OK, Theory A or Theory B (re 'dominance')

[Softouch911]

ok, help me understand this. is it that being assertive and directive in everyday life is a burden you like to get rid of in the bedroom (b.r.).

is the everyday dominant a kind of cover or compensation-- were you once a pushover that learned what it takes to survive?

is the everyday dominant personality 'not you', the 'real you emerging in the b.r.

which personality everyday or b.r. do you feel most confident in?

When I originally mentioned (above) that many submissives were people of power in their professional lives, I was regurgitating what I've read so often. The fact so many have picked up on it suggests it is true.

But, personally, I am a control freak in just about every aspect of life.

But I still don't feel they are intimately connected -- Because:

my need to control at work was becuz I had all these people reporting to me and my ability to control them effectively directly tied to my paycheck. I can't say I got much satisfaction from it, or that it was all that "fulfilling."

my need to control in the bedroom or with my submissive is (on the other hand) fulfilling: emotionally, psychologically, physically, and even spiritually. I could even use it, at its tackiest level, to relieve the day's stress.

In other words, I'm in control nearly always, or as often as life makes it possible, but I think my motives are very different. Of course a shrink may disagree, but ....

ST

 

[Private_Label]

ok, help me understand this. is it that being assertive and directive in everyday life is a burden you like to get rid of in the bedroom (b.r.).

is the everyday dominant a kind of cover or compensation-- were you once a pushover that learned what it takes to survive?

is the everyday dominant personality 'not you', the 'real you emerging in the b.r.

which personality everyday or b.r. do you feel most confident in?

If it is nature vs. nurture, some of my dominance is nature - I had a naturally somewhat outgoing personality (I used to greet everyone at the door for parties. My mother called me the "hostess with the most-ess" and I didn't like being picked up and prevented from mingling), some of my Dominance outside the BR came from dealing with life situations at a very tender age (6 yrs old and traveling with a younger sibling) that forced me to take a leadership role early, and with my mother and brother both very very shy, I became the front man to ask the Department store clerks where stuff was in the store that we were having trouble finding. Because I couldn't understand why my mom didn't want to ask for help.

Then again maybe it is because of the two movies that made an impact on me early in life... The Wizard of Oz (1939 Judy Garland Version) and Sleeping Beauty (1959 Disney version). Dorothy had to be the one to take charge to get home, Aurora got to have a Hansom Prince Charming kiss her awake.

It's downright hard always (ok not always, it just feels like always) having to be the family member to take the lead to accomplish a goal. My mom hates being a passenger in (her children's) car(s), but I don't mind letting someone else be the one to drive.

Maybe that is why I see myself as more of a switch and not really a sub or a Dom. I can be comfortable in either the "driver" or the "passenger" role.

 

[Pure]

hi private,

I followed your posting, about 'naturally' taking the lead.

(This isn't a nature v. nurture thread, since some theory B people, like Netzach tend to the 'nature' or 'early programming' view as to b.r. dominance.)

Your earlier posting said you definitely do NOT take the lead in the b.r. That I don't understand (in conjunction with the present posting), esp. since you now say 'switch', which to me suggests part of the time in the b.r. you take the lead and like it. IOW, as 'driver' you get a bit more say where the car is going! ... but fewer surprises, maybe....

not trying to 'grill' you or anything, just wondering.... i still can't figure where all the Theory A folks went.... maybe they just don't talk to me!

 

[Private_Label]

I followed your posting, about 'naturally' taking the lead.

(This isn't a nature v. nurture thread, since some theory B people, like Netzach tend to the 'nature' or 'early programming' view as to b.r. dominance.)

Your earlier posting said you definitely do NOT take the lead in the b.r. That I don't understand (in conjunction with the present posting), esp. since you now say 'switch', which to me suggests part of the time in the b.r. you take the lead and like it. IOW, as 'driver' you get a bit more say where the car is going! ... but fewer surprises, maybe....

not trying to 'grill' you or anything, just wondering.... i still can't figure where all the Theory A folks went.... maybe they just don't talk to me!

My sub/switch nature is still a matter of self debate as I don't have the RL experience to back it up. However there have been some events that happened with a friend, that showed me that there is perhaps a sexual submissive within me (at least one form of self embarrassment to please a friend who was in another state really made me terribly hot), but since I haven't been with anyone in a close in a short term or long term relationship, just a buddy that I have a shared fantasy with. I don't know if I would be tempted to "top from the bottom."

Maybe I am just vanilla with a large dose of kink. Maybe switch is the wrong word. Occasional Initiator might be a better phrase for it currently. I want to be the girl (woman) who gets her bodice ripped in the romance novels Maybe I just want a Daddy type to pamper me a bit.

I do know that I am looking for a partner that is my equal outside the sexual area. Whether that person is a Dom, a Sub, a switch, or vanilla with a large dose of kink; I don't know yet. All I can say is that I am trying to understand myself enough so that when I meet someone that sparks my interest, I will understand myself enough to show him where all the best buttons are.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Sorry to not have been here before Pure, life has been busy in many ways. Not sure in my many years of experience I fit in either theory, but then it is early and my mind is still scattered. In vanilla days, I have taken the sexually dominant position, though in reality it was usually because that was required. It was not unenjoyable, at times even fun and still can bring a smile to my dial and a tingle to my, well lets say lots of places. I also had to be in charge of my life big time and in all ways and according to most I did things most would quake at or break under the strain. To me it had to be done so I just got on with it and defied the odds.

That being said, I chose to be a slave and surrender in all ways, not just the bedroom. It doesn't mean I lay back and dream or Oz or England or Venus, just what happens is not my decision, though I can voice an opinion if invited. Given I am a slave, it also is not a role which does not have responsibility as he relies on me to contribute my views and talents, and often requests my thoughts or advice on particular matters. I also hold a lot of responsibility in other areas which he has assigned to me and could still run my life alone if needed. One thing I am aware of is reality plays a big part in my life and I never did wait around for the knight in shining armour to come into my life on his big stallion, but my knight did come anyway. Sometimes you have to make your desires happen, not wait for magic to happen mysteriously. So where does that leave me in these theories?

Catalina

 

[Pure]

hi catalina,

noting that I do not know you well, though we've interacted for a least a couple years.

it sounds to me like the sort of maso-slave lifestyle, while not simply bedroom, is more 'you' in the home. based on other things you've said, e.g., your work in counselling, it does not seem like you were very submissive or self effacing in the work or outside world. And perhaps you were socially dominant at times. As far as I can see, your social or job functioning is not different now, and in any case does not mirror your 'slavery lifestyle.' Notice you're a moderator, not a step'n fetchit at this forum.

so it sounds to me like Theory B fits, with the provision that you are at home something akin to what you are in the b.r.; but, as the theory states, this behavior is not generalized to others in the wider society. (excepting the odd specimins F selects for his experiments).

(the theory, as stated, was applied to doms, but here of course we are using parallel concepts about submitting--i.e., asking does it generalize from the bedroom.)

have you noticed that Theory B makes erotic dominance (or submission) somewhat like a fetish in this respect: just as you don't see a fellow at work licking the vinyl boots of his lover, you dont' see the sub kowtowing to her work-boss. this too, resembles the idea that 'gays' or 'lesbians' act pretty much like anyone else in work and play--so the liquor ads imply-- the main or only difference: is who does what, with what body parts, to whom, in the privacy of their sex lives.

 

[SpectreT]

Theory B offends my sensibilities less than Theory A.

Then again, I'm a switch, so the only fluctuations in my dominant/submissive tendencies are brought out by the characteristics of the person I'm with; In other words, I'm like cayenne pepper sauce; I just naturally complement whatever I'm with.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Theory B offends my sensibilities less than Theory A.

Then again, I'm a switch, so the only fluctuations in my dominant/submissive tendencies are brought out by the characteristics of the person I'm with; In other words, I'm like cayenne pepper sauce; I just naturally complement whatever I'm with.

Long time no see...nice to see you here again and hope all has been well in your world.

Catalina

 

[SpectreT]

Long time no see...nice to see you here again and hope all has been well in your world.

Catalina

Well... I did predict that it would be a while before I felt comfortable enough to post around here again. Figured I'd start back in simple; throw an opinion out there and see what hapens with it.

 

[Pure]

Hi Spectre

you said,

Theory B offends my sensibilities less than Theory A.

Then again, I'm a switch, so the only fluctuations in my dominant/submissive tendencies are brought out by the characteristics of the person I'm with; In other words, I'm like cayenne pepper sauce; I just naturally complement whatever I'm with.

welcome.
so what do you find offensive about both theories?

in terms of your 'switch' character, --nice to see some versatile types around here!-- i guess the question is,

does this 'complementing' have a general social scope, i.e., do you dominate or submit in social--e.g., work-- situations--besides erotic ones-- according to these fluctuations? that would be theory A.

theory B says your 'fluctuations' are linked with your sex partners and the (figurative) bed room only. it says one can't make any prediction about your 'outside' behavior, knowing about this 'bedroom side' of you.

that's how i'd rephrase for your case!

 

[SpectreT]

you said,

Theory B offends my sensibilities less than Theory A.

Then again, I'm a switch, so the only fluctuations in my dominant/submissive tendencies are brought out by the characteristics of the person I'm with; In other words, I'm like cayenne pepper sauce; I just naturally complement whatever I'm with.

welcome.
so what do you find offensive about both theories?

in terms of your 'switch' character, --nice to see some versatile types around here!-- i guess the question is,

does this 'complementing' have a general social scope, i.e., do you dominate or submit in social--e.g., work-- situations--besides erotic ones-- according to these fluctuations? that would be theory A.

theory B says your 'fluctuations' are linked with your sex partners and the (figurative) bed room only. it says one can't make any prediction about your 'outside' behavior, knowing about this 'bedroom side' of you.

that's how i'd rephrase for your case!

And it's a pretty good rephrasing. At work, I tend to switch, too, come to think of it. If the team needs a quiet worker to further its objectives, I fade right into the background and make sure everything's running smooth, if it's a multi-team effort, try to make myself aware of the other teams' goals and progress, and edge the team I'm on into line with the "Big Picture".

If a team lacks focus or direction, I start to get more assertive and prominent, steering things more actively where and when possible.

So I tend, both in jobs and romantic life, to fill in where there's a need. Nature abhorrs a vacuum, after all...

As to the "offends my sensibilities"; it's just that from all I've been able to observe, there's no easy correlation between public behavior and bedroom behavior. Some people are total sharks in the office and total doormats at home, some people are all quiet confidence and control everywhere, and some people are just brash and obtrusive, rather than dominant per se.

To clarify somewhat, I personally wasn't offended, my sense of logic and my observational skills, however, were... hm, "twitched" a bit.

 

[Pure]

well, this aint the empirical sociology of sex forum

 

[Vessira]

I myself tend to be dominant in RL and more submissive in the bedroom (although I have a dom side there too sometimes).

 

[ownedsubgal]

i voted for the first option, tho i don't completely agree with that definition of a Dominant personality. when i say someone has a Dominant personality, that means they are Dominant in ALL areas of their lives...it's their nature, and therefore carries over to all things/situations.

as for people who are somewhat dominant in their everyday lives but somewhat submissive sexually or within a relationship, i don't think of those people as Dominant at all. they would fall under the category of normal/typical/status quo/vanilla in my book, as most folks are dominant sometimes and submissive at other times. but when someone defines themselves as D/s, i assume it's a dynamic between two (or however many) folks who are at either extreme...Dominant all the time/submissive all the time.

 

[Pure]

hi osg,

welcome! i'm glad to see you posting. you always have something to contribute. for some reason, the theory A folks have not been voting or posting.



PS: If you would like to visit my other poll and/or contribute that would be great. would love to hear your ideas. --Does SM have anthing to do with a 'dark side.'

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=436920

 

[waynerobertson]

For me

the relationship with every sub has been different. One has said use me, abuse me and needed more "attention" than others.
Others have said these are the specific areas I wish to explore with your guidance and all understood their limits.
One woman was a CEO, one a teacher, one a doctor and one was a happily (for the most part) married housewife but all had specific desires and needs that were met.
The theories do seem to overlap with each sub has been my experience.

 

[Pure]

some reflections.

i haven't posted my ideas, yet, so here are a couple.

theory B does seem to agree with lots of observations, e.g., the classic CEO male who wants to be trampled.

however, psychologically, i go with ownedsubgal, in finding theory A attractive-- with the qualification that the Dominant fellow (or woman) may not feel like dominating always; but can and will do so if he wishes.

IF theory B is true, then 'domination' is more like a fetish, e.g., licking boots. of course it's bedroom, not office stuff (i'm speaking figuratively).

i can, of course, see a general wide-ranging dominant person as easing up with his friends.

the Marquis, the original, did some '''dominant", but more sadistic stuff in the 'bedroom' with his hoes. and in real life, he became a sort of citizen judge, for a while. that sounds like theory A. on the other hand, he was social with friends, i gather. with his wife, he was dominant, but not overly kinky, just cornholing her regularly (when he had access). overall, then, theory A mostly fits the Marquis, imo.

what about this CEO we described. i think Freud would say, 'deeply passive [anal], but heavily defended in everday life. i.e., needing to appear opposite. a bit like Errol Flynn or Rock Hudson. IOW, at the deepest level, theory A fits, but noting the people may set up a counterposed defensive structure.