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

[SilkVelvet]

Francisco, you make the point about switches having a validity in BDSM and I agree. I cannot see why anyone would disagree, actually.

Just as a bisexual can relate sexually to both male and female, a switch must surely be able to relate to both Dom and sub. Why does experience of both sides of the fence make someone's sexual preference less valid ?

 

[lark sparrow]

Hi LS,

I have enjoyed the discussion between yourself and Pure. There are 3 important reasons for me to use the label 'natural'. It is a way to distinguish myself from the players, indicating that it is my lifestyle, my way of living. I use it to show the depth of my commitment to BDSM, and the integration of BDSM into my reality.

I have a certain instinctive need to dominate; it is a force inside me which I can control but not silence. Dominating and exerting sexual and non-sexual control over my partner answers a need, when I do not comply, it creates a hunger inside me, a hunger to control and dominate, a hunger which I need to feed.

IMO this is what happened to Sade, you can clearly see in his life how much he needed to exert control and power but not living in our ‘enlightened’ times he lost control over himself and did not comply to Safe Sane and Consensual, no he raped, murdered and pillaged.

Natural also has another meaning, something can feel completely natural, it can be considered as being a normal and integral part of your personality, which is also another reason I use that terminology. It is part of me, if feels completely ’natural’ to me.

<snip>

Francisco.

Thanks, and yes, this is very much the view I have attached to the term 'natural Dominant (submissive, slave)', and also why I think the analogy to the GLBT community is off base. 'Real' or 'true' may be used in the seedy underbelly, but the term 'natural' isn't touted around as an acceptable division between individual homosexuals.

'Natural' seems a softer, perhaps less judgemental term for 'true' and/or 'real'.. and the way it stays less judgemental to my way of thinking is to keep it in the personal (self-defined) rather than the universal (labeling others). I.e. - "I am a 'natural Dominant'", not "well, he is obviously NOT a 'Natural Dominant'".

Whether one is a player or not a player (in the negative connotation I have run across on the 'net - here, IRL a player is someone actively involved in BDSM, no negativity) will be discovered through other means than the label "natural" before a title - the bad players will use it too, in fact they will eat up and flock to a distinction like that.

I honestly don't think the people who use the term 'natural' here use it to specifically imply others are 'fake', but rather what is real and true to themselves, but you can see how this could easily develop. It's one of the reasons I try to stick to the personal here and avoid categories - which Pure is so fond of making, and why we butt heads.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hi LS,

I can see your point, and the point so often made now about labels. They can be very confusing. Players can indeed be used in 2 ways, when talking about the NET it often indicates someone who is not seriously involved in BDSM.

Not being English, not being involved in the English speaking clubs/ scene/ munches/ meetings (whatever is your specific taste); I would never have used the word player in the context as you describe IRL.

Now that I think about it and translate out of Dutch/Spanish I can see the correlation. It has a completely different meaning IRL.

Again it is proven how labels can have completely different meanings. Thank you for pointing that out for me.

Francisco.

 

[RisiaSkye]

For a thread accused of becoming overly intellectual (or perhaps those accusations were directed more precisely at particular posters, eh?), this continues to generate a lively discussion.

Interesting how much room there is for intellectual debate, despite all protestations against it. While I've withdrawn my hat from the ring, having said my piece and left it at that, I continue to be interested in the responses here. Thanks to all for one of the more mentally stimulating conversations to be had around these parts in many months.



RS

 

[lark sparrow]

The woman has an arm!

Whew, the backhand in Risia's compliments could knock a person out cold.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I While I've withdrawn my hat from the ring

I for one would love it, if you would enter the ring again and give us your opinion. It would be an honour to cross blades with such a superb swordsperson as you clearly are.

Francisco.

 

[lark sparrow]

<snip>That is not to say that the Lesbian community as a whole has no issues and does not discriminate. I would not want to hold it up as a shining example either. There are issues between lesbians and bisexuals.

My ISP closed the UK Bisexual boards and chat rooms, for example, because of the problem of heterosexual men and women posting personal ads wanting threesomes. The posters merely moved to the lesbian boards and chatrooms and started asking there, obviously not understanding the term 'lesbian' !

However, for bisexuals, both male and female our whole online community was taken away from us. The lesbians on the boards and chatrooms, heartily sick of the personal ads posters, became extremely hostile to all bisexual women and it got so bad, that several private bisexual female groups were started. So the bisexual community online on my ISP became fragmented.
<snip>

I didn't want to get too far off topic, but I have also seen this happen, particularly online. IRL, things have gotten far more complicated on the topic of gender than that never ending conflict. At events specifically for women it goes like this: open for leather womyn of all persuasions & all nationalities who enjoy womyn to womyn S/M. All S/M dykes, straight, bi-sexual and transexual womyn are welcome. FTM and transgender bois/men who feel they still have a place in the S/M womyns' community are also welcome.

Throwing in a link just for fun here:

Outside of constraint visited on mainstream concepts
of gender, the queer continuum revels in paradox,
defying definition. Presented as part of the National
Queer Arts Festival 2003, EG: (r)Evolution of Gender
tracks the influence of gender identity on artists and
their work. In this curated exhibition, eight artists
will show works with different perspectives on gender
identity, roles and their own relative gender
positions. Subject matter ranges from androgynous and
deliberately non-gendered to the ephemera of gender
transition. Some artists will show work from multiple
series, revealing changes in their own experiences
with gender. Others will display work that seeks to
expand the boundaries of gender perception and
self-identity.

Represented disciplines include photography, painting,
multimedia and sculpture. Abstract narrative combines
with found objects, reinterpretation, and the politic
of theory. Each artist explores gender from a
different point of view and cultural investment.
Carland reinvents personal history by playing both the
role of her mother and father, and Dowling suggests
dualities created with prosthetics. Taylor and Jones
use charged common objects to rework the lines of
cultural politics in their art. De Jong and Michals
create deliberate images of non-defined gender, while
Nguyen and Daughtry chronicle a shift away from
androgyny to explore male sexuality.

Gender identity no longer begins with simple
male/female constructs and juxtapositions, and it does
not end at the doorstep of transgender. EG:
(r)Evolution of Gender provides visual testimony from
this dedicated group of artists working within queer
culture to expose the riches of the gender experience.

More information is available at
http://www.killerbanshee.com/evolutionofgender

 

[Pure]

N said,

//My opinion, about all of my sexuality, is "do I have to be born this way to have the right to be left the fuck alone?" //

A good point. Yet the first part of the answer is that what's not chosen can't be the object of a criminal prosecution. Criminal intent (mens rea), roughly speaking, implies choice or voluntariness.

At a deeper level, of course, the whole 'born gay' or 'born dom' or whatever is not a good argument for legitimacy. At some of the sites I visited and posted, it's pointed out the people are born with tendencies to alcoholism or to violence, but that doesn't excuse. So "born X" doesn't imply 'proper' [=properly x] 'lawful' or 'moral'. Likewise, something that arises later is not necessarily unlawful or antisocial. Like the urge to save the children in Africa.

As LS has pointed out, the women's mvt and the gay/lesbian mvt has been over lots of these questions. The appeal to 'essences' (nature) rapidly ran out of credibility--e.g., limitations to 'womyn-born womyn.'

Look at the current concoction: //At events specifically for women it goes like this: open for leather womyn of all persuasions & all nationalities who enjoy womyn to womyn S/M. All S/M dykes, straight, bi-sexual and transexual womyn are welcome. FTM and transgender bois/men who feel they still have a place in the S/M womyns' community are also welcome.//

Essentially it's come to 'whoever thinks as a womyn, or believes themselves to be such.' Which isn't entirely satisfactory, say in women's tennis, where MTF folks turn up and overpower the 'women born women.'

In short, either going with essences (born x) or with self ascriptions has pitfalls, but the former in particular, as can be seen in the defenses of F's positions.

I'm impressed with the quality of all contributions.

 

[catalina_francisco]

In my never ending quest for more knowledge I came across this link.

I think it is relevant to our discussion. It is an essay of a female dominant about natural dominance.

Francisco.

http://www.domin8rex.com/serpent/mind/psych.htm

 

[incubus_dark]

Yet the first part of the answer is that what's not chosen can't be the object of a criminal prosecution. Criminal intent (mens rea), roughly speaking, implies choice or voluntariness.

At a deeper level, of course, the whole 'born gay' or 'born dom' or whatever is not a good argument for legitimacy. At some of the sites I visited and posted, it's pointed out the people are born with tendencies to alcoholism or to violence, but that doesn't excuse. So "born X" doesn't imply 'proper' [=properly x] 'lawful' or 'moral'. Likewise, something that arises later is not necessarily unlawful or antisocial. Like the urge to save the children in Africa.

I couldn't agree more with this point. In the UK and just begining in Australia, the defense of pedophilia is leaning more and more heavily on the 'born that way' argument. Doesn't make it right and in my view doesn't give grounds to be let off with stern warning to participate in weekly psychotherapy when the recidivism rate is around 98%.

Clearly this is a cogent argument against applying special status for being 'born that way'.

LS, in the context of this thread, natural is not being used to imply others are fake, but I have seen it used with that implication often enough. Still, even if one is 'faking', by which I understand that they are doing something that they have learned for the benefit of another or because they have learned to enjoy it, I don't see why that must of necessity be bad.

I still can't bring myself to disagree that somebody who is a natural, or being real and true to themselves as LS would paraphrase, would be better at it than somebody who is not.

And too, I don't see where coming on an awareness later in one's life say, because one had to struggle against learned sociatal prejudices, negates any naturalness in whatever it is one has become aware of. It merely suggests that one wasn't fully being one's natural self prior to such awareness.

 

[lark sparrow]

Well, hello... and welcome aboard. We are actually pretty much on the same page even if it doesn't appear that way to you, incubus_dark.

Re: the born that way argument. Alcoholics, child molestors, etc. cross into the realm of harming others.... Queer and BDSM folks are consenting adults.... There is a line, you know? Sorry, not interested in further mapping out the basic stuff, like the difference between a child molestor and homosexual.

And if you don't recognize the assumption that everyone is naturally born heterosexual.... (until they aren't) then we need to go back even further.

 

[Pure]

Hi Francisco,

Thanks for the url and reference. Angelique's writing is literate, if naive in psychology, and the ideas of self-acceptance and 'coming home' in terms of identifying as a dominant, are prominent. I'll comment later, but for reference, here are relevant excepts.

My question-- How does the narrator construct her case and its endpoint as 'natural'?

http://www.domin8rex.com/serpent/mind/psych.htm

Mistress Angelique Serpent


Homosexuality in men, is thought by some scientists to be a result of unbalanced hormones in the pregnant Mother. We know that some gay men have physically female brains. Some studies indicate that women under stress during a critical time in their pregnancy, produce adrenaline for their own survival, rather than the testosterone their baby fetus needs to become male. It is not a complete explanation tho, because some gay men do not exhibit feminine qualities.

It is my belief, that Dominance is a genetic trait. There is an expression, "Leaders are born, not made". The history of Royalty shows a human instinct of selective breeding for Dominance, leadership. I can often tell a lot about a persons D/s orientation by looking at the bones of their face. In palmistry, someone with long slender hands and delicate bones is considered to have the mark of royal blood, whereas someone with thick short fingers shows a worker's ancestry. Similarly, Dominant faces are likely to have a delicate bone structure, like a Faerie Princess.. where submissives tend to look sturdier. Lady Di looked Dom, Fergie looks sub.

I hasten to add, these are generalizations. I have met many folks whose appearance and orientation contradicts these observations. Sexual orientation is *not* something to be fixed, or cured or changed. It's just who we are, how we turn out. How God-dess made us. No-one is really certain what the determining factors for sexual orientation are. We know very little about the cause of the root patterns of sexual orientation. However, individual fetishes, and erotic roleplay interests often can be pinpointed to spring from life experiences.


It's the old nature/nurture debate. How much of personality comes from DNA, and how much comes from culture and upbringing? Sexual orientation seems to come from nature, but fetishes come from resonant life experience.

[...]
I have discovered a statistically significant number of bondage enthusiasts were caesarian births. They did not experience the constriction of the birth passage, being born, and seem to be unconsciously trying to complete that missing experience.


[...]
As a natural and exclusive Dominant, for myself being treated as property, chained up and spanked sounds like my idea of hell.


I need to be in control of myself, my own destiny, pleasure, pain, comfort and wellbeing at all times. I like to get my own way, be free to move as I please, and I enjoy the company of people who also like for me to get my own way.


I don't even like clothing that restricts my freedom of movement. Mt gorgeous leather jump suit's tight sleeves do not allow me to raise my arms very far over my head, and even this simple restriction drives me to take it off after a few hours wearing. For my slaves, being bound is an intense delirium of ecstasy, fear and pleasure and anticipation [...]


My Dominance is centered around getting reactions from people, watching them change. I enjoy poking people's buttons. As an actor and comedienne, the audience reactions were my bliss. Making people laugh, making them cry. Before that I was a hair stylist, and had the power to change someone's self-image. Years before I discovered my Dominance, I was into Punk Rock fashion, deliberately shocking.

I am a provocative person, and I really cannot help it. When I was growing up too many people told me "Stop acting like you think you are so special". It frustrated me immensely, coz I didn't know what they were talking about. If I had been able to identify the "specialness" they spoke of, I'd have cut it out mercilessly as a wart, so I could fit in with the crowd and not be "special" anymore. The japanese have an expression, "The nail that sticks up, gets hammered down".

Being special was not fun. I spent a lot of years trying to shape myself into something that would fit in with the crowd, and it never worked, no matter what I did. It was miserable. I read one day, "In God's eyes we are all special". It gave me permission, to be myself. Since trying not to be special had never worked, I decided to go the other way, and celebrate my uniqueness.. stop trying to follow the herd, and find out who I really was. Soon after, I discovered my Dominance.. my natural leadership abilities. It became clear that Goddess had not made me to follow the crowd.. but to lead it.

I discovered my sadism, and had to take a good long look at where punk rock fashion had drawn it's inspiration from. What was it really, that I liked so much about leather and chains? I was drawn to the BDSM world, where I would find my counterparts: those who preferred to follow, and were willing to admit it. I found a place where my "acting like I think I'm so special" was celebrated, cherished, and named: Dominance. I came out, and I came home, I found the place where I belonged.

{end excerpt}

 

[incubus_dark]

It is my belief, that Dominance is a genetic trait. There is an expression, "Leaders are born, not made". The history of Royalty shows a human instinct of selective breeding for Dominance, leadership. I can often tell a lot about a persons D/s orientation by looking at the bones of their face. In palmistry, someone with long slender hands and delicate bones is considered to have the mark of royal blood, whereas someone with thick short fingers shows a worker's ancestry. Similarly, Dominant faces are likely to have a delicate bone structure, like a Faerie Princess.. where submissives tend to look sturdier. Lady Di looked Dom, Fergie looks sub.

Woohoo, phenotypic expression of genotype as a guide to psychology. I'm convinced. Now I think I'll pop off and learn some phrenology.

edited to correct the implication that Angelique's views were being espoused by the inimitable Pure

 

[Netzach]

Backing up, backing up...

I dunno, perhaps you have hung out in more chill, less academic, less high strung queer women's circles, Lark S.

But "more lesbian than thou" was a rallying cry in a big way in the community I was in. You were circumspect if you were *femme* let alone if you slept with boys sometimes. If you had been married, god forbid, you were a tragic case of being confused for so long in your adult life. Etc. Etc.

I agree, it wasn't so much about nature vs. nurture, but there was a premium on *purity* and *totality*

Interestingly, the people who made the most noise are now all male-partnered and married.

I am to be, granted, but I never made like it might not happen.

 

[lark sparrow]

No, I agree - the lesbian purity value can exist, Netzach. Personally, I am a bit group-aphobic and have placed a high value on individualism. Group dynamics are often group dynamics no matter the individual grouping and/or calling and there's public or external noise, and then there is private or internal noise.

 

[incubus_dark]

Just because something is a 'label' doesn't mean it's invalid. It's quite difficult to discuss something if it can't be labelled. Similarly, just because something may cause division isn't grounds to ignore it. Perhaps the division already exists and has not attracted alot of attention due to the difficulty inherent in discussing it without the appropriate terminology, ie. labels. Alternatively, the division may be merited and based in actuality, irrespective of how this affects the group so divided. It seems silly to ignore something because we might not like the consequences of its coming to light. Yet, it is still the validity of the term natural and the possibility of implying a hierarchy or highlighting a division that may or not already be extant, that preoccupies this thread. And too, to view the BDSM community as a cohesive group that may be thrown into turmoil by the hint of division seems in itself naive. It seems to me that any sense of community within the BDSM culture at large exists only by it's juxtoposition to the 'vanilla' world. Taken independantly, the BDSM culture is as rife with division as one could expect from a group that contains such a diversity of disparate interests, behaviours and personality types.

 

[Pure]

Hi All,

A couple comments on Mystress Angelique's essay: It's well written and fun.

Let's look at a couple bits:

//It is my belief, that Dominance is a genetic trait. There is an expression, "Leaders are born, not made". The history of Royalty shows a human instinct of selective breeding for Dominance, leadership.//

She goes on to discuss the 'fine bones' of those of the royal line, including Diana---who was a kindergarten teacher--whose 'fine bones' emerged in midlife through anorexia/bulimia.

I'm no royalty expert. Let some Brits speak up. But the idea of royals being superior, let alone dominant, from generation to generation sounds like bosh. In every royal line, are the crazies, the pathetic, the unhealthy, the 'dominant' but deranged, etc. plus the 'successes', the Elizabeth I's, you read about in the history books. From the British aristocracy came a few good military leaders, and many good officers, but lotsa inept ones. IMHO as a 'wog.'

Notice how the 'natural domme' is drawn into the 'blue blood' approach: Some (natural) aristocrats 'just have it', through and through. Several posters have indicated the affinities of 'blue blood' theory and fascist theory.


//My Dominance is centered around getting reactions from people, watching them change. I enjoy poking people's buttons. As an actor and comedienne, the audience reactions were my bliss. Making people laugh, making them cry. Before that I was a hair stylist, and had the power to change someone's self-image. Years before I discovered my Dominance, I was into Punk Rock fashion, deliberately shocking. //

This domme is clearly kind of an extrovert, a bit exhibitionist, probably gregarious. (Astrologically, a Jupiter type.) Question: Is this 'the' natural domme? or one flavor thereof? Can there be an introverted, socially withdrawn 'natural domme.' ??(Astrologically, a Saturn type)?

She seems a bit narcissistic: is that part of the 'natural domme' or merely one flavor: Are there humble, self-deprecating, even self doubting dommes?

Otherwise, I find the story much as LS has talked of: a kind of self discovery, ending in the 'true self.' She (A) believes that at age 30 or so, she's arrived at her 'core.'

Any Sartre fans out there? He said there aint no core (of specific characteristics). At the center, is nothingness. You 'are' what you make yourself in your chosen pattern of actions.

J.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Hi All,

Any Sartre fans out there? He said there aint no core (of specific characteristics). At the center, is nothingness. You 'are' what you make yourself in your chosen pattern of actions.

J.

 

[lark sparrow]

Hi Pure,

I don't have time to pull out the specific articles right now, but if you visit http://www.steel-door.com/Chamber.html there are several articles related to the subject which may lend themselves to the conversation and question. Particularly some of the Dominant articles.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hi Pure,

I don't have time to pull out the specific articles right now, but if you visit http://www.steel-door.com/Chamber.html there are several articles related to the subject which may lend themselves to the conversation and question. Particularly some of the Dominant articles.

Good link,
specially interesting are:
http://www.steel-door.com/Dominant_Female.html
http://www.steel-door.com/dominant_model.htm
http://www.steel-door.com/Dominant_vs_Master.html

It is interesting to see how many dominants see their dominance as something Natural. Something that is 'natural' to them. Steel calls them alpha dominant.

Francisco.

 

[A Desert Rose]

.

 

[catalina_francisco]

In the interest of ’science’ , although I am not a psychologist, I have found some common characteristics.
Maybe Pure can shed his light on these findings though.
.

A difficulty in submitting;
By Mystress Angelique Serpent.
By As a natural and exclusive Dominant, for myself being treated as property, chained up and spanked sounds like my idea of hell.

An instinctive knowledge of Dominance:
By Mistress Steel;
There is a category that I call the Alpha Dominant. (aka High-Level Dominant) (aka Natural Dominant). This individual appears to have been born Dominant. They often 'emerge' at a young age, (sometimes at puberty), they have natural skills, are highly imaginative and creative, flexible, energetic and intense. They have no need to 'prove' themselves to any other standards or measures. They may have no abuse whatsoever in their background. They are generally highly motivated, precise, detail oriented, aggressive, charming and capable of literally anything.

A need to be in control;
By Mystress Angelique Serpent.
I need to be in control of myself, my own destiny, pleasure, pain, comfort and wellbeing at all times. I like to get my own way, be free to move as I please, and I enjoy the company of people who also like for me to get my own way.

A view of dominance that is a symbiotic relationship;
By Mistress Steel;
One of the most significant traits which identifies or distinguishes a member of this community is the basic 'desire to serve for the pleasure of another'. This aspect trait is shared by both Dominant and submissive though manifested in entirely different ways.

I have also commented on these characteristics, it is interesting to see how many ‘natural’ dominants have found so many common characteristics in themselves. Even if it seems that they are abusing the terminology to use it for hierarchical structures.

Francisco.
PS Not an Alpha male.

 

[RisiaSkye]

Re: The woman has an arm!

Whew, the backhand in Risia's compliments could knock a person out cold.

Thank you, thank you. One tries, you know...

 

[SilkVelvet]

Being a Brit I will lob my 0.02p worth re: Mistress Angelique's Royalty theory.

Selective breeding amongst Royals and indeed the Upper Class, had/has nothing to do with leadership qualities and everything to do with land, property and wealth.

The Upper Classes were successful in producing military leaders because they were the only class with any education, way back.

Ingrained Upper Class superiority feelings are not the same as natural Dominant feelings.

Brits are not racially pure, since our island was conquered by Vikings, Saxons, Romans and Normans. Therefore there is a wide variety of phyiscal bone structures. However the Upper Class is still very much interbred and produces a fine-boned physical type as a general rule. Lady Diana Spencer was blue-blooded whereas Sarah Ferguson (Duchess of York) not.

Being fine-boned myself does not indicate that I am a Dominant, merely that I am descended from a Norman family and have aristocratic ancestors some three generations back. That really isn't uncommon in this little island either !

I discount Mistress Angelique's bone and aristocrat theories altogether therefore as being irrelevant and unfounded.


edited to add: this link was on Home page of my ISP today.

Article bt Dr Kevin Leman about Birth Order and how it affects personality

http://www.ivillage.co.uk/relationships/famfri/family/articles/0,,163_551974,00.html?1

 

[Pure]

Hi Francisco,

Thanks for the postings and references. Yes some of the female dommes we looked at view themselves as 'naturals' and give somewhat similar descriptions.

I don't have a problem with that. For instance if you talked to a hundred football coaches, or librarians, or 5-star generals, you might get commonalities, which we could call prototypical or stereotypical traits. Further a given coach might even say, "I tried other jobs, even played, but coaching seems natural to me; fits me like a glove." He--or his admirers might even say "born a coach" in a manner of speaking.

Yet coaching is a complex task, requiring a mixture of qualities; it takes a lot of experience to get good at it. And it would make little sense to say, there's a 'pure' or 'true' coaching trait that some have 100%. Nothing playerly or spectatorly about him. He could no more sit in the stands than Ms. Angelique could allow herself to be bound!

Some people, for instance, find the career and life of a concert pianist 'natural'-- perfectly suited to them, wouldn't have it anyother way, etc. Maybe headed for that career since childhood.
But it's a complex of traits and skills, mostly learned, on top of, perhaps, inherited musical talent.

So, I believe 'dom(me)liness' to be quite a complex quality, and that shows in your own self description, if not some of those advertising. It's learned, and culturally specific, to a high degree.
Just as 'hockey player' comes in the Canadian butt-kicking mode and the Czech skill-and-artistry mode.

Besides your comments on the above, I'd like to hear answers to my questions, already posted, about Angeliques self-description.

I said,
//This domme is clearly kind of an extrovert, a bit exhibitionist, probably gregarious. (Astrologically, a Jupiter type.) Question: Is this 'the' natural domme? or one flavor thereof? Can there be an introverted, socially withdrawn 'natural domme.' ??(Astrologically, a Saturn type)?

She seems a bit narcissistic: is that part of the 'natural domme' or merely one flavor: Are there humble, self-deprecating, even self doubting dommes? //

Thanks for all your fine, well though out contributions Francisco. I really respect that.

J.

PS. I like yours "PS Not an Alpha male." There's another question: is or isnt the 'natural dom' an alpha male? Perhaps you're more considerate, more reflective, flexible--are those necessary/core-- or just 'accidental' characteristics of some 'natural doms.'