, you get points for presentation, and you are entitled to your own opinion.
Ds is cathartic for me, not some ego stroking game. I satisfy my need to controll, and dominate in controlled, pleasurable environments like the bedroom so I don't have to piss people off, and push them around. That is my Dominant personality, under controll.
There is a diagnosed, and accepted dominant personality disorder, and it is much as I described. (Doesn't happen to be my particular brand of insanity, but whatever.) This would be your "Natural" dominant, not someone who has a knack for making people feel subjigated.
Everyone who bandies about that term like it's something good needs to take a good long hard look at the Napolleonic short people, asshole outlaw bikers, and sexual harrassing bosses. These are naturally dominaneering like a bengal tiger is naturally a predator.
You're right, you'd rather play with "UN natural" dominants, we all would, because they don't play. Anybody who clames to be one online is the stereotypical wanker trying to be special, or an overbearing bully. Either way, you don't want to get involved with them.
Buy the bi, accusing me of being one of those personality difficient buffs makes about as much damned sense as putting a mule abaft of a honey wagon, (Ass backwards). I said, and I quote "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."
Look at the post record, while you where arguing the finer points of nature Vs nurture in the creation of some messianic Uberdom/me I was working. Whether you where at a job, or at home yanking the crank, I hardly see how that description applies to me more than oh, say you. Tell you what, next time you notice my kettle starting to tarnish, why don't you at least pull your own ass off the fire, and whipe off the soot before pointing it out. Then you can lecture me on calling the pot black.
And finally, at least I have the sense, and common decency to call my opinions what they are. You're not god, and that's not a mote in your eye. Untill you kick his ass of the cloud, don't make pronouncements on high. I'm not one of your little numb fuck submissives that will turn the other arse cheek because you say so.
As a post script, I rather enjoyed Fran/Cat's elloquent, and well thought out posts. I for one don't mind reading rhetoric so long as it's entertaining. While I don't happen to agree, you get points for presentation, and you are entitled to your own opinion.
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
psiberzerker said:
Hey man, ain't you ever heard that Joan Osborne song 'One Of Us'?
Catalina
Johnny Mayberry
Golden Boy
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Posts
- 6,460
I think I have a certain natural disposition to be a certain way. I am not a bully or a thug, but I do tend to take charge, and accpet the authority and responsibility that comes with it. I don't think I have a disorder, I simply think I have the same sort of personality that makes for great leaders, and great bosses. I was good at being a Marine NCO, I am good at being a Dom for a sub, and I think both come from the same sort of place mentally and emotionally.
I think some of the posts on this thread have been interesting, and some aren't worth sour owl poop. I'm not going to say which are which.
I think some of the posts on this thread have been interesting, and some aren't worth sour owl poop. I'm not going to say which are which.
SilkVelvet
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2002
- Posts
- 493
deleted
Last edited:
Johnny Mayberry
Golden Boy
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Posts
- 6,460
No offense, but maybe you should bugger off back to a fluff thread until you have something to contribute. Or, better yet, go do some reading in the library.SilkVelvet said:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Francisco,
Maybe an _urge_ can be pure, but persons can't be
Let me state in a couple sentences the problem I have with 'natural dom' etc. I think there are 'natural' things, but I'd say that it's the urges and impulses: There's perhaps a 'natural' instinct to dominate (and purely that), and perhaps also to aggress. BUT there are likely instincts, urges and tendencies of the opposite sort, also natural. When you get to the 'person' level you almost always have a mixture; this sort of principle is one Kinsey recognized in his 'homosexual --heterosexual scale, 1-10. [ok, that's the 4-sentence 'nutshell'.]
IF the'natural dom' is said to be through and through dominant, not a submissive bone in his body, that's just not plausible. As I argued by analogy, regarding a 'natural 100% straight male', there's always something else mixed in---and the louder they claim 100% the less I believe it.
By analogy, the '100% natural woman' is also not plausible if youre to say, 'there's nothing masculine or active about her; she is *totally* feminine.' For instance would the 'natural woman' have any attraction to women? even this tiniest amount? You know every woman has a bit of testosterone going for her, in a rather important way.
In closing, I want to second the point of some others that persons, ideally are balanced. They can self assert, but on occasion, can 'lay back.' As Psiberserker said, the '100% dominant' might well be a social hazard, what some would call predator.
Ah, but you are balanced, you say, and hardly a danger to others: fine, but if you're balanced, I would want to say you have other urges and tendencies [some of them 'natural'] besides dominating ones, some of those of the pro-social, or receptive, or passive nature.
J.
Maybe an _urge_ can be pure, but persons can't be
Let me state in a couple sentences the problem I have with 'natural dom' etc. I think there are 'natural' things, but I'd say that it's the urges and impulses: There's perhaps a 'natural' instinct to dominate (and purely that), and perhaps also to aggress. BUT there are likely instincts, urges and tendencies of the opposite sort, also natural. When you get to the 'person' level you almost always have a mixture; this sort of principle is one Kinsey recognized in his 'homosexual --heterosexual scale, 1-10. [ok, that's the 4-sentence 'nutshell'.]
IF the'natural dom' is said to be through and through dominant, not a submissive bone in his body, that's just not plausible. As I argued by analogy, regarding a 'natural 100% straight male', there's always something else mixed in---and the louder they claim 100% the less I believe it.
By analogy, the '100% natural woman' is also not plausible if youre to say, 'there's nothing masculine or active about her; she is *totally* feminine.' For instance would the 'natural woman' have any attraction to women? even this tiniest amount? You know every woman has a bit of testosterone going for her, in a rather important way.
In closing, I want to second the point of some others that persons, ideally are balanced. They can self assert, but on occasion, can 'lay back.' As Psiberserker said, the '100% dominant' might well be a social hazard, what some would call predator.
Ah, but you are balanced, you say, and hardly a danger to others: fine, but if you're balanced, I would want to say you have other urges and tendencies [some of them 'natural'] besides dominating ones, some of those of the pro-social, or receptive, or passive nature.
J.
Last edited:
SilkVelvet
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2002
- Posts
- 493
deleted
Last edited:
Johnny Mayberry
Golden Boy
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Posts
- 6,460
Pure,
I understand what you mean about there being a spectrum...I am not 100% Dominant...but the needle swings hard to that side of the dial.
I understand what you mean about there being a spectrum...I am not 100% Dominant...but the needle swings hard to that side of the dial.
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
Thank you, and I do also respect your opinion and your postings as they are honest and open postings which reflect your opinion, and your right to post them here.
So maybe you can agree with this, let’s say we have the same as we have in a Kinsey homosexual -heterosexual scale, but instead in the scale from submissiveness to dominance. The scale has a 1 and a 10. Let’s say we define the one to be as submissive as possible, and the ten as dominant as possible.
I put myself on a 10 and Catalina on a 1.
I am not going to discuss the finer points of what is exactly a 1 and what is exactly a 10. You may decide for yourself if a 10 has 0,1,2,3 or 4 bones of submissiveness and if the 1 has 0,1,2,3, or 4 bones of dominance. In reality it does not change anything. To discuss if I have 0, 1, 2 or 3 submissive bones does not affect the base of my theory. Even in the Kinsey scale although the most heterosexual might have a small part of him that is homosexual it does not negate the fact that he is not homosexual, he is not attracted to his own gender.
Last edited:
SilkVelvet
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2002
- Posts
- 493
deleted
Last edited:
Johnny Mayberry
Golden Boy
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Posts
- 6,460
Hey kids...we're all off topic now, let's get back to what this thread is about, ok?
And, Pure, my apologies for sidetracking things.
And, Pure, my apologies for sidetracking things.
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
SilkVelvet said:
Hi Velvet,
I do not see anything improper about your remark, if anything a bit of humor inserted between all of the long dreary tales makes it a lot easier to read.
Francisco & Catalina.
incubus_dark
Really Experienced
- Joined
- May 25, 2003
- Posts
- 291
There are few things so sadly amusing as the person who is tragically serious.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Psiberzerker said,
There is a diagnosed, and accepted dominant personality disorder, and it is much as I described. (Doesn't happen to be my particular brand of insanity, but whatever.) This would be your "Natural" dominant, not someone who has a knack for making people feel subjigated.
As a matter of fact, there is no accepted 'dominant personality disorder'. Nothing like it in DSM IV. "Narcissistic" would be closest, perhaps.
A feminist psychologist once proposed, partly tongue in cheek,
a "macho disorder", which she labeled "Delusional Dominating Personality Disorder" and you can see it described at
http://www.mediawatch.com/machodisorder.html
This fellow might be called the bullying jealous asshole type. Her proposal was never accepted by the powers that be.
The 'natural dominant' being discussed, has not been fully characterized, but should not necessarily be equated to the bullying tyrant (even though that's not a disorder; every kind of asshole is not a disorder or illness).
For every normal leaning, there is a sick extreme. Only some will be recognized as disorders by mostly male psychiatrists: Dependent personality was a disorder, but there is no 'excessively independent' disorder.
For detail mindedness and perfectionism, there is the obsessive compulsive disorder. For self centered ness, there is the narcissistic disorder, etc. The 'sickness' is ascribed because the person is not fully functional as a social being--e.g., no friends; can't hold a job, etc.
The 'natural' i.e., through-and-through, 'dom' to the core is not necessarily the most extreme sick case, despite his/her ranking 1 --the extreme end--on a hypothetical 1-10 dominance/submission scale, assuming there were such a thing, for such a scale would be premissed on a normal personality.
On Kinsey's scale of homosexual heterosexual, if 1 is the complete, 'extreme', i.e., exclusive homosexual, this is not necessarily the psycho killer homosexual (Gacey).
Both of PB's postings are a bit 'over the top' imo.
J.
There is a diagnosed, and accepted dominant personality disorder, and it is much as I described. (Doesn't happen to be my particular brand of insanity, but whatever.) This would be your "Natural" dominant, not someone who has a knack for making people feel subjigated.
As a matter of fact, there is no accepted 'dominant personality disorder'. Nothing like it in DSM IV. "Narcissistic" would be closest, perhaps.
A feminist psychologist once proposed, partly tongue in cheek,
a "macho disorder", which she labeled "Delusional Dominating Personality Disorder" and you can see it described at
http://www.mediawatch.com/machodisorder.html
This fellow might be called the bullying jealous asshole type. Her proposal was never accepted by the powers that be.
The 'natural dominant' being discussed, has not been fully characterized, but should not necessarily be equated to the bullying tyrant (even though that's not a disorder; every kind of asshole is not a disorder or illness).
For every normal leaning, there is a sick extreme. Only some will be recognized as disorders by mostly male psychiatrists: Dependent personality was a disorder, but there is no 'excessively independent' disorder.
For detail mindedness and perfectionism, there is the obsessive compulsive disorder. For self centered ness, there is the narcissistic disorder, etc. The 'sickness' is ascribed because the person is not fully functional as a social being--e.g., no friends; can't hold a job, etc.
The 'natural' i.e., through-and-through, 'dom' to the core is not necessarily the most extreme sick case, despite his/her ranking 1 --the extreme end--on a hypothetical 1-10 dominance/submission scale, assuming there were such a thing, for such a scale would be premissed on a normal personality.
On Kinsey's scale of homosexual heterosexual, if 1 is the complete, 'extreme', i.e., exclusive homosexual, this is not necessarily the psycho killer homosexual (Gacey).
Both of PB's postings are a bit 'over the top' imo.
J.
Last edited:
incubus_dark
Really Experienced
- Joined
- May 25, 2003
- Posts
- 291
Pure said:
Perhaps, since we don't appear to be getting anywhere fast persuing this question on this tack, it might instead be worthwhile to ask those interested to suggest their characterisation of our hypothetical ideal natural sexual dominant and submissive.
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
incubus_dark said:
I am an arrogant bastard, but to call myself the ideal natural dominant would be even for me a bit over the top. So just to make sure that my poor reputation, which has had to suffer already from this thread, does not get damaged even more. I am just a natural Dominant, not perfect or some ideal and I do not see myself as such.
But for me the ideal dominant is:
Strong personality, knows what they want and why they want it.
They can handle pressure and they seem to thrive under it, the more they get the more focussed they become.
They have strong protective urges; they have a great need to protect their partner(s).
They dominates through understanding and personality, they do not need to resort to violence for control.
They have a kinky side, they can be sadist but are not necessarily so.
Needs to be in control of themself and their partner(s), they can not relinquish control easily.
Is a very self-assured person, could be seen by others as arrogance.
Strong logical personality, thinks through logic, wants to know the why and the how.
They will instinctively, when in doubt, fall back on their strong primal urges.
They have a symbiotic relationship with their partner(s), they will give back as much as they receive.
The ideal submissive:
Strong personality can handle great pressures and is an intelligent person.
Has a natural tendency to advise but not to make the final decisions.
To be able to handle pressure they rely on their partners.
Is willing to sacrifice their own comfort, welfare and in some case their self being for their SO.
They have strong emotional bonds with their SO.
Has a kinky side, not necessarily masochist but can be part of them.
Does not want to be in control, but can be if the need arises.
They will, when in doubt, fall back on their strong primal urges.
They have a symbiotic relationship with their partner(s), they will give back as much as they receive.
Francisco.
incubus_dark
Really Experienced
- Joined
- May 25, 2003
- Posts
- 291
Fransisco,
I was wondering if Catalina's idea of the ideal natural sub differs in any way from yours, or is that your combined perspective. The only reason I ask is that it may be interesting to see the difference in opinion from the sub's point of view, if any, in such a close and like minded couple.
I was wondering if Catalina's idea of the ideal natural sub differs in any way from yours, or is that your combined perspective. The only reason I ask is that it may be interesting to see the difference in opinion from the sub's point of view, if any, in such a close and like minded couple.
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
I will ask her to post her ideas when she can come online.
Francisco.
Francisco.
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
It's ironic, I don't buy "natural" even after all this discourse, but my ideal Dominant/ideal submissive paradigms are almost identical to Francisco's.
How can this be?
Perhaps my lens/vantage point/how you choose to see it diatribe is not so far off the mark, and it's entirely possible to arrive at similar conclusions via separate means.
Where I differ:
The ideal Dominant is so comfortable in his/her own skin, so accustomed to his/her ability to be in power that they don't have to be, that it's almost an irrelevancy.
In a progression of learning:
(you don't know what you don't know, you do know what you don't know, you know what you know, you don't know what you know)
it's at that last, elusive, subtle level of knowledge. It's so much a part of your fiber and your habits that you don't even notice it, your sub may not either, there's simply no other way to interact together, or no other thing that garners as much meaning.
That level of knowledge is not ALWAYS innate, it can be acquired. I'm not able to articulate the specifics of how when and what mental/manual connections allow me to draw, I know they are there because of a combination of learning to see, learning to make marks, and having enough *innate interest in the subject to become passionate about it.*
Like you, I am only interested in relating to my fiance the way I relate to him. How I relate to other individuals is left to the individual vagaries and quirks that make them not him.
I could be dominant with another person, but I don't think the same means would make any sense whatsoever, their responses are going to be completely different. I would be changed in the endeavor, not "to please them" or whatever, but to be more effective.
I don't consider myself Dominant. I consider how I am with my fiance *how I am with my fiance*. The SM speak term "dominant" can be applied as an approximation, but falls very short of getting at the whole. I still don't see how the playful/sexual only ties into this viewpoint, sex is hardly as frequent as we'd like with the lives we lead. Again, it's not lite, it hasn't got an on/off switch, but it's *integrated* into the world.
In a TPE model, you integrate the world into your D/s. To put it bluntly. Am I incorrect?
That's where I differ.
How can this be?
Perhaps my lens/vantage point/how you choose to see it diatribe is not so far off the mark, and it's entirely possible to arrive at similar conclusions via separate means.
Where I differ:
The ideal Dominant is so comfortable in his/her own skin, so accustomed to his/her ability to be in power that they don't have to be, that it's almost an irrelevancy.
In a progression of learning:
(you don't know what you don't know, you do know what you don't know, you know what you know, you don't know what you know)
it's at that last, elusive, subtle level of knowledge. It's so much a part of your fiber and your habits that you don't even notice it, your sub may not either, there's simply no other way to interact together, or no other thing that garners as much meaning.
That level of knowledge is not ALWAYS innate, it can be acquired. I'm not able to articulate the specifics of how when and what mental/manual connections allow me to draw, I know they are there because of a combination of learning to see, learning to make marks, and having enough *innate interest in the subject to become passionate about it.*
Like you, I am only interested in relating to my fiance the way I relate to him. How I relate to other individuals is left to the individual vagaries and quirks that make them not him.
I could be dominant with another person, but I don't think the same means would make any sense whatsoever, their responses are going to be completely different. I would be changed in the endeavor, not "to please them" or whatever, but to be more effective.
I don't consider myself Dominant. I consider how I am with my fiance *how I am with my fiance*. The SM speak term "dominant" can be applied as an approximation, but falls very short of getting at the whole. I still don't see how the playful/sexual only ties into this viewpoint, sex is hardly as frequent as we'd like with the lives we lead.
Again, it's not lite, it hasn't got an on/off switch, but it's *integrated* into the world.In a TPE model, you integrate the world into your D/s. To put it bluntly. Am I incorrect?
That's where I differ.
