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

[catalina_francisco]

//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 Can there be an introverted, socially withdrawn 'natural domme.'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)?

I do feel that a certain kind of extrovert behaviour is a common characteristic of the 'natural' dominant.
But I do not see a problem with being introvert as a 'natural' dominant, as long as the dominant feels that he is in control of his surroundings.

I would surely understand it if a dominant put in a position where he has little to no control over his circumstances retreats from the world to create a reality in which at least he has some feeling of power and control. That could be seen as being introvert by others.

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?

IMO that is not a common characteristic, it makes sense for a dominant to have self knowledge, which means not only knowing your strengths but also your weaknesses. A narcissist often deludes themself into believing they are close to perfection, if not perfect, and cannot see their own flaws.

Self doubt might be going too far though; if there is no confidence in your own abilities, it becomes a very difficult task to dominate another. If anything, a submissive knows the weaknesses and strengths of their partner. They want a strong confident partner. So a self doubting dominant would find it very hard to find a willing partner.

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.'
I would think that those are just accidental characteristics, although of course I am very considerate, very reflective and very moderate

 

[lark sparrow]

http://www.steel-door.com/purity.htm

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.

PURITY OF SUBMISSION ~

Purity - free from what harms, vitiates, weakens or pollutes; faultless and uncontaminated - perfect.

How to be pure? Especially with the context or layer of yet another abstract concept - submission. The idea that there exists a state of submissive perfection presents a situation of requiring measurement of the nature of submission itself. This again requires a concrete definition of what submission is, a definition that is understood and accepted universally as the one true definition. The additional issue which should not be overlooked is the establishment of 'levels' of submission. Intrinsically this means that certain individuals would be told that their submissive expression is of an inferior type, making them inferior to some 'perceived perfection standard'. These types of measurement systems are inevitably created and brought into existence in order to assault the mental well-being of the individual.

After all, who is the judge? Do we create an independent panel to dictate these measurement systems or do we rely on the viewpoint of the dominant within a submissives life to identify and pigeonhole the level of the submissives expression of their nature. Or perhaps, we form yet another 'societal standard' within our own community to express through elevation or condemnation the manner, shape or form of those we allow within our community as 'members'. In this way we can once again find a way to discriminate against the diversity of human expression.

It is possible to theorize about the removal of all aspects of the personality or character of the individual which harm, vitiate, weaken or pollute the 'submissive ideal'. However, in any practical application it becomes simply another venue to chastise or punish a person for the variations within their internal self. An individual may choose to embrace certain aspects of their personality and behaviors but this does not remove other aspects from existence. The diversity within the individual personality functions to act on the behalf of the individual when that individual is presented with a situation or event which can best be handled or managed by that aspect. Removal or damage of any aspect of the self may impair or damage the individual's ability to respond to difficult event's or situations with the best tools available within themselves and may result in a reduction of that individual's overall mental health.

There is no form or established standard of measure which can define a state of perfection which would be understood and agreed upon by all individuals. This attempt to create or levy a standard upon a submissive in many ways diminishes the essence of the submissive. What is a state of created perfection exists within the intermingling of the dominant and the submissive as they interact within each other to create a singular union. To find the combination which complements, enhances, amplifies, elevates or transcends the sum of it's individual parts is the ultimate challenge. No two submissives will be similar in any way beyond surface commonalties which are found within the generalized groups of humankind. Each submissive is unique, with a different history and viewpoint on the world as they see it. The nature of the sense of submission within them may express as a form of dominant mothering, sistering, or wife/husband management when these aspects are experienced by the submissive to be in service to the union that is the relationship. If the submissive views these actions as necessary, helpful and positive construction they will experience them with the same type of fulfillment and joy as they would more intimate or sexual submissive actions. What appears to be submissive does not mean it is, and the reverse is equally true.

To achieve a state of purity requires that the individual dominant and individual submissive engage in comprehensive conversation and communication defining what that state of purity or perfection is (for them). In large part they must construct a language in order to have this communication take place outside of abstract evaluations which do not clarify or pinpoint areas of issue or problems. It is simply not enough to tell a submissive that they are not measuring up when there is no concrete information which that submissive can understand to identify in what way their perceived failure has occurred. Failures do not occur within the manifest expressions of behavior that are visible on the outside. What you see is the conclusion of the exercise. Thought and decision making processes are what culminate in behaviors or visible actions. It is within these internal thought processes that the submissive determines and decides what their truth is and how they will express that to those close to them. In this regard no action is forgivable nor in requirement of forgiveness. To forgive would be to negate the truth as expressed. Demonstrations of truth as communicated through action should be viewed with integrity. To approach a 'pure' state the individual must see their personal truth's and hold those truth's as true for themselves within that moment of their life. The removal of internal deceit summons serenity which in my viewpoint is where the true essence of each submissive exists at it's most complete. A submissive who has attained this state will find no reason to defend themselves since all of the parts of themselves are existing together nor find the need or desire within themselves to attack or offend others, they are no longer able to be threatened.

All measurements are of human creation. This makes them subjective, capable of being driven by motivations not necessarily visible on the surface. It is not necessary to create new means for the diminishment of others, we have enough of those already. The more we seek to solidify position, role or label, the easier it is to be abusive of others using these labels as a means to justify our actions.

http://www.steel-door.com/purity.htm

 

[lark sparrow]

http://www.steel-door.com/The_Dominant.html

The Dominant

DOMINANT: commanding, controlling or prevailing over all others...overlooking and commanding from a superior elevation...of relating to or exerting ecological dominance...being the more effective or predominant one in action...of relating to, or exerting genetic dominance

DOMINANT, PREDOMINANT, PARAMOUNT PREPONDERANT, SOVEREIGN...superior to ALL others in power, influence or importance!

To peer backward through the shrouds of time itself we look into the heart of humankind. It is important to consider genetics when searching for understanding in the actions of the human psyche. The clues are there, visible and ignored. Those clues tend to be uncomfortable and lead to unmistakably uncomfortable conclusions.

The Dominant is the 'BEAST'. That being capable of standing atop the crushed, mangled bodies of others in the pursuance of his/her objective. Historically, the dominant was the individual who had the capacity, timing and will to overcome, outmaneuver and/or conquer others. Some dominant's lead through fear, using hatred, pain and threat to control and drive those within their realm into compliance with their wishes. Some dominant's lead through physical dominance, using their physical attributes to 'handle' less endowed individuals. Both of these inevitably fall victim to the dominant who lead's through the most deadly combination of all - intellect, intuition and focused will. The more predominant the ancestral strains the more ancestor's within the line will express dominance.

High-end Dominant's are few. Those that truly surmount their world.

The Dominant is born! He/she is the living manifestation of thousands of years of evolution and patterned mutation, quite literally genetic history. The traits are distinct, visible and tractable throughout history. If you look into the past you see lines of ancestry marching backward carrying their legacy traits through endless wars, devastation's, invasions and explorations.

This consideration is perhaps the most clearly understood in the very very distant simple past. The attacking of one tribe upon another for food, tools, territory and race survival (or the sharing and spreading of genes). <You will find it is an almost universal human trait for men to desire to cross-pollinate as many viable females as possible.> Leading each tribe would be one individual, it's sovereign. After the attack, the most successful of these dominants would live. Almost invariably they would drive off or summarily kill the vanquished dominant. As 'new' sovereign this dominant would harvest the spoils of the attack. Part of those spoils are living human beings. Both male and female human's of lesser dominant strains. Those would be taken by force to either succumb to the new sovereign's rules and desires or die.

"The alignment of power!" Before and beyond nearly any other thing human's desire to align with the winner. This is a survival trait. Conflicting with a known winner leads to destruction. Among the spoils would stand the full array of human designs. Approximately 10% of the losers would remain loyal to their vanquished sovereign, unable to kneel to another's rule. These most frequently died! About 80% of the losers were able to offer compliance enough to survive. A small fragment of the losers did something else. These were most frequently the mates and children of the former sovereign, they desired to retain their personal power, increase it if possible. Improvise, Adapt, Overcome. Learn the ways of your enemy by 'becoming' them. These losers were from lines of dominance! Since their line was less 'successful' than the conquering dominant, they wished and needed to merge with this superior genetic line. To accomplish that several things occurred.

One of these was mutating survival behaviors. The further one must reach down to submit the more difficult it becomes....unless.... Consider, a person of perceived low status is born and raised to service. They see no issue within the act of serving another. A person of perceived higher status is not born and raised to offer service, they must reach deeper within themselves to find the power and strength of their genetic line to allow them to not only offer themselves but in such a way as to become important in the alignment of future power. They wish to retain status and power. These seem in conflict, but nature overcomes many such things... The best chance of future survival of their bloodline is in aligning with a winner! Loser's die or become servants of the winners! Basic anthropology.

To look deeper you have to consider the age of the conqueror. The taking of territory was necessarily a brutal, violent, destructive action. The successful dominant had to have a level of detachment to the agonies of destruction in order to succeed. This is a trait! It is called being 'ruthless' - 'ruth' = love. To be ruthless is to be without love! It is a capacity to take action regardless!

Both winning dominant and those of the losing dominant strain share this trait! The capacity for detached, rational action in the midst of chaos. The surviving loser would want to be successful within the realm of the superior dominant. They would use the same trait to conquer in this less visible battle. The submissive is the most successful dominant within the superior Dominant's realm. That submissive will utilize every possible tool to achieve their goal. Their goal being the strongest children, and the strongest chance of future survival. They needed to become indispensable to the Superior Dominant. Therefore they had to be able to become valuable to that Dominant.

How does one dominant submit to another?...Through instinctual biological responses. The deeper recesses of the mind 'know' the desire to survive, creates avenues and pathways unique to allowing this to occur. These hidden traits are passed and shared within the incestuous pool of dominant strains. When conquered, acknowledgedly vanquished, the losing dominant 'see's' one more powerful, stronger, faster, more intelligent and most importantly more successful than themselves, this recognition 'trigger's' responses.

For the purposes of this article I will call these auto-responses and for purposes of brevity I will merely list them here. These auto-responses may include: Posturing (assuming a position of surrender or vulnerability), sheening (releasing pheromones through the body membrane to express this surrender in scent), loss of control of body responses (freezing, sometimes manifesting as the inability to walk, run or <escape>), listening for command (often an attitude of total focus on speech and direction of the superior dominant), slurred speech (part of an altering of the mental responses, also known as entry into subspace), exposed obvious arousal coupled to seductive responses or openly offering sex and the ability to transmute pain and mentally detach from the event.

It became the losing dominant's desire to entice, beguile and or endear themselves to the winning dominant. This was done primarily through a positive response! If a winning dominant is 'having a good time', he/she is much less likely to kill, maim or further destroy and much more likely to desire to 'have a good time again in the future', thus the losing dominant gains a measure of value, life and ultimately..SURVIVAL!!! or SUCCESS!!!
http://www.steel-door.com/The_Dominant.html

 

[Never]

Yes, though I'd digaree with what makes one a 'natural'.
No.

 

[Never]

While I liked the article on submission I thought the one on domination was a bit much, lark sparrow. Agree with me or I'll beat your head open with a thighbone.

 

[lark sparrow]

http://www.steel-door.com/meretricious_dom.htm

THE MERETRICIOUS DOMINANT

(The Rule of One and the Wall of Can'ts...)

Synthetic attractions - based on pretense or insincerity. Cheaply ornamental. Gaudy. Relating to a prostitute - a harlots traits....

The professed rather than real intention...

There is one rule of Domination. As the ruler, you create the rules. This is the 'assumption' of control or command. This control or command radiates outward from the central point or the ruler. In this model the Dominant is the source of rule, therefore personally unable to excuse or justify their own actions and choices based on the infringement of forces or rules within their own domain, after all - they created the rules and are therefore in absolute control of them. Either you rule or you follow. This is called the Rule of One!

If it is a Dominants intent to rule then they will rule. Not talk about ruling.

A 'professed' or stated position of ruler is not a ruler manifest.

Example: Telling you I am the Queen of Sheba does not make it so...

Domination is self-evident or an unquestioned state. The need or requirement to identify oneself is often in lieu of any supportive data or evidence that would make this self-identification redundant.

Example: There is no need to tell you I am female when the evidence supporting that conclusion is extensive and evident!

To tell or profess your Dominance is incidental. A ruler rules. A Dominant - Dominates.

Today within the D/s lifestyle we see many 'scheduled' Dominants. These are the dominants who selectively schedule specific time periods to 'be' dominant. Which leads the observer to question what that person 'is' the rest of the time. What motivates this 'scheduled' dominant to profess their dominance? If the dominant is in 'rule' of their own life or world then what creates this limited secretive display?

......

Clue: If a Dominant wants to do something they do it! If a Dominant rules their personal world or environment they have no need or desire to use excuses or empty justifications to explain their actions and choices. Can't means they are not in control. It means they do not rule. Some'thing' or some'one' is controlling their ability to do.

Temporary, non-sustained domination is role-playing or acting for a short defined period of time. It is to 'role-play' the position of Queen of Sheba. Presenting this 'temporary' status as real status is the point where pretense, falsehood and insincerity come into play. This profession is designed to project a false intent. No 'scheduled' dominants identify themselves as temporary dominant actors looking to role-play the position of dominant for short periodic episodes designed primarily to boost their ego, satiate their carnal or sexual desires and vent their feelings of inferiority or emasculation for not being dominant in truth.

That they are unable to sustain dominant presence is often quite evident when one looks at their daily lives. Often there will be little or no other areas within their lives that they are in control of in any appreciable way. In many cases it may appear that their life controls them and that they are imprisoned within their own life, being run, used, told what to do.

.....

http://www.steel-door.com/meretricious_dom.htm

 

[lark sparrow]

While I liked the article on submission I thought the one on domination was a bit much, lark sparrow. Agree with me or I'll beat your head open with a thighbone.

I agree, I agree! *Sheens and begins to lose body control*

Just throwing out some ideas. We are approaching this question from many angles - we have the 'natural', the 'pure', the 'true', as opposed to the 'artificial'. I don't necessarily agree with every or any word posted. Her's is one of my favorite sites because even if you don't agree with her writings, you come away with a better formulation of your own opinion. She's not afraid to go a bit more indepth than the average BDSM site nor to state a strong and unique opinion rather than the same crap repeated over and over that exists on nearly every BDSM site.

 

[Pure]

Hi Lark S, and Francisco, and all

Just a little comment on Ms Mallory (Steel)

Consider:

Both winning dominant and those of the losing dominant strain share this trait! The capacity for detached, rational action in the midst of chaos. The surviving loser would want to be successful within the realm of the superior dominant. They would use the same trait to conquer in this less visible battle. The submissive is the most successful dominant within the superior Dominant's realm. That submissive will utilize every possible tool to achieve their goal. Their goal being the strongest children, and the strongest chance of future survival. They needed to become indispensable to the Superior Dominant. Therefore they had to be able to become valuable to that Dominant.

How does one dominant submit to another?...Through instinctual biological responses. The deeper recesses of the mind 'know' the desire to survive, creates avenues and pathways unique to allowing this to occur. These hidden traits are passed and shared within the incestuous pool of dominant strains. When conquered, acknowledgedly vanquished, the losing dominant 'see's' one more powerful, stronger, faster, more intelligent and most importantly more successful than themselves, this recognition 'trigger's' responses.

[posturing, sheening, etc.....]

Sorta kicks the hell out of the theory according to which 'natural' is 'born', in which 'natural' dom is 'can be nothing else' is 'dominant to the core' as in Ms Ageliques and Francisco's world. The sub is just a losing dom , who's flipped from aggression to 'pleasing' behaviors.

This does, so far as I know, agree with some animal data. The lead male in one grouping, may be forced to become a subordinate in another. And, remarkably, in so doing, his testosterone level drops. Again, this hardly sounds like 'dom's who can be nothing else', because of how they're wired.

what do you think?

J.

 

[Never]

Yes, it worked.

She has a strong and unique opinion. I also like that she doesn't gloss over the aggressiveness and violence inherent in human nature. I just don't agree that the tactics primitive humans use when attacking other tribes are going to be reflected in the relations between members of the same tribe.

One serves to destroy, the other to strengthen the whole.

Now, if you'll excuse me, my friends and I are off to set Reading's town hall on fire and loot the downtown area. That'll teach them to beat us at football.

~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
Hopes none of the ladies see through my transparent attempt to seem sexy.

 

[catalina_francisco]

's world. The sub is just a losing dom , who's flipped from aggression to 'pleasing' behaviors.

This does, so far as I know, agree with some animal data. The lead male in one grouping, may be forced to become a subordinate in another. And, remarkably, in so doing, his testosterone level drops. Again, this hardly sounds like 'dom's who can be nothing else', because of how they're wired.

what do you think?

J.

Pure,

I am sure F will get back to this when he has a moment but for myself I can tell you I have not flipped because I have been forced to. The fact is in life outside the BDSM context, and through necessity to react to particular situations, I have had more than one man shaking in his boots and running for the nearest escape route. The reality is though, from my earliest memories the submissive characteristics of my personality have dominated and raged strong within me. Seems it is inherent from my maternal grandmother so I am told. She was reportedly a peace loving soul like myself who was submissive but strong throughout her whole life.

My mother on the other hand hated her mother's passivity and forced herself to be dominant to an obnoxious level which to me was more bullying than being dominant. Her ability to cope as a dominant was impaired by it being a forced state in my opinion which has resulted in her health suffering, her popping over the counter drugs 'to cope' as she puts it, and leading a totally unhappy life in a state of constant depression and mental disturbance.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

The idea that a submissive is a losing Dominant is interesting and a nice way of deluding yourself. Under that idea there would have to be one all overpowering Dominant. One super being that eventually will dominate all, one dominant that is the ruler of all.

“There can be only one”, to quote a famous movie.

Would that mean that Ms Angelique and I have never encountered a stronger Dominant? I wonder when I will meet Angelique. We will have to see if she can take my head or I hers.
This is a very typical thought pattern of dominants in favour of hierarchical models.

Her idea is I am a natural dominant, thus I am a stronger Dominant, and thus you need to bow to me. I remember hearing someone talking about a narcissistic thought pattern.

She is describing the ‘natural’ dominant RisiaSkye described, the one that cannot exist. The one that wants to be God, no actually needs to be or she is not the strongest, purest dominant under the sun.

During the Second World War there used to be a side that had an ideology similar to this one, the master race, the purest, and the best, born to rule the world.

Francisco.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I agree, I agree! *Sheens and begins to lose body control*

Just throwing out some ideas. We are approaching this question from many angles - we have the 'natural', the 'pure', the 'true', as opposed to the 'artificial'. I don't necessarily agree with every or any word posted. Her's is one of my favorite sites because even if you don't agree with her writings, you come away with a better formulation of your own opinion. She's not afraid to go a bit more indepth than the average BDSM site nor to state a strong and unique opinion rather than the same crap repeated over and over that exists on nearly every BDSM site.

I agree with you LS, it is a good site with interesting material.
She is a gifted writer and before you know it you are agreeing with her, until you start to think about the content of what you have just read.

Francisco.

 

[lark sparrow]

Hi Lark S, and Francisco, and all

Just a little comment on Ms Mallory (Steel)

Consider:

Both winning dominant and those of the losing dominant strain share this trait! The capacity for detached, rational action in the midst of chaos. The surviving loser would want to be successful within the realm of the superior dominant. They would use the same trait to conquer in this less visible battle. The submissive is the most successful dominant within the superior Dominant's realm. That submissive will utilize every possible tool to achieve their goal. Their goal being the strongest children, and the strongest chance of future survival. They needed to become indispensable to the Superior Dominant. Therefore they had to be able to become valuable to that Dominant.

How does one dominant submit to another?...Through instinctual biological responses. The deeper recesses of the mind 'know' the desire to survive, creates avenues and pathways unique to allowing this to occur. These hidden traits are passed and shared within the incestuous pool of dominant strains. When conquered, acknowledgedly vanquished, the losing dominant 'see's' one more powerful, stronger, faster, more intelligent and most importantly more successful than themselves, this recognition 'trigger's' responses.

[posturing, sheening, etc.....]

Sorta kicks the hell out of the theory according to which 'natural' is 'born', in which 'natural' dom is 'can be nothing else' is 'dominant to the core' as in Ms Ageliques and Francisco's world. The sub is just a losing dom , who's flipped from aggression to 'pleasing' behaviors.

This does, so far as I know, agree with some animal data. The lead male in one grouping, may be forced to become a subordinate in another. And, remarkably, in so doing, his testosterone level drops. Again, this hardly sounds like 'dom's who can be nothing else', because of how they're wired.

what do you think?

J.

I think she is talking about domination and dominant and submissive behaviors - the D/s one is more likely to find in a natural and 'barbaric' setting. Modern human society may be more subtle, but it is still readily and obviously found throughout the non-human animal kingdom. In the case of my dogs it is very true. The dog that is submissive to the alpha is not a submissive dog by nature but by nurture, or situation, in relation to the alpha. The alpha dog is dominant or dead in relation to other dogs, but recognizes me as dominant to him. I don't happen to own one, but there are also dogs who exhibit very submissive behavior to all.

Not only are there layers and compartments to D/s, but there are also several ways to dominate. My alpha dog dominated the other dog through never giving up in any conflict of power or possession and through sheer fierceness of battle - there was no escalation of brute force that was too high for him, and the other dog was not willing to go there. I received the alpha dog's submission through a much more gentle and consistent process of leadership and trust. Beating the alpha dog wouldn't work, but he is consistently submissive and dependent on me as his leader, despite being an alpha within his own species.

I also appreciated the responses she brought up - essentially lift off into 'sub-space'. It's very much the feeling I get when I run across a D that triggers my s. Anyone can claim dominance, and while I can appreciate it for them and theirs, I often don't feel particularly submissive in the least with that 'natural Dominant'. Then there are others who have me sweating in their shadow nearly immediately even if it is not directed my way, and trigger all those responses in me. This is not to claim that the only Dominants are one's that I can feel, but that it can be extremely subjective within the context of BDSM. We can say one has a Dominant personailty, but that doesn't necessarily inspire everyone's or even anyone's submission.

Within domination itself as a larger concept there is nothing written about being safe, sane and consensual, or even an outstanding and benevolent leadership.

 

[incubus_dark]

To address Pure's question regarding self doubting doms: I have found in many domlings relatively new to the scene, that a brand of self doubt is almost universal. Very commonly they are unsure as to how far they can go in imposing their desires upon their subs, because they are anxious about their sub's reaction should they go to far. This appears to me to be a learned reluctance which reflects societal views of the sorts of things most doms would like to do. For the domling to spread its wings and fully integrate itself into the BDSM lifestyle it craves, it seems essential that they overcome this, in so much as it is reported to be a major problem to those who I have known to drop out of the scene in general, and those who are deeply into the lifestyle claim to have overcome it; though there is no way to judge whether or not some still have lingering traces of this feeling and many would consider it undomly to admit it.

In regards to Ms Mallory's (Steel's) opinions: Intersting, thank you for posting that LS (oh, and thank you too for "meretricious" I love that word, haven't seen it used for ages). I agree that it goes a little too far. However, rather than assuming doms that when triggered by a better positioned dom, become sub, suppose a similar small coterie of doms who are predisposed to avoidance if confrontation appears to have a low chance of success. This then would closely conform to an ESS (Evolutionary Stable Strategy) that is widespread in the animal kingdom. Note that with all such hawk ESSs, it can only exist with functional stability when in the minority of the population. Similarly, consider an ESS where subs, triggered by the activity of the dom ESS, raise their prospects by subing to the doms ie. the sub ESS is semi-paracitical or perhaps some would preffer commensal on the dom ESS; the dom ESS able to be actively beneficial in the absence of dedicated subs, but the sub ESS being dormant in the absence of doms. ESSs in general are mathematically formulable and provable, and have been shown to exist in nature. Perhaps if such ESSs were part of the human instinctive behaviour patterns, their manifestation in the modern societal context, where their ESS value is watered down and perhaps more or less a hold over, might in some cases included the sexual dominance and submission we are more or less familiar with here.

This also avoids the problem of the effect of domlyness on a tribe. Like all ESSs, it need be beneficial only to the individual expressing the ESS. From the ESS perspective, the tribe itself is only of value as long as its coherence is of more benefit than could be gained at the risk of its splintering or destruction. Furthermore, many hawk ESSs are only practicable when active within a tribe or group, with damage to the group coherence only occuring if the percentage of hawk ESSs becomes too great, with such demographic figures also mathematically predictable and demonstrable.

Damn that reads like a secret code. Well I'm not showing you the handshake

 

[Netzach]

I question anyone who loses complete touch with the need to question one's own assumptions, behaviors and "rightness" at least periodically, if not more often.

Someone who never does this, ever, is one of two things: blind to other possibilities

or lying.

 

[lark sparrow]

Pure,

I am sure F will get back to this when he has a moment but for myself I can tell you I have not flipped because I have been forced to. The fact is in life outside the BDSM context, and through necessity to react to particular situations, I have had more than one man shaking in his boots and running for the nearest escape route. The reality is though, from my earliest memories the submissive characteristics of my personality have dominated and raged strong within me. Seems it is inherent from my maternal grandmother so I am told. She was reportedly a peace loving soul like myself who was submissive but strong throughout her whole life.

My mother on the other hand hated her mother's passivity and forced herself to be dominant to an obnoxious level which to me was more bullying than being dominant. Her ability to cope as a dominant was impaired by it being a forced state in my opinion which has resulted in her health suffering, her popping over the counter drugs 'to cope' as she puts it, and leading a totally unhappy life in a state of constant depression and mental disturbance.

Catalina

Catalina - I'm confused by this feminine example. Does this mean it is your belief, at least in your family, that to be a woman is to be a natural submissive?

 

[catalina_francisco]

Catalina - I'm confused by this feminine example. Does this mean it is your belief, at least in your family, that to be a woman is to be a natural submissive?

Stone the crows....heck no!! Perish the thought I would ruin my career and reputation as a challenging, outspoken feminist. All I was pointing out was my earliest memories, and early from what I hear from others, were all heavily centered around being loved and dominated by a male figure in the D/s sense, not the romance novel macho hero of many a young woman's dreams...well those who are into reading that type of fiction anyway.

The fact my daughter also has shown interests in her fantasies from also an unusually early age, and without exposure to the ideas from me as I was living vanilla in those times, is also an interesting point to me which I am still procesing and watching as her life unfolds.

It seems my maternal grandmother was a strong, but particularly passive woman, who similar to me saw no point in trying to be dominant, avoiding confrontation wherever possible by choice, not because she didn't have it in her to stand up and fight, but because she felt it was not who she was.

In earlier life, and probably until I reached my 30's, I saw my mother as the opposite, dominant, strong, and never wavering. She raised us on lectures of how you have to resist the urge to be submissive, forever fighting its influence to reign supreme, never allowing anyone to 'push you down'. It is only as I have been able to step away from her pervading presence and see her from the outside, I have been able to see her dominance as forced through choice by herself. She admits she made a conscious effort to be opposite to her mother, as though she admired her ability to be passive under extreme pressure, she also thought it a weakness.

It is interesting my maternal grandfather was reportedly very dominant and hated by everyone in the family, most of all my mother, and yet to me it seems she has modelled herself on him, most probably out of a subconscious fear stemming from her childhood. Also interestingly enough, my mother is the only one out of her family to be dominant, her siblings, both male and female, all being more submissive, peaceful folk, and none of them having the level of hatred for their father she has. I see her dominance as a false state as she has always found it stressful, more so than most people, to have to cope for herself, or run her own life successfully. She plays this out by playing the matyr to perfection. In rare moments when she lets her guard down, one sees the more submissive, softer side to her which she normally hides so she is not 'weak'.

Not only has she repressed her submissive nature, she has allowed it to rule and ruin her life. She admits she married my father after asking her family doctor whether she should accept his proposal...would a dominant person do this? As she had been widowed with 2 small children 3 years earlier, she had been forced to cope alone in a time when there was not much help, though she had options she just did not utilise fully. She was on the verge of a nervous breakdown when she married my father. Her life has been consumed by pill popping which she credits with being the only way she could cope.

To me if she had been in a position to allow her submissive nature to flourish naturally, her life would have been different, and her health would perhaps have been much better. Unfortunately, as she even admits, you cannot live your life in hindsight. For her she now finds herself weakened physically to a point where her fear of being anything but dominating (thus weak), is a further factor accelerating her decline mentally and physically. It is sad to see how it has been the overarching factor throughout her adult life which has tortured her beyond belief.

catalina

 

[SilkVelvet]

Reading your post Catalina and your mention of your maternal grandparents, I wonder how much, social mores have an influence on D/s through the generations.

Back in Georgian England, the Upper Class was pretty much debauched what with the Hellfire Club and orgies being commonplace. From what I have read, Georgian and Regency women were considerably less restricted than Victorian ones.


Am sure there must be someone on the board more knowledgeable about history who could confirm my suspicion that many of the social mores re BDSM we have today are a result of the Victorian suppression of sexuality in general.

edited to add.. pertaining to the original question..if BDSM was more accepted in Georgian and Regency era at least in the Upper Clas at what point was Dominance and submission made more underground and did that have a psychological effect on people naturaly orientated towards Domination and submission ?

 

[Pure]

Hi LS,

While Mallory seems to modify her stance in the later part of her essay, her earlier statements, on 'purity' are naturally of interest to me. As copied below, they seem to amount to (if I read her correctly):
1) 'pure' submission is in theory only, and
2) the concept tends to be used to grade subs.
3) Other qualities are necessary in the 'mix' for a human to succeed.

Further, she speaks of

4) 'intermingling of the dominant and the submissive' [psychic trends]. This contradicts the 'not a xxx bone in my body' (=natural, in some people's use) approach, and seems well taken.
[Added 6-06: The point is probably incorrect as a summary, as has been pointed out to me by Francisco. It should be deleted]

I think I was trying to make the same point about the prototypical dom/me as a complex person, far from the 'natural' expression of a single drive; similarly, a concert pianist.

[Added: the para above demands rewording: If the dom/me has a single drive that is related to dominance, and other drives added, then he or she may be analogous to the concert pianist --a so-called 'natural'-- who has a basic musical talent and urge, but all kinds of other urges, e.g., to become famous, to receive attention, and so on.

====
Mistress Steel, Ms Mallory

PURITY OF SUBMISSION ~


Purity - free from what harms, vitiates, weakens or pollutes; faultless and uncontaminated - perfect.

How to be pure? Especially with the context or layer of yet another abstract concept - submission. The idea that there exists a state of submissive perfection presents a situation of requiring measurement of the nature of submission itself. This again requires a concrete definition of what submission is, a definition that is understood and accepted universally as the one true definition. The additional issue which should not be overlooked is the establishment of 'levels' of submission. Intrinsically this means that certain individuals would be told that their submissive expression is of an inferior type, making them inferior to some 'perceived perfection standard'. These types of measurement systems are inevitably created and brought into existence in order to assault the mental well-being of the individual.

After all, who is the judge? Do we create an independent panel to dictate these measurement systems or do we rely on the viewpoint of the dominant within a submissives life to identify and pigeonhole the level of the submissives expression of their nature. Or perhaps, we form yet another 'societal standard' within our own community to express through elevation or condemnation the manner, shape or form of those we allow within our community as 'members'. In this way we can once again find a way to discriminate against the diversity of human expression.

It is possible to theorize about the removal of all aspects of the personality or character of the individual which harm, vitiate, weaken or pollute the 'submissive ideal'. However, in any practical application it becomes simply another venue to chastise or punish a person for the variations within their internal self. An individual may choose to embrace certain aspects of their personality and behaviors but this does not remove other aspects from existence. The diversity within the individual personality functions to act on the behalf of the individual when that individual is presented with a situation or event which can best be handled or managed by that aspect. Removal or damage of any aspect of the self may impair or damage the individual's ability to respond to difficult events or situations with the best tools available within themselves and may result in a reduction of that individual's overall mental health.

There is no form or established standard of measure which can define a state of perfection which would be understood and agreed upon by all individuals. This attempt to create or levy a standard upon a submissive in many ways diminishes the essence of the submissive. What is a state of created perfection exists within the intermingling of the dominant and the submissive as they interact within each other to create a singular union. To find the combination which complements, enhances, amplifies, elevates or transcends the sum of it's individual parts is the ultimate challenge. No two submissives will be similar in any way beyond surface commonalties which are found within the generalized groups of humankind

end excerpt; my emphasis added

 

[catalina_francisco]

4) 'intermingling of the dominant and the submissive' [psychic trends]. This contradicts the 'not a xxx bone in my body' (=natural, in some people's use) approach, and seems well taken.

What is a state of created perfection exists within the intermingling of the dominant and the submissive as they interact within each other to create a singular union. To find the combination which complements, enhances, amplifies, elevates or transcends the sum of it's individual parts is the ultimate challenge.

Hi Pure,

I think I read this different then you do, to me this means that the dominant and submissive join together as one, each having complementary parts, creating as such a completely symbiotic state in which both parties find in each other that what the other needs.

I do not read in this that the Submissive characteristics are being mingled with the dominant characteristics. IMO it is meant that both are joined into a single state, which exist out of two parts, one dominant and one submissive.

Francisco.

 

[Pure]

Hi Francisco,


I (pure) said:
4) [quoting Mallory]'intermingling of the dominant and the submissive' [psychic trends]. This contradicts the 'not a xxx bone in my body' (=natural, in some people's use) approach, and seems well taken.

Miss Mallory said
What is a state of created perfection exists within the intermingling of the dominant and the submissive as they interact within each other to create a singular union. To find the combination which complements, enhances, amplifies, elevates or transcends the sum of it's individual parts is the ultimate challenge.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Francisco said,

//Hi Pure,

//I think I read this different then you do, to me this means that the dominant and submissive join together as one, each having complementary parts, creating as such a completely symbiotic state in which both parties find in each other that what the other needs.

//I do not read in this that the Submissive characteristics are being mingled with the dominant characteristics. IMO it is meant that both are joined into a single state, which exist out of two parts, one dominant and one submissive. //

==========

Reading over the passage, I think you may be right, which would explain why there seemed to be some conflict, in my reading, between the first and the last of her essay. In that last part, she is discussing the union of the two.

So that means, my point 4) of summary [above] is not correct, and should be deleted.

She still hold out the possible admixture of other traits and urges, as in the first three points. So there is overall complexity.

Further, I note this very interesting passage, where she says there may be dominant looking traits/activities.

The nature of the sense of submission within them may express as a form of dominant mothering, sistering, or wife/husband management when these aspects are experienced by the submissive to be in service to the union that is the relationship. If the submissive views these actions as necessary, helpful and positive construction they will experience them with the same type of fulfillment and joy as they would more intimate or sexual submissive actions. What appears to be submissive does not mean it is, and the reverse is equally true.

So, although she may not envision mixing in the way I misunderstood, she is allowing 'apparent' dominance, even in 'wife/husband management'. (Does that include wife managing husband? it appears so.)

It seems she is talking about something many of us have mentioned, from Lark S and her dogs, to Catalina's statements about areas of her 'dominance' in academia. The apparently dominant mothering, presumbly could mean the woman is submissive to husband but dominant to children.

The difference would be that Mallory says this is 'apparent' dominance. All of what I or LS called 'other (sub) areas of dominance' are proposed by Mallory to be really submissive at the core, if they serve the relationship (I serve you, my husband, in 'dominating' the kids {making them serve me}.)

Therefore, point 4) of summary should read

4*) Within a given sub, there may be apparently dominant activities, eg. in managing a sister or children, but these in fact are part of the sub's overall submission; she manages _in the service of the master and the relationship._

What do you think of this idea and reading?

Thanks for your input,

J.

 

[Netzach]

It's not that complicated or foreign a notion to me. My ideal submissive is something of a middle manager actually.

There are a lot of things *I* don't want to think about, be bothered with, have to decide, actually. Rather than finding someone to control these aspects of my life for me, I look for someone to *manage* them for me. I don't think this disproves Dominance at all. I don't think Dominance is defined by running every detail, in fact, that's the essence of administrative servitude and I get enough of a dose at work, thank you.

For some submissives, I imagine this would be anathema. They would have to have a highly regulated highly regimented day and environment. That's opposite what I am looking for. I seek someone who trusts me and provides *access* on every level. Should and when I want it. I also benefit from the most anal retentive detail oriented man I've ever met. I teach him to loosen his tie a little, he packs my suitcases like a champ.

Selfish, yes. This ain't no democracy. Now, what time were we hitting the road again?

 

[Pure]

Interesting point, N, but I'd add this.

If you are top-dog and the 'sub' is middle management, yes, you are in charge, I see that.

However he is dominant to those below. It's he who's Janus faced so to say, in the way several posters have described. He's the one that's harder to 'peg'--- as it were.

The point is even more clear, if we say, "You are president, he is vice president." (i.e., move him up from middle). The VP is clearly dominant to those below, perceived as, and acting as an authority-- though not the ultimate one.

This is not unlike a king or queen of old, who views themself as
"Gods servant". BUT all other humans in the kingdom serve the monarch. So is that monarch dominant? sub and dom? sub and 'apparent dom' [to God and humans, respectively]?
Best,
J.

 

[Netzach]

Assuming you have some below, and have that kind of time on your hands, yes, I guess he is. I would not argue that he's a switch. I'd argue that he's a beta, to be uncharacteristically pseudoscientific for a second.

Nothing but nothing turns me on like a beta. Nothing turns me on so much as a firebrand of intellect, passion, and shit, yes...Dominance...tuns to me and turns to mush. 'Cause he or she wants to.

I myself have not been immune to this kind of behavior, given the right stimulus, which is so unusual as to be almost-never. Usually, if it happens, you guessed it, it's another beta who is more travelled, seasoned and one I perceive as having something about them that I don't have about me...yet.

I don't think that a willingness to acknowledge an authority and submit to it at any time, even once, twice or rarely, cancels out your dominance in your own right as though it never happened and can't be real, that simply makes no sense to me.

Queer Leater subbacultcha integrates this one well. Now we have the open acknowledgement: "Even Daddies need Daddies" and if I had a dime for every couple that consists of a D and an s who like to co-top, the way some couples play racquetball together, I could buy me some new leather. Does it make the s a D? Maybe, it's really in the mind of the doer. If it's all for the pleasure of Master and he hates hurting the other boy, no. If he loves watching the other boy hop to, it doesn't mean he hops to any less for his D.

I've known a lot of relationships that survive and grow when the boy makes his way as a Top, rather than ending. Yes, people do change, I fully concede that that much development can occur and that someone can cross orientation as a life journey.

But I think these things break down differently somewhat. Big time generalization follows, but it follows based on real people I know, real conversations I have, and the fact that I walk more in the GLBT world than the non-GLBT, socially. It's where I'm comfortable, and where my partner is comfortable, ironic as that may seem from the outside. It's also where we feel more accepted, ironic as that may seem, as well.

If I quickly ask some of my friends "what are you?" It might go like this, for the identity prone:

Gay.

And?

A Leatherman (Leatherwoman, into Leather)

And?

A bottom. (submissive) or "a boy" *could be anything, bottom primarily*

or "huh? I wear leather and give blowjobs."

All of these things follow from the other pieces of the sexual identity. The big fat huge coming out has already happened, the subsequent nuances of sexuality are not necessarily less important, they are however, usually less earth-shaking. They are usually just assumed to "be that way for some reason" and they are able to handle some stretching and some surprises.

We have had our 3 bean salad potlucks. Some of us, anyway. We have decided what amount nature, what amount, if any, nurture. D/s, to me, feels like learning Spanish after learning Latin, I've been here before, this seems oddly familiar. Nature, purity, kinsey scales and all.

 

[Mystress.S]

Francisco: Thanks for letting me know that my essay is being discussed on this forum. The essay is a little dated, it was written around 1996, and possible should have been moved to the "vault" section of my site... but there are many who respond that they find it a comfort, useful in coming to terms with their own sexuality, or that of their partner.

In the vault is another essay:
http://www.domin8rex.com/serpent/vault/natural.htm

(Not sure if I handled the link correctly)

That essay is part of the transcript for a documentary I shot in 1994. It was never completed.

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

BDSM: Is it natural?