What makes a true submissive?

[KimGordon67]

I think this whole conversation opens up something I've been thinking about for a while - whether some of the 'labels', for want of a better word, are simply shorthand for sexual preferences, or whether they've morphed into actual identities.

I'm going to use homosexuality as an example here. Once upon a time, according to Michel Foucault (and really he make a pretty strong argument), there was no such thing as 'the homosexual' or 'gay men/lesbian women' - sometimes men had sex with other men, and sometimes women had sex with other women, and while the act itself might have been seen as sinful or frowned upon in some other way, it didn't make them a particular sort of person (well, other than a sinner). Then, as a result of a series of things, preferences for sex with other members of your gender meant you were 'homosexual' - which was seen as a psychopathology and something that should be 'cured'. At some point, the people with these sexual preferences said 'ah ... no - actually we're good the way we are' and through another series of events, claimed the 'label' of homosexual for themselves and developed the identities that went along with that. And voila ... we now have the pretty accepted identities of 'gay man' and 'lesbian woman'. We understand what that means, and we also understand that bonking someone of your own gender every now and then doesn't actually mean you have to adopt one of those identities.
This is all undoubtedly common knowledge to most people in here, but it seemed worth laying out the sequence of events for the sake of clarity.

So ... at what point does 'submissive' or 'dominant' stop being a sexual preference and start defining an actual identity. And then ... what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for claiming that identities. To go back to my example - it is possible to identify as a gay man/lesbian woman without actually engaging in the sexual practices that were originally seen as 'sinful' - and, indeed, you can also do so while having sex with members of other genders - but I think most would agree that feeling attracted to members of your own gender is a necessary condition for identifying as gay/lesbian. Obviously one could say 'a submissive is someone who submits', but that's pretty much the definition of a tautological argument. I think there still needs to be some general consensus as to what 'submitting' looks like for the term to have any real meaning.

 

[Primalex]

Well, that's your interpretation of the conversation. Mine is more like 'Hey, other plants, I'm pretty sure I'm a rose, based on my understanding of what roses are, and quite a few rose lovers have recognised me as such, but then some other people (or do I mean plants) say I'm not because I don't have thorns. What do you reckon - are thorns a necessary condition for rose-ness?'

You managed to word it in a way that is actually answerable. The actual situation is more:"I have thorns. Am I a rose?" and the answer is:"Maybe. Maybe not." And because nobody wants to discuss what constitutes a rose, you have reached the end of a constructive debate.

I have no idea whether SassyLady87 has any traits that are commonly associated with a submissive personality or if she is just an average sex-positive female. And I don't see how anyone else could make such a distinction with the level of available information.

And don't get me wrong - the initial posting wasn't really that bad and I wasn't referring to it with my second post. I considered the first replies to be terribly bland.

 

[RacyWilde]

I think this whole conversation opens up something I've been thinking about for a while - whether some of the 'labels', for want of a better word, are simply shorthand for sexual preferences, or whether they've morphed into actual identities.

I'm going to use homosexuality as an example here. Once upon a time, according to Michel Foucault (and really he make a pretty strong argument), there was no such thing as 'the homosexual' or 'gay men/lesbian women' - sometimes men had sex with other men, and sometimes women had sex with other women, and while the act itself might have been seen as sinful or frowned upon in some other way, it didn't make them a particular sort of person (well, other than a sinner). Then, as a result of a series of things, preferences for sex with other members of your gender meant you were 'homosexual' - which was seen as a psychopathology and something that should be 'cured'. At some point, the people with these sexual preferences said 'ah ... no - actually we're good the way we are' and through another series of events, claimed the 'label' of homosexual for themselves and developed the identities that went along with that. And voila ... we now have the pretty accepted identities of 'gay man' and 'lesbian woman'. We understand what that means, and we also understand that bonking someone of your own gender every now and then doesn't actually mean you have to adopt one of those identities.
This is all undoubtedly common knowledge to most people in here, but it seemed worth laying out the sequence of events for the sake of clarity.

So ... at what point does 'submissive' or 'dominant' stop being a sexual preference and start defining an actual identity. And then ... what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for claiming that identities. To go back to my example - it is possible to identify as a gay man/lesbian woman without actually engaging in the sexual practices that were originally seen as 'sinful' - and, indeed, you can also do so while having sex with members of other genders - but I think most would agree that feeling attracted to members of your own gender is a necessary condition for identifying as gay/lesbian. Obviously one could say 'a submissive is someone who submits', but that's pretty much the definition of a tautological argument. I think there still needs to be some general consensus as to what 'submitting' looks like for the term to have any real meaning.

I think two separate things are being blurred here.

Homosexuality, heteroflexibility, asexuality, etc, are sexual dispositions - they can be either attraction, preferences or both.

Being dominant or submissive is not a sexual disposition, sexual attraction or sexual preference, but a sexual character or position based on action and cognitive processes. It doesn't even have to be relative to sex. In fact, it is quiet common for Doms and subs to be non-sexual - for example Professional Dominatrix do not perform sexual services. Nowadays, the terms are used also by people who aren't into BDSM to express their habits in the bedroom. I am always approached by guys who say they are dominant but it doesn't mean they are a Dom or that they only like submissives. They just like to have control in the bedroom.

 

[KimGordon67]

I think two separate things are being blurred here.

Homosexuality, heteroflexibility, asexuality, etc, are sexual dispositions - they can be either attraction, preferences or both.

Being dominant or submissive is not a sexual disposition, sexual attraction or sexual preference, but a sexual character or position based on action and cognitive processes. It doesn't even have to be relative to sex. In fact, it is quiet common for Doms and subs to be non-sexual - for example Professional Dominatrix do not perform sexual services. Nowadays, the terms are used also by people who aren't into BDSM to express their habits in the bedroom. I am always approached by guys who say they are dominant but it doesn't mean they are a Dom or that they only like submissives. They just like to have control in the bedroom.

I think that basically proves my point - you can be a gay man without engaging in any specific sexual practices.
The guys who say they're dominant in the bedroom, but don't identity as 'A Dom' are similar to guys who engage in sex with other guys sometimes but don't identify as 'a gay man'. Which is fine. I personally engage in some fairly submissive sexual practices, but I actually don't think I'd claim it as an identity, for various reasons.
The fact that both homosexuality and d/s are related to sexual practices was kind of coincidence (although it did provide a handy parrellel). I could have just as easily picked ethnicity or gender or dis/ability or any of the other things around which identity has been based. Although they're slightly more complex arguments to make - the sexual orientation one is fairly straightforward. (Well, not really, but it's easy to make it so without really misrepresenting things too much.)

 

[KimGordon67]

You managed to word it in a way that is actually answerable. The actual situation is more:"I have thorns. Am I a rose?" and the answer is:"Maybe. Maybe not." And because nobody wants to discuss what constitutes a rose, you have reached the end of a constructive debate.

I have no idea whether SassyLady87 has any traits that are commonly associated with a submissive personality or if she is just an average sex-positive female. And I don't see how anyone else could make such a distinction with the level of available information.

And don't get me wrong - the initial posting wasn't really that bad and I wasn't referring to it with my second post. I considered the first replies to be terribly bland.

Her description of herself and her relationships made it fairly easy to assume she does. That's the basis I was working on.

 

[Primalex]

So ... at what point does 'submissive' or 'dominant' stop being a sexual preference and start defining an actual identity.

I don't think this is the way it works.

An identity is a set of properties shared by individuals. Every property itself is an identity.

For an identity to be useful in a conversation, there must be some level of understanding what the shared properties are. I can declare that I'm a member of the Glurblfarz identity, but if you can't grasp the identities underlying properties, using this identity to identify me serves no purpose.

So to answer your question: everything becomes an identity once a sufficient amount of people attribute (further) properties to it. It's no different than "When does 'redhead' stop being a hair color?"

 

[Primalex]

Being dominant or submissive is not a sexual disposition, sexual attraction or sexual preference, but a sexual character or position based on action and cognitive processes.

Can you elaborate this distinction?

 

[ejredlady]

first let me say: BRAVO! for asking the questions. I find myself in a similar quandary. As a strong, independent woman I have no need for someone to tell me how to eat, dress or even how to manage my finances. I'm betting our desire for sexual submission is similar in that sometimes we just get tired of being in charge and want someone else to pick up the slack,
I agree with so many other responses: whatever works for you and your partner is 'right'. The challenge, for me, is finding that right partner. I wish you well in your search an hope ou find all you seek and more.

 

[KimGordon67]

I don't think this is the way it works.

An identity is a set of properties shared by individuals. Every property itself is an identity.

For an identity to be useful in a conversation, there must be some level of understanding what the shared properties are. I can declare that I'm a member of the Glurblfarz identity, but if you can't grasp the identities underlying properties, using this identity to identify me serves no purpose.

So to answer your question: everything becomes an identity once a sufficient amount of people attribute properties to it.

No, not all things are identities just because they have shared properties. Well, not in the sense that the term is used in identity politics, which is really where I'm arguing from. The example above makes it clear that a shared activity such as same sex bonking didn't define an identity until fairly recently would exemplify that

 

[Primalex]

No, not all things are identities just because they have shared properties. Well, not in the sense that the term is used in identity politics, which is really where I'm arguing from. The example above makes it clear that a shared activity such as same sex bonking didn't define an identity until fairly recently would exemplify that

Because identifying as "homosexual" in Ancient Greek served no purpose. And...as a matter of fact, your statement that there was no such sexual identity in the past is just an assumption. Maybe there was no political movement. But I would assume that the Ancient Greek population had distinct identities for the erastês and the erômenos and maybe even then the erômenos complained in the public bath:"Meh, everyone thinks that I suck Achilles cock! As if every erômenos would automatically offer sexual services. Our relationship is different!!"

 

[KimGordon67]

Because identifying as "homosexual" in Ancient Greek served no purpose. And...as a matter of fact, your statement that there was no such sexual identity in the past is just an assumption. Maybe there was no political movement. But I would assume that the Ancient Greek population had distinct identities for the erastês and the erômenos and maybe even then the erômenos complained in the public bath:"Meh, everyone thinks that I suck Achilles cock! As if every erômenos would automatically offer sexual services. Our relationship is different!!"

It's an assumption based on a fair bit of research and some pretty high level theorising by some quite clever people. I'm not just talking off the top of my head.

 

[Cakecups]

The initial post very much describes me, although I think some submissiveness creeps into my life in ways I don't expect, maybe as I explore it more I'm more comfortable with it and less reactionary. I think a lot of the dichotomy is coming from rejecting what I didn't accept about myself in the past.

 

[Farawyn]

The initial post very much describes me, although I think some submissiveness creeps into my life in ways I don't expect, maybe as I explore it more I'm more comfortable with it and less reactionary. I think a lot of the dichotomy is coming from rejecting what I didn't accept about myself in the past.

That's what happened with me. Once I truly realized who I was, I was fine with all of it.

 

[Gotham_Central]

If this is not the case, then a powerful entity decided to create variations of roses at the very same time. Just saying.

Spent anytime around botanical gardens? Your attempt at wit effectively crushes your attempt at wisdom.

There are over a hundred known species of rose with over a thousand hybrid variants. All of them are roses, yet each is sufficently different to be a recognizable species within the family, arguably with but five criteria to be met. For example, all roses have prickles, though not all roses have thorns. All roses have multiple stamen, but need not have compound stamen. All roses have leaves which branch from their stem in an alternating pattern, yet the shape of those leaves is greatly varied.

There is a great deal of variety within the Rosaceae family, which includes a number of genus that are remarkably "not Rose like", such as strawberries, almonds and other fruit. (Yes, the commercial is correct...). All are roses. Yet, they are much different than what the florist stocks in February.

In the same way, whatever makes a person submissive, or dominate, lies not on a single spectrum, but within a set of spectrum -a sort of grand unified theory of BDSM if you will- which defines dominance and submission, but which is itself much more poorly defined than that for the classification of plants.

To follow your attempt at wit, the plant is neither asking nor stating anything with respect to its nature. The plant has no say in its nature. Because it has characteristics that fit within -within- the defining characteristics of a rose, it is -most likely- a rose. (A 3D printed replica of a rose can meet all the stated characteristics of a rose, but is not in truth a rose.) The plant has no say in the matter of either its genus or its family. Neither does the uppity old codger from the Garden Club.

The plant is a rose by nature of being a rose.

 

[barefootgirl69]

I've acquainted myself with the world of BDSM as well as D/s relationships for years now. I identify as someone who is submissive but on many ocassions I've been told that I'm not a true submissive because I do have a strong personality and have been an independent woman for a long time now. I feel thats an ignorant way of thinking and always assume its because they arent informed or just settle for perpetuating stereotypes without researching. What do you guys think?

If this has been brought up as a thread before, I am really sorry. I'm new to the BDSM Talk forum.

I usually only hear that from someone who is trying to Dominate me for his own satisfaction. "You're not a true submissive"... to which I reply, "You've not taken the time to find out, and now you've lost your chance."

That doesn't make me "not a true submissive", just a very wise one.

 

[DrDelirium]

It seems to me that the discussion demonstrates how very not-useful our contemporary concept of 'identity' is. Species are defined by lineage, not traits, but the mechanics of evolution enable us to identify species by their traits. Even so, "Rose" is as much a social construct as a biological fact: there is, an abstract sense, a 'first rose,' from which all others are descended, but which particular accumulation of mutations may be justly called Rose Zero is a choice made by humans, not roses.
While I think it's useful to think of 'submissive' as something more than simply referring to someone who submits, creating an 'identity' out of it is less useful. I prefer to think of 'submissive (n)' as a role, rather than an identity. Individuals can adopt the role, define it with myriad variations, change their understanding and practice of the role over time, and use all of this as a guide to what they do, without having similar personalities. Societal behavioral norms, or, more accurately, cultural/political expectations, have shifted radically in a very short space of time, but there is no reason to believe that biological basis of personality has shifted at all in the last hundred years. Obviously a lot of women who adopt the dominant or 'strong independent woman' role now, which is in line with current cultural expectations, would have been capable of functioning quite adequately in the more 'submissive' role that was the cultural norm a hundred years ago, because there simply hasn't been time for the underlying biology of personality to change. Some women are a better fit for today's norms than 1910's norms, and vice versa, but this is not, it seems to me, because of the possession of a single easily identifiable trait.

 

[KimGordon67]

Hmmm.

It seems to me that the discussion demonstrates how very not-useful our contemporary concept of 'identity' is. Species are defined by lineage, not traits, but the mechanics of evolution enable us to identify species by their traits. Even so, "Rose" is as much a social construct as a biological fact: there is, an abstract sense, a 'first rose,' from which all others are descended, but which particular accumulation of mutations may be justly called Rose Zero is a choice made by humans, not roses.i
While I think it's useful to think of 'submissive' as something more than simply referring to someone who submits, creating an 'identity' out of it is less useful. I prefer to think of 'submissive (n)' as a role, rather than an identity. Individuals can adopt the role, define it with myriad variations, change their understanding and practice of the role over time, and use all of this as a guide to what they do, without having similar personalities. Societal behavioral norms, or, more accurately, cultural/political expectations, have shifted radically in a very short space of time, but there is no reason to believe that biological basis of personality has shifted at all in the last hundred years. Obviously a lot of women who adopt the dominant or 'strong independent woman' role now, which is in line with current cultural expectations, would have been capable of functioning quite adequately in the more 'submissive' role that was the cultural norm a hundred years ago, because there simply hasn't been time for the underlying biology of personality to change. Some women are a better fit for today's norms than 1910's norms, and vice versa, but this is not, it seems to me, because of the possession of a single easily identifiable trait.

 

[Miles Long]

I've acquainted myself with the world of BDSM as well as D/s relationships for years now. I identify as someone who is submissive but on many ocassions I've been told that I'm not a true submissive because I do have a strong personality and have been an independent woman for a long time now. I feel thats an ignorant way of thinking and always assume its because they arent informed or just settle for perpetuating stereotypes without researching. What do you guys think?

If this has been brought up as a thread before, I am really sorry. I'm new to the BDSM Talk forum.

From Easton and Hardy's The New Bottoming Book:

"In order to play safely with power, it's important to have a clear understanding of where the power disparity between you and your top begins and ends. Are you doing it for the duration of the scene, for a day, for a weekend, for a month, a year? Will the dominant's power end at the dungeon or bedroom door, or will it extend into other parts of your life like your work or relationships? What kinds of power do you want to give to your partner, and what kinds do you want to keep for yourself?"

Submitting means giving someone else power, but it's up to the Top/Dominant/Captain and the bottom/submissive/tennille to negotiate exactly what power will be exchanged and in what circumstances. When two people aren't looking for the same thing, it likely means they are not compatible, and not that one of them is necessarily "doing it wrong".

Typically when someone says something like "you're not a true submissive" it means the ways in which you're willing and eager to give someone else power don't match up with the ways in which they are willing and eager to take power over someone. They might be a novice and not realize there are a variety of ways to exchange power, or they might be an asshole deliberately trying to manipulate someone. Hard to know in the abstract.

For people who want to be a good (or, "true", I guess) bottom/submissive/tennille, I would recommend being good at articulating what forms of power exchange you are interested in participating in and/or exploring, and faithfully negotiating scenes and relationships with a Top/Dominant/Captain who is looking for similar power exchange dynamics. And then do your best to live up to the negotiated power exchange you've agreed to. For the record, I think that's good advice for someone looking to be a good Top/Dominant/Captain, too. It's very much about being courteous to another human being.

For a thorough discussion of this topic, I recommend reading the book quoted above, especially the chapter about dominance and submission. I also recommend the chapter on Dominant/submissive interactions in Jay Wiseman's SM 101. Actually, I recommend reading that entire book for anyone interested in BDSM, but that chapter is particularly applicable to this specific question about submission.

 

[Iamsubmissive]

Obviously a lot of women who adopt the dominant or 'strong independent woman' role now, which is in line with current cultural expectations, would have been capable of functioning quite adequately in the more 'submissive' role that was the cultural norm a hundred years ago, because there simply hasn't been time for the underlying biology of personality to change. Some women are a better fit for today's norms than 1910's norms, and vice versa, but this is not, it seems to me, because of the possession of a single easily identifiable trait.

Although you made some logical points throughout the whole of your post, I found it of little use in contemplating any sort of meaning. "Capable of functioning quite adequately" is hardly the same as being content or happy with said situation. And, in my opinion, the single easily identifiable trait would be the desire to submit. The where, when, how, and to what degree might differ, but that basic desire and willingness is the main component for me.

 

[lilcuriouscatt]

I usually only hear that from someone who is trying to Dominate me for his own satisfaction. "You're not a true submissive"... to which I reply, "You've not taken the time to find out, and now you've lost your chance."

That doesn't make me "not a true submissive", just a very wise one.

I have been a dominant for most of my life and every relationship I have had with a sub has been different because each person is different. And taking the time to learn about each person is a pleasure that I would not forgo for any reason. And in turn, I let them learn about me too. So the space where we connect and interact is a new and special creation that only exists with that one person.

In my experience there is no such thing as a "true submissive" just as there is no such thing as a "true dominant". Only graduations and shadings of what one is willing to take and the other is willing to give.

 

[Gotham_Central]

In my experience there is no such thing as a "true submissive" just as there is no such thing as a "true dominant". Only graduations and shadings of what one is willing to take and the other is willing to give.

The operative word here being "willing". It's not a popular idea, I've suffered the ire of the masses for it several times, but the whole construct exists only in the mind if the participants and can -and does- dissolve the second either is no longer happy with it. Power and control are lent; at every step of the way, the submissive agrees to the power exchange, consents to it.

How that looks, from moment to moment, is as varied as life itself. But in the end, the pyl has the final say to consent or not.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[DrDelirium]

Although you made some logical points throughout the whole of your post, I found it of little use in contemplating any sort of meaning. "Capable of functioning quite adequately" is hardly the same as being content or happy with said situation. And, in my opinion, the single easily identifiable trait would be the desire to submit. The where, when, how, and to what degree might differ, but that basic desire and willingness is the main component for me.

Content, happy, willing, desire- rather different things. I'd say they are, in various degrees, very much a part of functioning adequately, and that most people are rather more adaptable than the focus on 'identity' gives them credit for. What people are 'content' with has a strong relationship to what they are culturally conditioned to be content with. Are there urges and drives that arise from biology? Certainly. Can they be in conflict with cultural norms? Absolutely. But they can also be adapted to cultural norms to a high degree. Witness the doms that go to work and don't even attempt to overthrow their bosses. The subs that go to work and boss people around. The subs that don't give blowjobs to the pushy jerks at the bar, etc.
Dogs, who have a deep and rather obvious biological urge for hierarchy, are quite flexible about where they fit in the hierarchy. Among themselves they sort out a 'top dog,' but the assignment is neither automatic nor stable. They will dominate humans if they can, but be perfectly happy to be dominated by humans. In other words, their urges toward both dominance and submission are situationally expressed, and their happiness does not depend on one status or the other, but on having a clear status. I'd suggest that this model is more applicable to humans than the idea that we are each innately 'dominant' or 'submissive' as a fixed quality.

 

[Iamsubmissive]

Content, happy, willing, desire- rather different things. I'd say they are, in various degrees, very much a part of functioning adequately, and that most people are rather more adaptable than the focus on 'identity' gives them credit for. What people are 'content' with has a strong relationship to what they are culturally conditioned to be content with. Are there urges and drives that arise from biology? Certainly. Can they be in conflict with cultural norms? Absolutely. But they can also be adapted to cultural norms to a high degree. Witness the doms that go to work and don't even attempt to overthrow their bosses. The subs that go to work and boss people around. The subs that don't give blowjobs to the pushy jerks at the bar, etc.

I consider 'submissive' and 'dominant' to be more of a characteristic than an identity...and not necessarily a defining characteristic. I agree that people can be very adaptive to what certain situations call for in order to function adequately. You can embrace it or ignore it to whatever extent you choose. However, I think it's difficult to be completely content when circumstances require you to suppress part of your true self.

Of course a dominant man doesn't attempt to overthrow his boss at work. But does he enjoy being bossed around by his boss? Would he be happier in a job where he was in charge most of the time? At the same time I doubt a submissive person would enjoy being bossed around at their workplace either. Being submissive doesn't mean you want everyone or anyone to discount your importance or capabilities.

At work I have to be the authoritative figure, otherwise my business would fall apart. I am professionally capable of filling that role and enjoy my own success, but I wouldn't feel complete without also having an outlet for my submissive side. In fact, I would even say that a lot of my submissive experiences make it easier to display my strengths in such situations. And probably being a good Dom lends a lot of useful qualities to successfully navigating more subservient roles when necessary. (I won't use up everyone's time to expand on that, but I think it's true.)

As far as the pushy jerk at the bar who wants a blow job...pretty sure he didn't do a fucking thing to earn anyone's submission. Just sayin'...

 

[Farawyn]

It seems to me that the discussion demonstrates how very not-useful our contemporary concept of 'identity' is. Species are defined by lineage, not traits, but the mechanics of evolution enable us to identify species by their traits. Even so, "Rose" is as much a social construct as a biological fact: there is, an abstract sense, a 'first rose,' from which all others are descended, but which particular accumulation of mutations may be justly called Rose Zero is a choice made by humans, not roses.
While I think it's useful to think of 'submissive' as something more than simply referring to someone who submits, creating an 'identity' out of it is less useful. I prefer to think of 'submissive (n)' as a role, rather than an identity. Individuals can adopt the role, define it with myriad variations, change their understanding and practice of the role over time, and use all of this as a guide to what they do, without having similar personalities. Societal behavioral norms, or, more accurately, cultural/political expectations, have shifted radically in a very short space of time, but there is no reason to believe that biological basis of personality has shifted at all in the last hundred years. Obviously a lot of women who adopt the dominant or 'strong independent woman' role now, which is in line with current cultural expectations, would have been capable of functioning quite adequately in the more 'submissive' role that was the cultural norm a hundred years ago, because there simply hasn't been time for the underlying biology of personality to change. Some women are a better fit for today's norms than 1910's norms, and vice versa, but this is not, it seems to me, because of the possession of a single easily identifiable trait.

I disagree. I don't feel as if it's a role.
It is who I am. I am many things.
I don't adopt a strong independent woman role, either. I am that, too.

Do you think men do this, as well?

It sounds disingenuous.